This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

1. ;Point: for :consideration: is :--:-What ordered to

be passed-in-this.referred- Indisttiat-DIspine ?'

( 1947*T - -14) - (cid:9) tt tit - (cid:9) 3r4ati 4, 404 -PrattnizNIT 4n* *44.M: 2* ',al, g4t.r (cid:9) firitt tfreitfilT twqm (cid:9) ajlefilw Afticts Jo! *it (cid:9) cf'rF ektkii ²⁷e/²⁰⁰¹) {{^{{FOOTNOTE *}}}}I' (cid:9) DI (cid:9) 'With- A t *41'4

ti (cid:9) t ( ¶-1 21 1.-20'42.T-1 '311Ta"ISJ -V I

1 ao 1,1/ 69/1-9 99--V-it.T;17.1 (41-II )] '#1. /tin% (cid:9) Ur*"

New Delhi, the;21st January, '20'02 'When the 'Matter was taken up today :as: the-final Miring to ddjudicate the referred--Industrial-Dispute between :the parties. Both the parties to this- Dispute and:their- respective counsel on record-are not present. "There is no representation on-either. side.-So, it is 'decided to dispose of this-matter- 'on 4he basis of -the available materials-on.-file. in. (cid:9) case.

purstiance 'of Section '17 of ' the "-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 Of 1947); 'the -Central Govestarnent rthereby lytthrishesithe.: Art ard oaf the Central Government Industrial 'Rabin-MP-ChM- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the 'employers-in rela- tion' to-the,Indiant-Bank- and their'-workmen, teeeicdd - by-the • Contraa GoVe/ (cid:9) 'client On 2 NO1'2002.

,INo. 1:41,20111,6911-999-1R(B-IM C. GANGADHARAN, Under 'Secy.

ANNEXTIRE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TafBONAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CRENNAI On perusal of the-entire file .is seen that except filing 'vrakalailby. the respective:counsels for. either patty -on 9;11:99 before the -Tamilnadti:State Pi-Mains!: Labour CatirtrChennai, when the matter was- pdnding-13efore that' erthrt, no step has' been-taken-by dither side cto prosecute further this case by thing their : respective Stand by way Of claim statement-as . well- as counter staternent.:So, naprogressiwas-made-in this-case when the-matter was. pending before the• Principal, tabour CourtiSidosequent to :the transfer.• of . this1 /4 case-to-.the 'file of this-it-rib/mat-as-per --the orders- of the Central Government:though notices' sent . by this Tribunal'Were served on-the-counsel on either: side,:neither- the claim Statement --nor -:the -counter-statement." has rrbeen- rfiled :before-this Tribunal also. Having -found no claim -state- cuent;bas-been-ftled: byrThe r L-1Party/Petitidner in" res- pect: .of; :this -Industrial DOplite :raised by' him -the

•

'Monday, the 31st December, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Otheer.

industrial :Dispute No. 27612001

(remit %du State Industrial Tribunal lib. 'No. -293!99) -counsel for .the.II:Partyrntinagemont Was 'informed to-file-the :Statement rof• Objection of the ill 'Party/ Management :to the:claim 'made by: the I -Party/Work- tatKinaniabDiSPitie labeclitsyclfinti-Stibte- Quent,to -.the filing ribf thenalcalatof 'the' OttilietttiSie counsels -an eithen,thdec 'T9-1 ii-99 (cid:9) this"- Cage, progress" hastbeerf.matIOao:far. ,Thottel-anWpdittlitity -was :given": 0., the :II -PartyNnitager4c4itz toput.91611.11 their. contention -by-Statement of Objection try the relief prayedrlor2bytthe'IsParty/Walcinan'-kgairist: them in this thrdustrialsDispute MeV-have" alto:744ot Chosen to ifilerrmessuehastaternan, iThOrtatter risireffding-rfor a rnst ryeasi.'ecer Since It-Vas t taken ore file by the. apt: foraardindientirtg -the referred %Iuilusirial birpine„

the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clatte (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the In- duStrig4 Disputes-Act,/.1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman 'Sri 13hakthavatsakm ','")Md 'the 'Maitageinent :of Indian Bank,

Ohennat

BETWEEN

.4.trider Mich r'efretiniStantes.t this trilnitial has left with/no 'Other-4416n but' to Conte to-a denchision on the'''hasisrlif" thelVailable -Material 'and' the :atrailable facts 'anti - tireanistarices, this 'Tatiana' has 'Come to the cOnChtSIOn"tharno'IfithistrieDiSprite liss referred

The General Secretary, Indian Bank l'Einployees tikkiciatien, 1' PatVICIantiant BRUARY 16. 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 [Parr II—She. 3001 1812 ME GAZETTE OP IND

AND

The General Manager, Indian Bank, Chennai, (cid:9) : it PartylMattagement

APPEARANCE:

For the Claimant : MIs. R. Rengarantanujam J. Muthukumaran,

K. Thilagaraj and S. Indumathi, Advocates

(cid:9) : MIs. Aiyar and Delia,

For the Management

Advocates

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dis- pute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the con- cerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12011169199-IR (B-II) dated 27-10-1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribnual, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 293199. When the matter was pending enquiry hi that Tribunal, the Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adju- dication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 23612001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side. informing them abaut the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 12-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 28-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the documentary evidence let in on the side of the II PartyjManagement, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either &de. this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following: —

AWARD

The Indestrial Dispute referred to in the above

order of reference by the Central Govt for adjudica- tion by this Tribunal is as follows:—

"Whether the demand of the Indian Bank Em- ployees Association in the matter of regu- larisation and absorption of Shri Bhakatha- vatsalem in the service of the Indian Bank is justified ? If not, what relief (cid:9) is the workman entitled to ?"

2. The averments in the claim statement of the

claimant I Party1llnion arc briefly as follows :—

The I Party1Claimant, the General Secretary of Indian Bank Employees Association, (hereinfater refers to as Petitioner) has raised this industrial dis- pute espousing the cause of the workman Sri Bhak:havatsalem regarding his non employment. The concerned workman was engaged as a temporary sub-staff by the Branch Manager of Zemin Endathin Branch, Maduranthagam of II PartylBank Manage., meat (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) (cid:9) from

25-9-1989. He worked continuously for more than 753 days and in particular he had completed more than 240 days in the year between August 1992 and July 1993. He had completed more than 240 days of service in a year. (cid:9) Though the petitioner union re- quested the Respondent Bank Management to regula rise the services of the workamn Sri Bhakthavatsalern it failed to do so. The concerned workman had registered his name in the employment exchange. He had failed in 10.h standard. He had been temporarily engaged in a permanent vacancy. The Respondent Bank Management had neither regularise the services of the concerned workman nor taken any action to grant him temporary status to absorb him in a perma- nent vacancy that may arise m future. It is an unfair labour practice of the respondent management. The concerned workman was thrown out of his employ- ment without any notice. (cid:9) Thus the Respondent Management had violated the provisions of setenon 25(F) of the I.D. Act. As per bipartite settlement dated 19-10-1966 pare 20.7, "Temporary Employee" will mean a workman who has been appointed for a limited period for work which is of an essentially tem- porary nature, or who is employed temporarily as an: additional workman in connection with temporary increase in work of permanent nature and includes a workman other than ai permanent workman who is appointed in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence of a particular employee. In para 20.8 it is mentioned that 'A temporary workman may also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a period of three months during which the bank shall make arrangements for filling up the vacancy permanently. If such temporary. workman is eventually selected for filling up the vacancy, the period of such employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period. In para 20A2 it is mentioned that, other things being equal, temporary workman (other than godown keeper) will be given preference for filling permanent vacancies and if selected they may have to undergo probation. The concerned workman was orally terminated .from the cervices. He was not engaged since the petitioner union represented to the respondent management to regularise his service. The respondent management. by stopping the concerned workman from service had violated the procedure laid down under section 25(F) of I.D. Act. It is wholly unjustified, illegal and arbitrary. Either notice or notice pay in lieu of notice Wan not given to the concerned workman as per the above provision in the Act. As per the same bipartite settlement the temporary work- man will be given preference while filling up perma- nent vacancy. Since it comes under class IV category, Employment compulsory notification Act will not be applicable to the Concerned workman. Since he was engaged by the said branch manager of the respondent bank management in The permanent vacancy for more than 240 days in a year the concerned workman is having preferential treatment and is having vested right over the existing vacancy of sub staff under the respondent management. There are several vacan- cies to absorb the concerned workman into service. But the respondent management refused to re-engage and to regularise the concerned workman- in service, Hence it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award directing the respondent to absorb Sri.- M. Bhakthavatsalem into service in the existing vacancy and to regularise his service.

18I3

FT (cid:9) 'V* 1 et 3.402fral nil 9;3;

1,7111--tin

. (cid:9) _ 3. The Averments in the Counter Statement of the Second PartylManagement IndianRank are bfietly as follows:—

- of temporary sun-stanfcasual employees. Inullectia.ealy after nationaliSation of banks, it was found that there were casual engagemehfs of sub-staff in leave vacancies. The Govt. of India insisted for putting an end to these types of back door entry in the public sector services. The Govt. of India periodically issued directives that selection should be through employment exchange only. (cid:9) The Govt. of :India on 16-8-1990 in)posed res fictions on fresh empanelment. Till such time the problems of existing temporary/casual sub-staff are solved. Under a settlement dt. 6-7-1992 the bank considered as a onetime measure, cases of persons who were engaged_ for 90 days between 1-1-1982 (cid:9) to 31-12-1989 without being sponsored by -employment exchange for empanelment as temporary sub-staff. In the letter dated 16-8-1990, the Govt. of India made it clear that it was a one-time measure and there need not be any addition in the existing panel of temporary sub-staff. The concerned workman Sh. M. Bhaktha- vatsalem does not come under this category of one- time measure since he was not engaged for 90 days upto 31-12-1989. He was engaged for 39 days only up to 31-12-1989. Therefore subsequent, to the afore- said settlement, the banks have been following only the directives and guidelines issued by the Govt. of India from time to time. Hence Sh. M. Bhakthayat- salein is not entitled to stake his claim for regulariSa- tion as sub-staff and his disengagement is legal, justi- fied and valid. Therefore it is, prayed that (cid:9) this Honourable ciourt may be pleased to reject the refe- rence by dismissing the claims of the claimant's association.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no one has been examined as a witness on either side. No (locum: has been filed as an exhibit on the side of the first partylclaimant, Indian Bank Employees Asso- ciation. On the side of the second party, Indian BanklManagement four documents have been filed as Exhibits M1 to M4.. The learned counsel on either side had advanced their respective arguments.

5. The Point for my consideration is —

"Whether the dmand of the Indian Bank Em- ployees Association in the matter of regula- risation and absorption of Shri M. Bhaktha- vatsalem in the service of the Indian Bank is justified ? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

Point :—

The concerned workman Sh. M. Bhakthavatsalem, though styles himself as temporary, he was woriong on t. omit basis at Zemin Endathur Branch, Madu- ran hgant. The Respondent Bank has been having a system of maintaining a panel of sub-staff on tempo. rary basis to work in the vacancies of permanent suit7 staff, going on leave. The engagement of the empa- nelled temporary sub-staff has been on day to day basis and for such employment wages are paid on daily wares. Sh. M. Bhakathavatsalem was never in the panel. Mere registration of his name in the employment exchange, that loo, at his own instance does not confer upon him any right for regular ab- sorption. His candidature was not sponsored by the employment exchange as there has been no occasion for the Respondent Bank to request the Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates. As the concerned workman has failed in 10th Standard, he is not qualified for being engaged as a casual sub-staff. He was engaged on casual basis. The competent authority of the bank did not appoint him by fulfilling the rules regarding appointment of temporary sub-staff. He was never engaged as against any permanent vacancy as falsely alleged by the petitioner, for he was given work on days on which the permanent sub-staff availed leave or when some temporary increase in work. The provisions of bipartite settlement refer to in the claim, statement has no application to the case of Sh. M. Bhakthavatsalem. These clauses apply only to such of those persons who have been engaged as temporary employees from the panel laid by the hank in accor- dance with the rules of the bank. 'Pherefore (cid:9) the question of giving preference to Sh. M. Bhakthavat- salem in the matter -of filling permanent vacancies if any-does not arise. The diretcive of Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India is in consonance with the Supreme Court Judgement reported in (1992 2 HI page 452). The Bank as a public sector undertaking is: bound by the directivesiguidelines issued by the Govt. of Inida from time to time in the matter of engage- ment of sub-staff. The Ministry of Finance, Banking Divn. has directed the-Respondent Bank to ensure that recruitment in subordinate staff cadre irrespective of the nature and the duration of the vacancy should be made only through employment exchange. The executive instructions require that all the vacancies al•sity_ in the Central Govt. t Wiii_esiEstentishntent in- cluding statutory organisations irrepective of the nature of duration of the vacancy or not ally be notified but also to be filled up through employment exchange. Therefore question of 'other things being equal' pro- vided for under para 20.12 of the bipartite settlement does not arise and therefore giving preference in the matter of giving employment (cid:9) him does not arise. The concerned •worlctnan was not engaged for "tan days in any period of 12 months period preceding the date of his dis-engagement. So the question of the Petitioner invoking Sec. 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise and such conten- tions are misconceived. (cid:9) The settlements entered earlier cannot be cited in this case as the circum- stances are different. The respondent bank being wholly -owned by the Govt. of India is bound to follow the direetivesIguidelines in the matter of empanelment

The concerned workman Sh. M. Bhakthavatsalem was engaged as a sub-staff by the Branch Manager of Zamin Endathur Branch Madurenthagam of Respon- dentI Indian Bank. It is the contention of the Peti timer Association that the concerned workman was engaged as a temporary sub-staff and he worked continuously for more than 753 days from 25-9-1989 and that he had completed more than 240 days in the year between .August 1992 and July 1993. But the Respondent failed to regularise the service of the said workman or to grant him temporary status and to absorb him in the permanent vacancy that. may arise in future. The concerned workman Sh. M. Bhaktha- vatsalem has registered his name in the ernnlownent exchanee and the education qualification is Waled M 10th standard. P is contended le the coupler .statet ment of the Respopkw,pp...4 Jhat impre.inisEigion `31i2 CSI12C102. _11814 THE GAZELLE OF LNDIA : FEBRUARY 10, 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 [PART hir-SEc. 3 (fi)] qualifications for a person to be engaged as a sub staff is a pass in 7th standard. It is specifically stated in the circular by way of instruction that over qualified persons should not be engaged. This is also not dispined by the Petitioner• Employees Association. in a case reported as 1999-'(2) ELI Page 1173, Calcutta Tramways Co, Ltd. 'and others vs. Ramesh and 17 others.- • 'The' division benck of Calcutta High Court has held that "the persons appointed through back doer cannot claim permanency in' service. Absorp- tion in permanent service on ground of social justice is not sustainable as initial engagement itself was not legal and proper." As per this decision of divi- sion bench of Calcutta High Court, the Petitioner Association is not entitled for a relief of absorption as prayed for the concerned workmanragainst the Res- pondent Bank.

6. It is notdhe .caierOt Petitioin :Employees Asso- ciation that The .ctincemed workman had been enraged as a sub staff of 'the branch of the Respondent Bank Management- as per the procedure adopted by the -Bank Management for recruitment of sub staff in the permanent vacancy. Admittedly the concerned work- man was not a permanent employee duly recruited to the bank services as sub staff by a competent autho- rity following the procedure cif Jecruitment. He was not a permanent -employee.' He was not ;Swett any order of appointinent or order of termination from service. He was only disengaged. So as contended by the learned counsel for 'the Respondent Management, the Petitioner EMployees Association cannot invoke 'section 25(f) of the industrial Dis- putes Act. So the contention of the Petitioner Em- ployees Association-that the action of the Respondent Management in not giving one month's notice or notice pay as per section 25(f) of I.D. Act is incorrect and their contention that non-compliance of the provision of the section 25(f) of the I.D. Act by the_ Respon- dent Bank Management for disengaging,-the concerned workman as illegal is also incorrect. It is held in a case reported: as 1992 (2) LET page 452. (cid:9) Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union • vs. Delhi Administration Delhi & others by the Supreme Court that "the persons having the practice: ofClaiming regularisation Of. service on the ground of having ccm- pleted 240 or more days by making hack door entry in the employment is not justifiable". The above deci- sions are quite applicable to the facts of this Lases Thus the point is answered accordingly.

-

Under Such circumstances it cari be concluded that the relief prayed for by the P etitioner .Ennloyees Association on behalf- of the concerned workman Sh,- M. Bhakthavatsalem for regularisation and absorp- tion in service of the Indian Bank is unjustified. Hence the concerned workman is not ebitled to any relief. No cost.

(D:ctated to the Stendgrapher, transcjibed and typed by him, corrected ,and pronounced by me in the open coin- on this day the 31st December, 20013 of Sh.: M. Bhakthavatsakm's-name ins.the employment exchange (cid:9) which was done at his own instance does not confer upon him any right for regular absorp- tion. He was engaged on casual basis as sub staff temporarily. It is the: argument of the learned counsel of the Respondent Bank that completion of 240 days will not confer any right on the concerned workman since the engagement was on casual basis. He was unautlhorisedly engaged by,the Branch Manager and he was not in the panel of temporary sub staff. All thd..ke contentions are not denied by, the I Party[Claimant. It is the, contention of the Petitioner Association fhat the. Respondent Bank had refused to absorb- ffie concerned- worlan, an- in a permanent vacancy and had not taken any action to regularise his service and to grant him temporary status though he was employed more than 240 days per year as continuous employment.. He had been temporarily engaged in a permanent vacancy. The It Party Bank Management has disputed this. It is not disputed that under a settlement dated 677-1992 as a one time measure cases' of persons for 90 days between 1-1-1982 and 31-12-1989 'who have been engaged by..the bank as, temporary sub staff where considcreeby the bank for empanelment as temporary sub. staff and the concerned workman Sh. M. Bhaktha- vaisalem does not come under this category of one time measure. Even as per the allegation of Peti- tioner association the concerned workman was en- gaged as a sub staff in the Respondent Bank, Zamin Endathur Branch, Maduranthagam frtait 25-09-1989. So he was not in the panel of temporary sub staff. The learned counsel for the II Party Manageemm Contended that the - concerned workman was not sponsored by employment exchange based on specific vacancy. • It is not disputed. The concerned world/fan registration of his name in the employment exchange does- not confer him any right to claim employment in-the Respondent Bank management. This cannot he disputectir As it is pleaded in the counter state- ment of the II Party Management that the bi-partite settlement process cited in the claim statement of the Petitioner Employees Association does not applicable to this case, because those clauses are applicable only to, persons engaged as temporary employees. It is 'not the case of the Petitioner Employees Associa- tion that the concerned "workman worked as the casual sub staff in the P.espondent Bank between, 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1989 to claiM einparfelment of temporary sub staff as per the settlement ,dt. 6-7-92. In view of that settlement the Respondent Bank Management as a one-time measure did the said empanelment.• The Party Employees Association does not dispute This. So the said settlement dt. 6-7-92 is not applicable to the concerned workman Sh. M. Bhakthavatsalem who was engaged as a casual sub staff only on 25-094989. Since the period taken for consideration by that settle- ment in respect of the persons engaged as temporary sub staff was' prior to his engagement as sub- staff. The Xerox copy of the said settlement has been marked as Ex. M3. The Xerox copy of other Govt. of India Notification and Govt. of- Instructions relied' upon by' the (cid:9) Party Respondent Management have 'been marked' as. Ex. Ml and M2 'respectively. Ex: M4 is the Xerox copy of the circular dt. '4-3-1983 issued by the head office 'ofithe Respondent Bank Management to all branches, wherein instructions have been gin for engagement of persons during the leave vacancies of sub staff. As per- these instructions the maximum

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer jinn II—st4 a (cid:9) - (cid:9)

Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

Documents Marked

1 For I Party1Claimant : Nil.

For II PartyjManagement

Ex. No. Darte (cid:9) Description Ml 20-9-78—Govt. of India, Notification No. Fl 11211177P. (cid:9) • • •

M2 16-8-90—Govt. of India Instruction No. F- 3131104187-IR.

M3 6-7-92—Settlement entered into with recog- nised union. (cid:9) '

M4 4-3-83—Norms for engagement of sub staff.

fft 4(41, 21 aria (cid:9) 9.2

TT PH (cid:9) 1-4"4-R Vittfrini, 1947 ( 1947 TT 14) TY UM 17 * Vritt tut A, *i'ait titchic tf444 4** 444darttil.4.1144/40t attK 4.44.1t1 * 417, w4Att 4 friete er4iTha** facile If *4 etmit aiTariftm Vfir*Kut *F41 * (kid (itr4kinu7 27712001) *t sob (cid:9) -*;.61 t, q)' *;a1:111' etm (cid:9) ll 21-.17, 002 TY Yftcff

‹.„,„ - V0 79.-12011170] 99-341"fit VT-fin

{t1. Ithittkul, V4T iTkd New Delhi, the- 21st January, 2002 - S.O. 494.—Iit pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), (cid:9) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Goverrutient Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Anneicure, in the industrial dispute (cid:9) between the employers in relatibn to the Indian Bank and their workmen, re- ceived by the' Cential Government on 21-1-2002.

[No. L-12011/70/99-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANI•JEXURE

BEFORE ,THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday; the 31st 13'ceniber; 2001 PRESENT

It-K4thikeyan, Presiding Offiber.

Industrial Dispute No. 27712001' (Tamil Nadu State IndultriaP Tribunal I.D, .1 (cid:9) No. 294/991'

(In the mattet of the.dispute for adjudication under • clause. (d) of sub-section (1.) and sub-section 2(Al of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute? Act, 1947' C14 of 19471, between -the Workman

• - -11,11-4-117 'Ca th-Vit • ific 2062,949"47,1920--

Sri P. V. Peter and the Management of Indian Bank. Chennai.)

BETWEEN

I PartylClaimant The General Secretary, Indian Bank Employees Association. (cid:9)

AND

The General Manager, IndianBank, Chennai. (cid:9) II PartylManage- meat APPEARANCES:

For. the'Claimant—M[s.. R. Rengaramanitjam, I. Mutluikumaran, (cid:9) Thilagaraj and St.

• Indumathi, Advocates. (cid:9) .

For the ;Management.-=M1s, Aiyai r and Doha, AdVocat%

• The Government of India, Ivlipistry of Labour'in exercise of poWers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (Y) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes ' 'Act, .1947 (14 of 19471, have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adju- dication vide Order No. L-12011170199-IR(13-11) dated 27-10-1999.

•

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal. where It was taken on file as ID. No. 294199. When the matter . Was pending enquiry iu that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased-to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to-this Tribu- nal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 2771 2001 and notices wc:te sent to the counsel on record on either side, infOrming them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 12-2-2001. (cid:9) On receipt of notice front this Tribunal, counsel: on either side present and moseeuted this case further. • When the matter came up before the for final hear- ing on 19-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim State- ment, Counter Statement, the other material papers on-;record, the documentarLmidence let in on the side of the II PartY/vIana2ement. upon hearing the aiguments advanced by the learned ,counsel pn either side, this matter having stood 'over' till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following:-

,

1 AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by-the Cenitral . Government for adjudication by this Tit bunal is as follows

"Whether the demand Of the Indian Bank Emp- loYees Ascociation in the. matter of gegi)la- riatiori and absorption of Shri P. V. Peter inthe services of the thdian Dank is justi-i. fled? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to,?" TIM GAZETIT =PA :. flittrAft Irk" litti

A 27, 1923 [PART ffLft. idn) 2. The averments in the claim statement of the

claimant I PartylUnion are briefly as follows :—

The I PartytClaimant, the General Secretary (cid:9) of

in the permanent vacancy for more than 240 dayS in a year the concerned workman is having preferential treatment and is having vested right over the existing vacancy of sub-staff under the resPondent management. There are several vacancies to absorb the concerned workman into service. But the respondent manage- ment refused to re-engage and to regularise the con- cerned workman in service. Hence it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award directing the respondent to absorb Sri P. V. Peter into service in the existing vacancy and to regularise his service.

3. The Averments in the Counter Statement of the Second Party/Management Indian Bank are briefly as folloWs

Indian Bank Employees Association, (hereinafter re- fers to as Petitioner) has raised this industrial-dispute espousing the cause of the workman Sri P. V. Peter regarding his non-employment. The concerned work- man was engaged as a temporary sub-staff by the Branch Manager of Thirupporur branch of II Party' Bank Management (hereinafter refers to as Respon- dent) from 17-1-1992. He worked continuously for more than 334 days and in particular he had comp- leted more than 240 days in the year 1993. He had completed 240 days of service in a year. Though the petitioner union requested the Respondent Bank Management .to regularise the services of the work- man Sri P. V. Peter it failed to do so. The con- cerned Workman had registered his name in the emp- loyment exchange. He had failed in 10th standard. He had been temporarily engaged in a permanent vacancy. The Respondent Bank Management had neither regularise the services of the concerned work- man nor taken any action to grant him temporary status to absorb in a permanent vacancy that may arise in future. It is an unfair labour practice of the respondent management. The concerned workman was thrown out of his employment without any notice. Thus the Respondent Management had violated the provisions of Section 25(F) of the LD. Act. As per bipartiate settlement dated 19-10-1966 (cid:9) pare 20.7, "Temporary Employee" will mean a workman who has been appointed for a limited period for work which is of an essentially temporary nature, or who is employed' temporarily as an additional workman in cthmection with temporary increase in work of per- manent nature and includes a workman other than a permanent workman who is' appointed in a tempo- rary vacancy caused by the absence of a particular employee. In para Z0.8 it is mentioned that 'A' temporary workman may also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a (cid:9) period of three months during which the bank shall make arrange- ments Icn filling up the vacancy permanently. If such temporary workman is eventually selected for filling up the vacancy, the period of such employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period.. In para 2(112 it is (cid:9) mentioned that, other things being equal, temporary workman (other than godown keeper) will be given preference for filling permanent vacancies and if selected they may have to undergo probation. The concerned workman was orally terminated from the services. He was not engaged since the petitioner union represented to the respondent management to regularise his service. The respondent management by stopping the concerned workman from service had violated the procedure laid down under Section 25(F) of T.D. Act. It is wholly unjustified illegal and arbittary. Either notice Or notice pay in lieu of notice 'was not given to the concerned workman as per the above provision in tile Act. As per the same bi-partite settlement the temporary (cid:9) workman (cid:9) will be giVen pre- ference white filling up permanent vacancy. Since it comes under class 'IV category, Etripktyment compul- sory notification-Act will not be applidable to the concerned workman. Since he wag engaged by the said branch manager Of the respondent bank Management

The concerned workman Shri P. V. Peter though styles himself as temporary, he was working on casual basis at Thiruporur Branch. The Respondent Bank has been having a system of maintaining a panel of sub-staff on temporary basis to work in the vacancies of permanent sub-staff going on leave. The engage- ment of the empanelled temporary gib-staff has been on day to day basis arid for Mich employment *ekes are paid on daily wages. Shri P. V. Peter was never in the panel. Mere registration of hiS name in the emp- loyment exchange, that too, at his own instance does not confer upon him any right for regular absorption. His candidature was not sponsored by the employ- ment exchange as there has been no occasion for the Respondent Bank to request the Employment Ex- change to sponsor candidates. As the concerned work- man has failed in' 10th Standard, he is not qualified for beig engaged as a casual sub-staff. He was engaged on casual basis. The competent authority of the bank did not appoint him by fulfilling the rules regarding appointrnent of temporary sub-staff. He was never engaged at against any permarient vacancy as falsely alleged by the petitioner, for he was given work on days on which the permanent sub-staff availed leaVe or when some temporary increase- in work. The pro- visions of bi-pattite settlement refer to in the claim statement has no application to the ease of Shri P. V. Peter. These clauses apply only to such of those per- sons who have been engaged as temporary employees from the panel laid by the bank in accordance with the tales of the batik. Therefore the' question of giving preference to Shri P. V. Peter in the matter of filing pernianent vacancies if any does not arise. The direc- tive of Ministry of Labour, Government of India is in consonance with the Supreme Court Judgement re- ported (1992 2 LLI page 452). The Bank as a public Sector undertaking is bound by the directivesiguide- lines issued by the Goverrtnient of India from time to time in the matter of engagement of sub-stall. The Ministry of Finance, Banking Divn. has directed the Respondent Bank to ensure that recruitment in sub- ordinate staff cadre irrespective of the nature and the duration of theataCithey should be Made. only through employmenttachange. The executive instructions re- quire that 'all the 'vaeaffeies arising in the Central Government Offiees/Establishmebt including statutory organisations irrespective- of the nature Of dlitatiOn of. the vacancy or not only 66 :ncitififct but alSoi to be filled up through employment exchange. Theaefore question' of 'other things 1564 equal' provided for Writstolf (cid:9) Vntlia:ifA

Thirupoticr nranch of the ReSplifideit/Indiah tat

ft is the contention of the Petitioner Assodatirm thrit the concerned workifian was engaged as a temporary and he worked continuously for more than 334 days from 17-1-92 and that he had ebmpleted more than 240 days in die year 1993. but the Res- pondent failed to regularise thb service df the said workman or to grant him temporary status and to aTi- kith him in the permanent vacancy that may 'mike in future. The concerned woilanan Shri P. V. Peter has registered his dame in the employment ,exchange and his education qualification is failed in 10th Standard it is contended in the counter statement of the. Res- pondent Bank, that mere registration of Shri P. V. imdei para 20.12 of the bi-partite settlement dea arise and therefore giving preference in the Matter of giving emplOyitieM to him does not arise. The con- cerned worknian was not engaged for 240 days in any period of 12 months period preceding the date of his dis-engagement. So the question of the Petitioner in- . yoking Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise and such contentions are mis- conceived. The settlements entered earlier cannot be cited in this ease as the circumstances are different. The respondent bank being wholly owned by the Government of India is-bound to Rant/ the diked:fives/ guidelines in the -matter of empanelment of temporary sub stafficasual employees. Iminediately after nationa- lisation of banks, it was found that there were casual engagements of sub-staff in leave vacancies. The Government of India insisted for putting an end to these types of back door entry in the public sector services. The Government of India Periodically issued directives that selection should be through employment exchange only. The Government of India on 16th August T.990 imposed restrictions on fresh empanel- ment.Till such time the problems of existing tempo- rary/casual sub-staffs are solved. Under a settlement dated 6-7-1992 the bank considered as a one time measure, cases of perSorfe Who were engaged for .90 days between 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1989 without being sponsored by eniployrnent exchange for empanelment as temporary sub-staff. In the letter dated 16-8-1990, the Government of India made it clear that it was a one Wine measure and there Heed not be any addition in the existing panel of temporary sub-staff. The con- cerned workman Shri P. V. Peter does not come under thiS category of one time Measure candidates for he was casually engaged subsequently during 1992 to 1994: Therefore subsequent to the aforesaid settle- Men& the banks have been following only the direc- tives and guidelines issued by the Governinent of Melia from time to time. Hence Shri P. V. Peter is not entitled to stake his claim fqr regularisation as sub- staff and his dis-engagement is legal, justified and valid. Therefore it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to reject the reference by dis- Missing the claims of the claimant's association.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no one has been examined as a witness on either side. No document has been filed as an exhibit on the side Of the first party/claimant, Indian Bank Employees Association On the side of the second partV, Indian Bani/Managenicnt four documents have been filed as ' AMS (cid:9) to M4. The learned counsel on, either side

hadadVanced their respective. arguments., ,

- 5. the Point for my ccinsidertaion is—

"Whether the demand of the Indian Bank Erupt 14ees Association in the matter of regula- risation and iabsoription of Shri P. V. Peter in the service; of the Indian Bank is justi- fied If not, What relief is the workman entitled to r (cid:9) ".

,

Prmat (cid:9) t (cid:9)

Peter's name in the employment exchange which was done at his own instance does not confer, upon him any right for regular absorption. He was engaged_ On casual basis as sub-:staff temporarily. It is the argument of the leatned counsel of the Respondent Bank that completion of 240 days will not confer any right on the concerned wOrknian since the engagement was on casual basis. -He *as unauthorisely engaged by the Branch Manager and he was not in the panel of: tein- poraty sub-staff: All these contentions are not denied by the I Party/Claimant. It is the contention of the Petitioner Association that the Respondent Bank had refused to absorb the concerned Workman- in a perttia- tient vacancy and had not taken any action to regu- larise his service and to grant him temporary stdtus ththigh he was eniplOyed more than 300 days per year as - deft-Airmails driiPlOyment. He had germ tetriporailly engaged in a permanent vacancy. The II Party Bank Management has disputed this. It is not disputed that under a settlement dated 6-7-92 as a one time measure cases of persons for 90 days between 1-1-1982 and 31-124989 who hate been engaged by the bank as temporafry sub"-tall where considered by the bank for empanelment as temporary sub-tail and the concerned workman Sh. P. V. Peter does not cote under this category of one time measure. Even as per the allegation of Petitioner asscciation the con- cerned worlanari was engaged as a sub-staff in the Respondent Bank, (cid:9) Thi ruporur (cid:9) Branch from 17-1-1992. So he was not in the panel of temporary snb-staff. The leanred counsel for the II Party Management contended- that the concerned workman was net sponsored by employment exchange based on specific vacancy. It is not disputed. The con- cerned Workman registration of he; name in the emp- loyittent exchange does not confer him any right to claim erriploymeht in the Respondent Bank manage- ment This cannot be disputed. As it is pleaded in the counter statement of the II Party, .Management that the, bi::partite settlement process cited (cid:9) in the claim statement of. the Petitioner Employees Assopia- Cori does not applicable to this case, because those clauses' are applicable only to persons engaged . as temporary employees: It is not the case of the Peti- tioner Employees Association that the concerned w.orkman• Worked as casual sub-staff in the Res- pondent Bank between 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1989 to claim empanelment of temporary sub-staff as per the settlement dt. 6-7-1992. In view of that se-theme/A)* Respondent Bank Management as a one-pine measure did the said empanelment. The I Party Employees Association deer rot dispute ;hist .. So the said settlement dafed 6-7-92 g net applicable to the The concerned workman Shri-y. V. Peter was engaged ari, a sub staff' by die Brandi Mat-inner at the1318 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OP INDIA : FEBRUARY It 2002/MAOHA 27, 1923 [PART II—SEC.:3(ii) concerned workman Sh. P. V. Peter who was engag- ed as a casual sub ataff only on 17-1-92 since the period taken for consideration by that settlement in respect of the persons engaged as temporary sub staff was prior to- his engagement as sub staff. The Xerox copy of the said settlement has been Marked as Ex. M3. The Xerox copy of other Government of India Notification and Government of Instruc- tions relied upon by the II Party Respondent Mana- gement have been marked as Ex. Ml and M2 res- pectively. Ex. M4 is the Xerox copy of the circu- lar dt. 4-3-1983 issued by the head office of the Res- pondent Bank Management to all branches, wherein instructions have been given for engagenient of per- sons during the leave vacancies of sub staff As per these instructions the maximum qualifications for a person to be-engaged na a sub staff is a pass in 7th standard. It is specifically stated in the circular by way of instruction that over qualified persons should not be engaged. This is also not disputed by the Petitioner Employees -Association. In a case report- ed as 1999 (2) LLJ Page 1173. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. and others vs. Ramesh and 17 others, the division bench of Calcutta 'High Court has held that "the persons appointed 'through back door cannot claim perinanency in service. Absorption. in - perma- manent service, on (cid:9) ground of social justice (cid:9) not sustainable as initial -engagement itself was not legal and proper." As per this decision of division bench of Calcutta High Court, the Petitioner Assocliation is not entitled for a relief of absorption as prayed for the concerned Markman against the Respondent Bank.'

It is not the case of Petitioner Employees Associa- tion that the concerned workman had been engaged as a sub staff of the branch of the Respondent Bank Management as per the- procedure adopted by the Bank Management for recruitment of sub-staff in the permanent vacancy. (cid:9) Admittedly the concerned Workman was not a permanent employee duly recruit- ed-to the bank services aS' sub staff by a competent authority following the procedure of recruitment. He was not a permanent employee. He was not issued any order of appointment or order of termination from service. He was only disengaged. So As con- tended by the. learned counsel for the Respondent Management, the Petitioner Employees Association cannot invoke section 25(f) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act. So the contention of the Petitioner Emp- loyees Association that the action of the Retondent Management n not giving one month's notice or notice (cid:9) pay as per (cid:9) section (cid:9) 25(f) of I.D. Act is incorrect and their contention that non-compliance of the proyision of section 25(0 of the I.D. Act by the Respondent Bank Management for dis-engag- ing the concerned workman as illegal is also (cid:9) in- 'correct. , It is held in a ease areported as 1992 (2) LEI page 452, Delhi Development Horticulture- Emp- loyees' Union vs. Delhi Administration Delhi (cid:9) and others by the Supreme Court that "the persons having the practice of claiming egularisation of serOce- the ground of having completed 240 or more days by making back door entry in the employment is not justifiable". (cid:9) The above decisions are quite applic- able to the facts of this (cid:9) case. Thus the point is • answered accordingly.

Under such circumstances it can be concluded that the relief prayed 'for by the - Petitioner Employees Association on behalf of the concerned workman Sh. P. V. Peter, for regularisation and absorption in service of the Indian Bank is unjustified. (cid:9) Hence concerned workman is not entitled to any relief, No Fast. '

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed (cid:9) and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court- on thiSilday the 31st December, 2001.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding, Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side.—None.

Docurnents Marked :

For-1 Partyrlaimant.—Nil.

For II PartylManagement

'Ex. No. (cid:9) Date

Description MI 30-9-78—Government of India Notification No. F[1;211177IIR.

M2 16-8-90—Government of India Instructions No F-3131104187-IR.

M3 6-7-92--Settlement entered into with recog- nised union.

M4 4-3-83—Norms for engagement of sub staff.

far4t, 21 W1-421, 2002

'.3:11.495.-4--MletniT WIN (cid:9) firr-944, 1947 (. 1947 ¶1 14) 41 AM 17 * (cid:9) ⪙ 4, dn't-i- 51-4ada #q. 1441-44 AT 37% wiltbi (cid:9) * (cid:9) wo-44. u f9-1 - aftirifriv ci<414 fir (cid:9) aftiltrim vfiwcor A'rd (cid:9) ciarz- (4q4 titto '28112001) 0( Met) iiqici ct) left t, (cid:9) -I fi tetd 4,Th--) 21-1-2002 FIT ¶11 79--12012115311999-VIIMR (t1)1

tit /bun, V17 1T1W4 New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002 S.O. 49.5.—In Purshatice of Section 17 of the-In- dustrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (14 of 1947): the-Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tfibunal-cunt-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annextire, in the in- dustrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21-1-2002.

[No. (cid:9) IR(B-II)] C GANGADHARAN. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 31st December, 2001- • " Witif trt •;,tetrit ertitt TB, 2.0.621Mit Ida .1

3 (11)]

181'9 PRESENT :

AWARD

K. Karthikeyan, ?residing Officer.

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Government for adjudication by this 'Tribunal is as follows :—

Industrial Disptite,No 281/2001 (Tamil Nadu State InehiStrial Tribunal Li?.

No. 292/99) '

"Whethe the demand of the Indian Bank Emp- loyees Association in the matter of absorp- tion and regularisation of Shri Raghu in the service of the Indian Bdnk is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the claim statement of the (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (4) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri Raghu and the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai.)

claimant I Party,/Union are briefly as follows :—

BETWEEN

(cid:9) .I Party/Claimant.

The General Secretary, Indian tank Employees Association.

AND

The General Manager, (cid:9) ..II PartY/Nianagement.

Indian Bank, Chennai.

APPEARANCES:

For the Claimant : M/s. R. Rengaramanujam, J. Muthukumaran, K. Thilagaraj and S. Indu- mathi, Advocates.

For the Management : M/s. Aiyar and Doti&

Advocates.

The Government of India, Ministry of Lahour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause Td) of Sub-section (1) and Sub`-seetion 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Indtistrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-12011/153/99-1R (B-II)) dated 10th November, 1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tarnil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Where it was taken on file as (cid:9) 292/99. When the matter wad pending enquiry in. that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of; Labour was pleased to order, transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adju- dication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 2.8112001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal. with a direction to appear be- fore This Tribunal on 13-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel either side present and proaeputed this case fOrther.

When ;the matter came up before me for final' hear- ing son 28-12-2001, upon perusing the Clain State- ment, Counter Statement, the other Material papers on record, the documentary evidence let in on the Side of the II Party/Management; upon hearing. the argu- ments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, this matter having stood over till this date for consi- deration, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

The I Party/Claimant, the General Secretary of Indian Bank Employees Association, (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) has raised. this industrial dispute espousing the cause of the workman Sri Raghu regard- ing his non-employment. The concerned workman was engaged as a temporary sub-staff by the Branch Mana- ger of Kancheepuram Branch, of II Party/Bank Management (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) from 1-12-1989. He worked continuously for more than 293, 284 and 286 days and in particular he had completed more than 240 days in 'a year. He had completed more than 240 days of service in a year and thus attracting the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Confirment of permanent status to workman) Act, 1981. Though the petitioner union requested. the Respondent Bank Management to regularise the services of the workman Sri Raghu it failed to do so. The concerned workman had register- ed his name in the employment exchange in the year 1992. His educational qualification also falls within the eligibility class prescribed by the Bank. He had been: temporarily engaged ina permanent vacancy. The Res- pondent Bank Management had neither regularise the services of the concerned workman nor taken any ac- tion to grant him temporary status to absorb him in a permanent vacancy that may arise in future. It is an unfair labour practice of the respondent manage- ment. The concerned workman was thrown out of his employment without any notice. Thus the Respondent Management had violated the provisions of Section 25(F). of the I.D. Act. As per bipartite settlement ,dated 19-10-1966 para 20.7. "Temporary Employee" will mean a workman, who had been appointed for a limited, period for work which is of an essentially tem- porary nature, or who is employed temporarily as an additional workman in connection with temporary in- crease- in work of permanent nature and includes a workman other than a permanent workman who is appointed in a temporary vacancy caused by the ab- sence of a particular employee. In para 20.8 it is mentioned that 'A temporary workman may also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy provided that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a period of three month's during which the bank shall make arrangements for-filling up the vacancy permanently. If such temporary workman is eventually selected for filling up the vacancy, the period of such employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period. In para 20.12 it is mentioned that, other things being equal. temporary workman (other than godowri keeper) will be given preference for fill'ng permanent vacancies and if selected they may have to undergo probation. The concerned workman was orally fermi- ,

_ 18410 . THE GAZETTE, OF Bth-ttrAi rifigiWARY (cid:9) 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 [PART-If-a. Saill 4 (cid:9) ,

i (cid:9)

Elated from the services. The respondent manageinerit by stepping the concerned workman from service had vidlated the procgchire laid down 'tinder Section 2(f) I.D.of (cid:9) Act. It is wholly Unjustified, illegal and arbi- (cid:9) • trary. Either notice of notice pay in lieu of notice was not given to the concerned workman as per the above provision in the Act. AS per the same bipartite set tit meat the tbniporafy workman will be given preference While filling up permanent vacancy. Since it comes under class IV category, Employment compulsory noti- „fication Act will not be applicable to the concerned workman. The very fact that, the workman was in con- tinuous employnient for (cid:9) days prrives ihtit tin re was parmilliel need for the service of the workman Though the employment of the workman is said to be a temporary one but in reality it is not so. He had been engaged by the Bank against-the pdyntarierit vacari- , tes (cid:9) more more than five years from the year 1989 onwards. Yet the Management have not taken any action to regularise the service of the,workman or to grant him temporary status and absorb him in a per- manent vacancy that may arise in future. It is an un- fair - labour practice followed by the Respondent Man- agement. Since he was engaged by the said branch manager of the respondent bank management in the permanent vacancy for more than 240 days in a year the concerned workman is having preferential treat- ment and is having vested right over the existing, vacancy of sub-staff under the respondent manage- Mentz There are several Vacancies to absorb the con- cerned workman into service: Rut the respondent Man- agement refused to re-engage and to regularise the Concerned workman in service. Hence it is prayed that this lionible Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award directing the respondent to absorb Sri Raghu into service in the existing vacancy and to regmacise his service:

3. The Averinents in the Counter Statement of the Second Party/Management Indian Bank are briefly as follows ; —

permanent vacancy as falsely alleged by the petitioner; for he was given work on days on which the perma- nent stilt-staff' availCd leave or when some temporary increase in work. The provisions of bipartite settle- ment refer to in the claini statement has no applied , lion to the case of Shri C. Raghu. These clauses apply only to such Of those: persons who have been engaged as temporary employees from/ the panel Mid by the bank in accordance with the rules of the bank. There- fore the question of giving preference to Shri C Raghu in the matier of filling permanent vacancies if any does not arise. The directive of Ministry of Labour, Govt. Of itidia is in Consonance with the Supretrie Court Judgement reported him (1992 2 LLJ page 452). The Bank as a patio sector Undertaking is bound by the directives/guidelines issued by the Government of India frOfil ihrie t6 tinte in the Matter of engagement of sub-staff. The Ministry of Finance, Banking Divi- sion has directed the Respondent Bank to ensure that recruitment in subordinate staff cadre irrespective of the nature and the duration of the vacancy should be made only through employment exchange. The execu- tive instructions require that all the vacancies arising in the Central Government Offices/Establishment in- cluding statutory organisations irrespective of the na- ture of duration of the vacancy or not only be notified but also to be filled up through employment exchange. Therefore question of 'other things being equal' pro- vided for under pars 20.12 of the bi-partite settlement does not arise and therefore giving preference in the matter of giving employment to him does not arise. The concerned workman was not engaged for 240 days ' in any period Of 12 months period preceding the date of his dis-engagement. So the question of the Petition- er invoking Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 does not arise and such contentions are misconceived. The settlements entered earlier cannot becited In this case as the circumstances are different. The respondent bank being wholly owned by the Gov- eminent of India is bound to follow the directives/ guidelines in the matter of empanelment of temporary sub-staff/casual employees. Immediately after nationa- lisation of banks, it was found that there were casual engagements of sub-staff in leave vacancies. The Gov- ernment of India insisted for puttin gan end to these types of bace door entry in the public sector services. The Government of India periodically issued directives that selection should be through employment exchange only. The Government of India on 16-8-1990 imposed restrictions on fresh empanelment. Till such time the problems of existing temporary/casual sub-staffs are solved. Under a settlement dated 6-7-1992 t.th; considered as a one time measure, cases of persons who were engaged for 90 days between 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1989 without being sponsored by employment exchange for empanelment as temporary sub-staff. In the letter dated 16-8-1990, the Government, et India made it clear that it was a one-time measure and , there need not be any addititm in the existing panel of temporary sub-staff. The concealed workman Shri C. Raghu does not come under this category at one time measure since he was not engaged for 90 days upto 31-12-1989. He was engaged for 39 days only unto 31-12-1989. Therefore subsequent to the afore- said settlement, the banks have been folloWing only the directives and guidelines issued by the•Government of India from time to time Hence Shri C, Raghu id The ,concerned workman Shri Raghu though styles himself as temporary; lie was working on casual basis at Rancheeettram Branch. The Respondent Bank has been having a system of maintaining a panel of sub- staff on temporary basis to work in the vacancies of permanent sub-staff going on leave. The engagement of the empanelled temporary sub-staff has been on day to day basis and for such employment wages are paid on daily wages. Shri C. Raghu was never in the panel. Mere registration of his name in the employ-, Merit exchange, that too, at his own instance does not confer upon him any right for regular absorption. His candidature was not snonsored by the employment exchange as there has been no occasion for the Res- pondent Bank to request the Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates. He is not qualified, for being engaged as a casual sub-staff. For being employed as a Sitb-staff, the minimum and maximum quathications as per the norms of the Respondent is 5th standard pass and 7th standard pass respectively. The petitioner has to prove regarding educational qualification of Shri C. Raghu. He was engaged on casual basis. The conmetent,nuthority of the bank did not appoint him by fulfilling the rules 'regarding -appOintinent of tem- porary sub-staff. He Wct³ (cid:9) engage ⁷.

•-.[M IT:7S •P- On] --- (cid:9) , 43176 71'as strtetb-tiftt 2,00.2/81xt 27,1Q23.., 1821 not 'entitled-festike /is (cid:9) claim for tegiilfIsaticin as sub-staff and his disengagement is legal, justified and valid. Therefore it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to reject the reference by dismissing the claims of the claimant's association.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no one has been examined as a witness on either side. No document has been filed as an exhibit on the side of the first party/claimant, Indian Bank Employees Association. On the side of the second party, Indian Bank/Management four documents have been filed as Exhibits Ml to M4. The learned counsel on either side had advanced their respective arguments.

5. The Point for my consideration is-

- "Whether the demand of the Indian Bank Emp- loyees Association in- the matter of absorp- tion and regularisation absorption of Shri C. Raghu in the service of the Indian Bank is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

. Point :—

allegatitm of - Petitionet association -the-concerned' workman was engaged as a sub staff in the Respon- dent Bank, Kancheepuram Branch, from 1-12-1989. So he was not in the panel of temporary sub staff. The learned counsel for the II Party Management contended that the concerned workman was not sponsored by employment exchange based on speci- fic vacancy. It is not disputed. The concerned workman registration of his name in the employment exchange does not confer him any right to claim employment in the Respondent Bank management. This cannot be disputed. As it is pleaded in the counter statement of the H Party Management that the bi-partite settlement process cited in the claim statement of the Petitioner Employees Association does not applicable to this case, because those clauses are applicable only to persons engaged as temporary employees. It is not the case of the Petitioner. Emp- loyees Association that the concerned workman work- ed as the casual sub staff in the RespOndent Bank between 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1989 to claim empanel- ment of temporary sub staff as per the settlement dt. 6-7-92. In view of that settlement the Respondent Bank Management as a one-time measure did the said empanelment. The I Party Employees Association does not dispute this. So the said settlement dated 6-7-92 is not applicable to the concerned workman Sh. C. Raghu who was said to have been engaged as a casual sub staff from 1-12-1989 since the petitioner association has failed to prove the said plea in the claim statement with acceptable evidence. The Xerox copy of the said settlement has been marked as Ex. M3. The Xerox copy of other Government of India Notification and Government of Instructions relied upon by the II Party Respondent Management have been marked as Ex Ml and M2 respectively. Ex. M4 is the Xerox copy of the circular dated 4-3-1983 issued by the head office of the Respondent Bank Management to all branches, wherein instructions have been given for engagement of persons during the leave vacancies of sub (cid:9) staff. (cid:9) As per these instructions the maximum qualifications for a person to be engaged as a sub staff is a pass in 7th standard. It is specifically stated in the circular by way of instruction that over qualified persons should not be engaged. This is also not disputed by the Petitioner Employees Association. ' The petitioner association has not proved with acceptable evidence the plea it has taken in the claim statement with regard to the educational qualification of the concerned workman. In a case reported as (cid:9) 1999 (2) LLJ Page 1173, Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. and others vs. Ramesh and 17 others, the division bench of Calcutta High Court has held lhat "the persons appointed through _back door cannot claim permanency in service. Ab-_ sorption in permanent service on ground of social justice is not sustainable as initial engagement itself was not legal and proper." As per this decision of division bench of Calcutta High Court, the Petitioner Association is net entitled for a relief of absorption as prayed for the concerned workman against the Res- pondent Bank.

6. It is not the case of Petitioner Employees Asso- ciation that the concerned workman had, been engag- ed as a sub staff of the branch Of the Respondent Bank Management as net the procedure adopted by the Bank Management for recruitment ofsub staff in . Abe permanent vacancy.. Admittedly.the concerned The concerned workman,$hri C. Raghu was engaged as a sub-staff by the Branch Manager of Kancheepu- ram Branch of Respondent/Indian Bank. It is the con- tention of the Petitioner Association that the concerned workman was engaged as a temporary sub-staff and he worked continuously for more than 1039 days from (1-12-1989 and that he had completed more than 240 days in a year. But the Respondent failed to yegularise the service of the said workman or to grant him temporary status and to absorb him in the per- manent vacancy that may arise in future. The con- cerned workman Shri C. Raghu has registered his name in the employment exchange and his educational qualification falls within the eligibility clause prescrib- ed- by the Bank. It is contended in the counter state- ment of the Respondent Bank that mere registration of Shri C Raghu's nanie in the employment exchange which was done at his own instance does not confer upon him any right for regular absorption. He was engaged on casual basis as sub-staff temporarily. It is the argument of the learned counsel of the Res- pondent Bank that completion of 240 days will not confer any right on the concerned workman since the engagement was om casual basis. He was unautho- risely engaged by the Branch Manager and he was not in the panel of temporary sub staff. All these contentions are not denied by the I Partyriaimant. It is the contention of the Pethioner Association that the Respondent Bank had refused to absorb the con- cerned workman in a permanent vacancy and had not taken any action to regularise his service and to grant him temporary status though he was employed more than 240 days 'per year as continuous employ- ment. He- had been teinnorarily engaged in a per- Menem vacancy. The TI Party Bank Management has disnuted this. It is not disputed that under a settlement dated 6-7-1992 as a one time mesgre cases of nersons for 90 days between 1-1-1982 and 81=12-1989 who have been engaged by the bank es temnorgry sub staff where considered by the hank for •empanelment as teninorary -sub staff -and and the con- .cerried woraban - SFr C. Raghu does not come under this category of one time measure. Even as per- the 362 G1/2002-25 - TI & QtaOE EgDIA.-: FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGHA_27 1923 [PART Ti—SEC. 3(10]

.

Workthan was not a permanent employee dilly recruit- ed to the bank services as sub staff by a competent authority following the procedure of recruitment. He was not a permanent employee. He was not issued any order of appointment or order of termination from service. He was only disengaged. So as con- tended by the learned counsel for the Respondent Management, the Petitioner Employees Association Cannot invoke section 25(f) of the Industrial Dis- putes Act. So the contention of fife Petitioner Emp- .loyees Association that the acion of the ResPondent Management in not giving one months notice or notice pay as per section 25(f) of I.D. Act is in- correct and their contention that non-compliance of the provision of the section 25(f) of the I.D. Act by the Respondent Bank Management for disengaging the concerned workman as illegal is also incorrect. It is held in a case reported as, 1992 (2) LLJ page 452, Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union vs. Delhi Administration Delhi & others by the Supreme Court that "the persons having the practice of claiming regularisation of service on the ground of having completed 240 or more days by making back door entry in the employment is not justifiable". (cid:9) The above decisions are quite appli- cable to the facts of this case. (cid:9) Thus the point is answered accordingly.'

Under such circumstances it can be concluded that the relief prayed for by the Petitioner Employees Association on behalf of the concerned workman Sh. C. Ragliu for regularisation and absorntion in ser- vice of the Indian Bank is unjustified. Hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief. No cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed (cid:9) and typed by him, corrected and pronolinced by me in the open court on this day the 31st December, 2001.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side.—None.

Documents Marked

For I Farty1Claimant—Nil.

For II Party1Manag,ernent

Ex. No. Date (cid:9) Description MI 30-9-78--Government of India Notification No. F1112111771IR.

M2 16-8-90---Government of India Instructions No. F-3131104187-IR

M3. 6-7-92—Settlement entered into with recog- nised union.

M4 4-3-83—Norms for engagement of sub staff. 9icsa, -21 1 c14,_ 2002

TTXT. 496:--4(141 (cid:9) rim fTTR VarkTfrf, 1947 (1947 ¶T 14) TY WU 17 T (cid:9) ti, TTVIq 6.< .t (cid:9) Wkrraa (cid:9) tistd Rziti4R-T as wer*R1 (cid:9) din, vfOr 4 191-47-c Bererrim faiK 4 ,k3M:r 97-4-R (cid:9) vitrzu-cur 491 m-rre (40.1 TitTET 28212001)T.) qiiicsid (cid:9) t t kiat n (cid:9) k;)- 2'1-1-2002 T1 3IT4T (cid:9)**II TIT i

[t. cITT-120121154199—VTUTT7. (a-mj

TiTrarrer,

- New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002 S.O. 496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, CHENNAI as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Indian Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-1-2002.

[No. L-1201215411999-1R(B-IM C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2001 PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

industrial Dispute No. 282/2001 (7 amilnadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 296199) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri M. Gajendran and the Management of Indian Bank, Chennai.)

BETWEEN The General Secretary, (cid:9) : I Party/Claimant.

Indian Bank Employees Association

AND

The General Manager, (cid:9) : II Party/Management. Indian Bank, Chennai.

APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant

: M[s. R. Rengaramanujam, J. Muthukumaran, K. Thilagaraj and S. Indumathi, Advocates.

For the Management

: M/s. Aiyar and Dolia, Advocates.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Indutial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred tiiw concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No, L-120121154[99-1R(13-11) dated 10-114999.

1.843

WY-a- TT X1-4cia. Wit 10 29o214N 27,1023 - , (cid:9)

117-4ite 3 (if)]

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, wnere it was taken on file as La No. 296/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the' Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjuduication. On receipt of records from that Tri- bunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 282/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on recoid on either side, informing them about the trans- fer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 13-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side present and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hear- ing on 28-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim State- ment, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the documentary evidence let in on the side of the II Party/Management, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudica- tion by this Tribunal is as follows :—

"Whether the demand of the Indian. Bank Em- ployees Association in the matter of regula- risation of the service and absorption of Shri M. Gajendran in the services of the Indian Bank is justified 7 If not to what relief he is entitled 7"

2. The averments in the claim statement of the

claimant I Party/Union are briefly as follows :—

notice. Thus the. Respondent Management had violated the provisions or section 25(F) of the I.D. Act. As per bi-partiate settlement timed 19404966 para 20.7; "Temporary Employee" will mean a workman who has (cid:9) been appointed fur a limited period for work whiCh is of an essentially temporary nature; or who is employed temporarily as an addi- tional workman in connection with temporary increase in work of permanent nature and includes a work- man other than a permanent workman who is appoin- ted in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence of a particular employee. In para 20.8 it is mentioned that 'A temporary Workman may also be appointed to fill a pknatent vacancy provided that such tem- porary appointment shall not exceed a period af three months during Which the bank shall make arrangements for filling up the vacancy permanently. If such temporary workman is eventually selected-for filling up the vacancy, the period of such employment will be taken into account as part of his probationary period. In para 20.12 it is mentioned that, other things being equal, temporary workman (other than godown keeper) will be given preference for filling permanent vacancies and - if selected they may have to undergo probation. The concerned workman was orally terminated from the services. The respondent management by stopping the concerned workman from service had violated the- procedure laid down under section 25(f) of I.D. Act. It is wholly unjusti- fied, illegal and arbitrary. (cid:9) Either notice or notice pay in lieu of notice was not given to the cconcerned workman as per the above provision in the Act. As per the same bi-partiate settlement the temporary workman will be given preference while filling up permanent vacancy. Since - it comes under class IV category, Employment compu'rory notification Act will not be applicable to the concerned workman. The very fact that the workman was in continuous employ- ment for 408 days proves that there was parenniet need for the service of the workman. Though the employment of the workman is said to be a tempo- rary one but in reality it is not so. He had been en- gaged by the Bank against the permanent vacancies from the year 1993 onwards. Yet the Management have not taken any action to regularise the service of the workman or to grant him temporary status and absorb him in a permanent vacancy that may arise in futuure. It is an unfair labour -practice followed by the Respondent Management. Since he was en- gaged by the said branch manager of the respondent bank management in the perinanent vacancy for more than 240 days in a year the concerned workman is having preferential treatment and is having vested right over the existing vacancy of sub staff under flit respondent management. There are several vacancies to absorb the concerned workman into service. But the respondent management refused to re-engage and to regularise the concerned workman in service. Hence it is prayed that this Hin'ble Tribunal may be, pleased to pass an award. directing the respondent to absorb Sri M. Gajendran into service in the existing Vacancy and to regularise his service.

3. The Averments in the Counter Statement of the Second Party/Management Indian Bank are briefly as follows —.

The. I Party/Claimant, the General Secretary of Indian Bank Employees Association, (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) has raised this industrial dis- pute espousing the cause of the workman Sri M. Gajendran regarding his non employment. The con- cerned workman was engaged as a temporary sub- staff by the Branch Manager of Alathur Pharmaceuti- cal Complex Branch, of II Party/Bank Management (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) from 16-3-1993. He worked continuously for more than 408 days and in particular he had completed more than 240 days between April 1994 and March 1995. He had com- pleted more than 240 days of service in a year and thus attracting the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Confirment of permanent status to workman) Act 1981. Though the petitioner union requested the Respondent Bank Management to regularise the services of the workman Sri M.. Gajendran it failed to do so. The concerned work- man had registered his name in the employment ex- change. He had failed in the 7th standard. He had been temporarily, engaged in a 'permanent vacancy. The Respondent Bank Management had neither regularise the services of the concerned workman nor taken any action to grant him temporary status to absorb him in a permanent vacancy that may arise in future. (cid:9) It is an unfair labour practice of the respondent management. The concerned workman was thrOwn out of his employment without any

The concerned workman Sh. M. .Gaiendran thougn styles himself as temporary he was working on casual1324 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 [PART It—SEC: 3 OW was-found-that- there were casual engagements of -sub -:stan In leave vacancies. Inc Wvt.- o1 llictia insisted tOr putting an end to mese types or oacic door entry in tut pattue Sector ServicOs.- (cid:9) line uovI, of lliuia penotacany issueu oirectives that selection shown be wirougn employment excuange only. The Govt. of lucid on 10-0-19.0 imposed restrictions on fresh enipaiienuent. (cid:9) suen time me probienis of existing temporary/casual sub stalls are solved. Un- der a settlement tutted 0-/-1992 'me bank considered as -a onetime measure, cases of persons who were engaged tor YU nays o-etween 14-1952 to 31-12-1989 witiatiat being sponsored by employment excnange for empanelment as temporary suo scan. In the letter daietu 10-5-1990, the Govt. of India made n clear that it was a one-time measure and there need not be any addition in the existing panel of temporary sub Sozit. Ire COMOILLOU INOtitmilll 511. Dil. Uctjeittlian aces AAt come u..ucr tons category of One-LIMO Mea- sure since ne was not engtibeu tor 9k) days up CO 31-1z.-15,09. fie was engage., tot ,59 nays only ttpio SttOOCIticalt 10 me aimesaid Seitiement, the batiks nave been tonownig only the airectives anu gusowines issueu oy ute ouvt. oi mum from time to tune. Bence Su. ivl. laajeuaran is not entitled to stake ins claim tor regularisation as sub start dna his, disengagement is legal, justified and vans Tnerefore it is - prayed trtat urns flOnourable -Colin may be pleased to reject the reterence by dis-

missing toe clans of the claimant's association.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no .one has been examined as a witness on either side. No ',document nas been filed as an exhibit on the side of the first party/claimant, Indian Bank Employees .Association. On the side of the second party, Indian Bank/Management four documents have been filed as Exhibits Ml to M4. The learned counsel on either side had advanced their respective argument,

5. The Point for my consideration is

"Whether the demand of the Indian Bank Em- ployees Association_ in the matter of regularisation of the service and absorption of Shri M. Gajendran in the service of the Indian Bank is justified? If not, to what- relief he is entitled. 7"-

Point :—

basis at Alathur - Pharmaceutical Complex Branch. 'DM Itespounent -Bank. has been .having a system of Mailliaming a panel of sub-stail on temporary basin to wok& in me vacancies 01 permanent sub staff go- ing on leave. The engagement of the empanelled temporary -sub stan has imen on day to nay basis anu for such eftiptoyment wages are paid on daily wages. Sri. M. Liajendran was never in the panel. Mere registration of nis name in the employment ex- change; that too, at his own instance does not confer upon mm any rignt tor regular absorption. His can- Citt.tature was not sponsuien by the employment ex- cnange as tuere has been no occasion for the heopoduent bank to request the Employment Ex- Gime to spouse' caiminates. .1-re is tan quanneu ror Mang eugaeou as a casual 6110 stmt. rut Dying em- moyeu as wsuo sum, the m.tuinunl Etna illaadnuna quanneauons as per Inc norms or due .ttespokitaan IS Diu natal...ad pass and ith stanuaru pass res- pet.myciy. (cid:9) Inc petitioner has to prove regarffing euticaitonal qualification of Sn. M. uajenatan. tie was engage.' on casual basis. The competent autno.. rny 01 Inc minx um not appoint nun oy iumning the nues reputing appointment of temporary sun start. he was never engaged as against any permanent vacancy as wisely aneged by tue petitioner, ior tie was given work on nays on winch tne permanent sub sten availed leave or wnen some temporary, Tncrease in work. Inc provisions of bipartite settlement refer to m me, claim statement has no application to the case or Sn. ivi. Gajendran. These t.iauses apply only to such of those persons who have been engaged as temporary employees from the panel laid by me bank in accoruance with the rules or the bank. Therefore the question of giving,preterenee to Sh. M. Gajendran in the matter or fining permanent vacancies if any does not arise._ The directive of ministry of labour, Govt. of India is in consonance with the Supreme Court Judgement reported him (1992 2 LLJ page 452). The Bank as a public sector undertaking is bound by the directives/guidelines issued by the Govt. of India from time to tune in the matter of engagement of sub staff. The ministry of finance, Banking Division has directed the Respondent Bank- to ensure that recruitment in subordinate staff cadre irrespective, of the nature and the duration of the vacancy should be made only through employment exchange. The executive instructions require that all the vacancies arising in the Central Govt. Offices/ Establishment including statutory organisations irres- pective of the nature of duration of the vacancy or not only be notified but also to be filled up through employment exchange. Therefore question of 'other things being equal' provided for under para 20.12 of the bi-partite settlement dogs not arise and therefore giving preference in the matter of giving employment to him does not arise. The concerned workman was not engaged for 240 days in any period of 12 months period preceding the date of his dis-engagement. So the question of `Lye Petitioner invoking Sec. 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (cid:9) es not arise and such contentions are misconceived. The settle- ments eirered earlier cannot be cited in this ease as the circumstances are different. The respondent bank being who'ly owned by the Govt. of India is bound to follow the directives/guidelines in the matter of emminehront of temotrary sub-sfafficasual emplo- -yees. Immediately after nationalisation of banks, - it

The concerned workman Sh. M. Gajendran was engaged as a sub staff by the Branch Manager of Alathur Pharmaceutical complex Branch of Respon- dentdndian Bank. (cid:9) It is the contention of the Petitioner Association that the concerned workman was engaged as a temporary sub staff and he worked continuously for more than 408 days from 16-3-1993 and that he had completed more than 240 days in a year. But the Respondent failed to regularise the service of the said workman or to grant him tempo- rary status and to absorb him in the permanent vacancy that may arise in future. (cid:9) The concerned workman Sh. M. Gajendran has registered his name in the employment exchange and his educational qualification falls within the eligibility clause pres- cribed by the Bank. It is contended in the counter statement of the Respondent Bank that mere reeistra- lion of Sit M. Gajendran's name in the-employment exchange which was done at his own instance does 44' VI TRW :%2-⁴-4 ¹⁶, ²⁰⁰²/¹¹¹IT ² /,¹⁹²³ (cid:9) • 1825..

[flit (cid:9) a (ii)]

acceptable evidence. The Xerox copy of the said setilement has been marked as Ex. M3. The Xerox copy of other Govt. of India Notification and Govt. of Instructions relied upon by the If Party Respon- dent Management have been marked as Ex. Ml and M2 respectively. Ex. M4 is the Xerox copy of the circular dated 4-3-1983 issued by the head office of the Respondent Bank Management to all branches, wherein instructions have been given for engagement of persons during the leave vacancies of sub staff. As per these instructions the maximum qualifications for a person to be engaged as a sub staff is a pass in 7th standard. It is specifically stated in the circular by way of instruction that over qualified persons should not be engaged. This is also not disputed by the Petitioner Employees Association. (cid:9) The petitioner association has not proved with acceptable evidence the plea it has taken in the claim statement wih re- gard to the educational qualification of the concerned workman. In a case reported as 1999 (2) LI.] Page 1173, Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. and others v.

Ramesh and 17 others, the division bench of Calcutta High Court has held that "the persons appointed through back door cannot claim permanency in ser- vice. Absorption in permanent service on ground of social justice is not sustainable as initial engagement itself was not legal and proper." As per this decision of division bench of Calcuutta High Court, the Peti- tioner Association is not entitled for a relief of ab- sorption as prayed for the concerned workman against the Respondent Bank.

not confer upon him any right for regular absorption. He was engaged on casual basis as sub staff tempo- rarily. It is the argument of the learned counsel of the Respondent Bank that completion of 240 days will not' confer any right on the concerned workman since the engagement. was on casual basis. He was unauthorisedly engaged by the Branch Manager and he was not in the panel of temporary sub staff. All these contentions are not denied by the I Party/ claimant. (cid:9) It is the contention of the Petitioner Associaion that the Respondent Bank had refused to absorb the concerned workman in a permanent vacancy and had not taken any action to regularise his service and to grant him temporary status though he was employed more than 240 days per year as continuous employment. (cid:9) He had been temporarily engaged in a permanent vacancy. The II Party Bank Management has disputed this. It is not dis- puted that under a settlement dated 6-7-1992 as a one time measure cases of persons for 90 days bet- ween 1-1-1982 and 31-12-1989 who have been engaged by the bank as temporary sub staff where considered by the bank for empanelment as tempo- tary sub staff and the concerned workman Sh. M. Gajendran does not come under this category of one- • time measure. Even as per the allegation of Petitioner association the concerned workman was engaged as a sub staff in the Respondent Bank, Alathur Pharmaceutical Complex Branch, from 16-3-1993. So he was not in the panel of temporary sub staff. The learned counsel for the II Party Management con- tended that the concerned workman was not spon- sored by employment excange based on specific vacancy. It is not disputed. The concerned work- man registration of his name in the employment ex- change does not confer him any right to claim em- ployment in the Respondent Bank management. This cannot be disputed. As it is pleaded in the counter statement of the II Party Management that the bi-par- tite settlement process cited in the claim statement of the Petitioner Employees Association does not appli- cable to this case, because those clauses are applicable only to persons engaged as temporary employees. It is not the case of the Petitioner Employees Association • that the conctimecl workman worked as the casual sub staff in the Respondent Bank between 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1.989 to claim empanelment of temporary sub staff as per the settlement dated 6-7-92. In view of that settlement the Respondent Bath: Management as a one-time measure did the said empanelment. The Party. Employees Association does not dispute this.

So the said settlement dated 6-7-92 is not applicable

to the concerned workman Sh. M. Gajendran who was

said to have been engaged as a casual sub staff from

16-3-1993 since the petWoner association has failed to prove the said . plea, in the claim .statement with

culture Employees' Union vs. Delhi Administration Delhi & others by the Supreme Court that "the persons having the practice of claiming regularisation of ser- vice on the ground of having completed 240 or more days by making back door entry in the employment is not justifiable". The above decisions are quite appli- cable to the facts of this case. Thus the point (cid:9) is answered accordingly.

Under such circumstances it can be concluded that the relief prayed for by the Petitioner Employees Association on behalf of the concerned workman Sig. M. Gajendran for regularisation and absorption in service of the Indian Bank is unjustified. Hence the concerned workman is nbt entitled to any relief. No cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st December, 2001.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined

On either side : None.

Documents Marked :

For I FartyjClatimant : Nil.

For II Party/Management :—

Ex. No. Date

Description M1 30-9-78

Govt. of India Notifica- tion No. FI1121117711R.

M2 • 16-8-90

Govt. of India Instruc- tions No. F-3131104187-IR.

M3 6-7-92

Settlement entered into with recognised union.

M4 4-3-83

Norms for engagement of sub staff.

29 qrat ; 2002

wr *wt. 497.--3ikitim 14-qm tifirizreot, 1947 ( 1947 (cid:9) 14) Tit EMT 17 k irlyTur ii, %'ftrc (cid:9) qt6 di. rrrf (cid:9) si4trj4 (cid:9) awe (cid:9) alit Tai (cid:9) Tr7, m4w frt70-6 afttitbm fq-lx tTiti• tn-cwiT 1.1alfirr (cid:9) waitw i riarz (474 4€,,7 200/2001 ) T -t RTIfeld cticcfet t, tql-4 WWI< (cid:9) 28-1-2002 Tt 5111:ff FT EtT I 22012/21212000-4rit ITT7 (kft. II)]

k4T-4'q, 1FR warwrft New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 20012001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal' Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-22012121212000-1R(C-II)] N P KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Ref. No. I.D. No. 20012001 Sh. Malkiat Singh. (cid:9) • • Workman.

Versus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.—N. K. Zakhmi.

AWARD.

dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under section 10(1)(d) and Sub-Section 2-A of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act). vide their letter No. L-22012121212000-IR ( C-1-1) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in imposing the penalty of 1/19111...t*4-3 (cid:9) _ (cid:9)

Stoppage of two increments and re- covery of one year basic pay of Shri Malkiat Singh, TA-II is legal and justified if not 10 what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?" 2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appdars that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Dated : 17-1-2002

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer 4t fwit, 29 ITTITU, 2002

wr.m. . 498.-3ittirm faa,cntafirt-4, 1947 ( 1947 Tr 14) 41 EIRT 17 % 47,F174 ii,%.414 111.4•7 Ts 4). 4cf (cid:9) g*ij4 % 44.4 f7 tit48-1 417 3t% iT:(1. k 414, Tri44 (cid:9) alterizit fEr4r4 it %ctn. 4TTrt aftgibit vlipbtot wierrg t riqz (41.i 44:rr 19912001 ) it qw.firerr et, Ccif t, 41 %nig 47TR 41 28-1-2002 41 511%* r %IT I [4. qT. 220121213/2000-41 (cid:9) (4t. II)]

. qnr (cid:9) iK,F6 4fErtrit New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 19912001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal) Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on '28-01-2002.

[No. L-22012121312000-1R(C-11)1 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Ref.. No, I.D. No. 19912001 Sh. Jiwan Kumar. (cid:9) Worknian.

ittsmr mitt (cid:9) sn0ximir17,

Versus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.—None.

AWARD

dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under section 10(1)(d) and Sub-section 2-A of sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012121312000-IR(C-II) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the, action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Jiwan Kumar Slo Shri Chiman Lal is legal and justified? If not to what relief, the workman is entitled to?"

2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pusu,e with the present re- ference. In view of the above, the present re- ference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Dated : 17-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer 7-rf 14-rn, 2941g40; 2002

9T1.4T. 499. —4141NT ITOT1 411114411, 1947 ( 1947 TT 14) Tet 11121 17 k visit (cid:9) kaltr tuna 'Ts 4t. Trrt (cid:9) 44Itia t 44-4 frizi'mT.1 Tit tiivrKl• r 417, 9O 4 firfkiz (cid:9) f44r4 4 War n-ctix! 4M-trim vfiartzut qtmln4 (cid:9) 44iz 44-41 194/2001 ) 411141[i4 1 .1) tcint t, TT14 umr-t 41 28-1-2002 41 SIM FT 41. I N. qq. 220121214/2000-41 grI7 (O. II)]

gq (cid:9) 4,-qtqtr, (cid:9) qfatra New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 499.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub-1828- THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:: -.FEBRUARY 115. 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART II--,Sse.-30.1)) _ - (cid:9) - - (cid:9) fishes the award (Ref. No. 194121(1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal! Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-220121214]2000-1R(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN. THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT., INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No. I.D. No. 19412001 Sh. Kikar Singh. (cid:9) Workman.

Versus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management —None.

AWARD

dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under sec- lion 10(1)(d) and Sub-section 2-A of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (here- inafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012121412000-1R(C-11) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute. to this Tribunal

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Kikar Singh Slo Shri Dalip Singh is legal and justified? If mot to. what relief, the workman is en- titled, to?"

2. None appeared on •behalf of the workman despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of pro- secution. Central Govt. be informed. Dated : 17-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer fte* 29 Allele', 2002

TT . 9;17. 500.--.--3rl ftrliT 14-eiR atitilT, 1947 ( 1947 z-NT 14) 41' /1-27 17 * TrT.R-01 ii, 4,-ar)-q R (cid:9) 5141ST (cid:9) tia fil014-41: 314R qnI7, TITiET i 141m (cid:9) fwarq 4 i•-it!( taTit afterfttw 1.1-nwiut 911ittrq k tiara. (th'4 48,41 187/2* 1) 03) SRI fvrr (cid:9) k *iltzr titer R TI 28-1-2002 er Arrer FT sir i [tj . gq. 220121215[2000-"nrc (tit. II)] 79 Al. (cid:9) Titaqii0 New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 18712K1) of the Central , Gvoernment Industrial Tribunal! Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their Workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002 [No. L-22012121512000-IR(C-H)] N. P KESAVAN, Desk Officer • (cid:9) ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA I -111 114-11 ABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Ref. No. I.D. No. 18712001 Sh. Budh Ram. (cid:9) .. Workman.

Versus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management. —None.

AWARD

dated : 174-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under sec- tion 10(1)(d) and Sub-section 2-A of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (here- inafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. -L-22012121512000-1R(C-II) dated [met IL.,-013,..(fi)] (cid:9)

•¹⁷¹t^{6 4}T (⁶³⁶⁴.-¹⁶¹⁶e ¹⁶, ²⁰⁰² (cid:9) 87,1923, (cid:9) 1829 .

Versus

254-2001 referred the following Industrial dis- pute to this, Tribunal :—

Food Corporation of India. .. Management

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.—None.

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Budh Ram is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002 2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that work- man is not interested to pursue - with the presen_ reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Dated : 17-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under section 10(1) (d) and Sub-Ssection 2-A of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012121612000-IR(C-H) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :—

9f frAl, 29 WiNt, 2002

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Chhinder Pal Singh SJo Shri Gurudev Singh is legal and justifi- ed? If not to what relief, the work- man is entitled to?"

( ^{1947 71 14}) {{^{{FOOTNOTE *}}}}f artr ¹⁷ t qv-err 4, titkvrt (cid:9) Tilt (cid:9) g4ati,T (cid:9) K:¹3/4 f94t44if 311( 44, Trleta u f9in aitniftr.5 fwatq fi (cid:9) Ty tetWIT all-QW1rwTar-t-tut anal trc (cid:9) dace (de-if tiw-i-r (cid:9) ¹⁹²²%¹) (cid:9) S1411i9icr WC8) t, X¹⁷¹ WTI{{^{{FOOTNOTE *}}}} T) ²⁸-¹-²⁰⁰² T.) Safi t Tx' Tit I

q31. 220 1 2121012000—MiMt (d1.

2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

New Delhi,. the 29th January, 2002

Dated : 17-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presidipg Officer

cif far 4), 29 'Wilt, 2002 S.O. 501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1,947), the Central Government hereby pub- hshes the award (Ref. No. 19212K1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal] Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-22012121612000-1R(C-II)] (til4 4Tr.ri ¹⁸¹/² t) ⁴¹) gwifgcr wrat

ra-it 11t K it) 28-1-2002 t 817( FI 14T I N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

[k=1. RM". 22012/218/2000—Fit VIT (tit. II)] ANNEXURE

qtt tit tvra9, 1F4+ Ttlimi

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVT. ,INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No. T.D. No. 19212001 Sh. Chhinder Pal Singh. (cid:9) , Workman

S.O. 502—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central-Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 18112K1) of the 362 G1/2002-261830 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAOHA 27, 1923 [PART (cid:9) c WikOlt, 29 Ma, 2002 Central Government Industrial Tribunal' Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

firuEM f+ ;r4, 1947 ( 1947 Wi 14) it 81-0 17 (cid:9) MV.01 (cid:9) kle4 %CV 76, el. T1" (cid:9) sitrycia (cid:9) awl f9TitAti# afR a' 4. ark # f9f

(a7,4 az,. 184/2 ⁴'¹¹) qit ⁵¹⁴¹f⁸-⁶ WCth 4, t7k3'4 (cid:9) 29-01-2002 fit •RM (cid:9) %IT I

[% (cid:9) ²²⁴¹²/^{2191 2080}-Wit vi-v: (4l. II)] ANNEXURE

R1 .tint (cid:9) -t7-cT

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 IN THE COURT OF SHIM' S. M. GOEI- PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No.,„I.D. No. 18112001

, (cid:9) Workman.

Shri Pritpal Singh. (cid:9)

Versus Food Corporation of India. • Management.

PRESENT :

S.O. 503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub fishes the award (Ref. No. 18412K1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunall Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management, —N. K. Zakinni.

INo. L-22012!2191 2000-1R(C-1111 N. P. KFSAVAN, Desk Officer AWARD

ANNEXURE

Dated : 17-1-2002

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No. I.D. No, 18412001

Workman.

Sh. Buta Singh.

Versus

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on them under section 10(1)(d) of Sub-section 2-A of sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1.947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-2201212111812000-IR(C-II) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal :—

ananement.

Food Cornoration of India. . •

PRESENT_ :

For the Workman.---None.

For the Management.-7-None.

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminatirml the services of Shri Wit Pal Singh Ski Sh. Rajwant Singh is legal arid justifi- ed? If not to what relief, the work- man is entitled to?"

AWARD

Dated : '17-1-2002 2. None appeared on behalf of the parties despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. b: informed, Dat,2d : 1%1-2002

S, , M...:GOBT„ Presiding Officer

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers _conferred on them tinder section 10(11(d) and Sub-section 2-A of see- 1ion 10 of the, Industrial Dismites Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. 1,-22012121912000-1R(C-11) dated1831 2.7,1923 [APT 11:--tg 3 (ii)] (cid:9) %ITO TT (cid:9) .bwtl 18,200. 25-4-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri. Banta Singh Sky Shri Thakur Singh is legal and justified? If not to what relief, the workman is en- titled to?"

2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference- In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be, informed. Dated : 17-1-2002

S. M. GOAL, Presiding Officer.

fcMl, 29 qlcuRet, 2002

502.-311{1114* NEi7R Vittf$44, 1947 (1947 fir 14) et arti 17 (cid:9) V.-LK-Rut it, 1--4-1-4 ti-CCR T5, e (cid:9) % n lxaa % 444 fq4turgil 311--C TA* Wi*c-et eta vl,u f9igte. (cid:9) tia;41V 4 q'Ti't aittiifttw

(viat citn 1931:2*wit) (cid:9) 1tistf4rts (cid:9) wt Wit'i ttsc%ft 31t 28-14002- 41/ rn-qt (cid:9) KIT, ¹ in IA 22012122012000-441-tVit (K1)- .

imq-4,it,roxfir-b-ter New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 193!2K1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal; Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government, on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-22012122012000-1R(C-11)] N. P. ICESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE IN THE COURT OF SIMI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT., INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOLilt COURT, CHANDIGARH Ref. No. I.D. No. 1932001 SL Sucha Singh. (cid:9) • • Workman.

Versus

Rood Corporation of India. (cid:9) Manage PRESENT

For. the Workman.—Notte.

- For the Martagetttent.None.

AWAR:15

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) and Sub-section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1941 (hereinafter referred as the Act), 'fide that letter No. L-12012122012000-11k(C11) dated referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :--

"Whether the action of the nianagethefit of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Sucha Singh Sjo Shri Jhande Singh is legal and justified? If ant to what relief, the workman is en- titled to?"

2. None appeared on-behalf of the.workman despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested td pursue with the titesent re- ference. In view of the above, the present re- ference is returned, to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Dated : 17-1-2062.

S. M. GOEL Presiding Officer qe4t, 29 tiTeitt, 2002

VT 505 (cid:9) fertirc VillequilT, 1947 (1947 TT 14) *-1* AM 17 (cid:9) '90 (cid:9) tui (cid:9) t41-zr atmic crss.#1.9;rr (cid:9) 5Raaa (cid:9) as (cid:9) frizAwsi 71T 8)4chia*t% R-1-4Tir 4 Wet (cid:9) faced 4- Wu; tr(*tx M.:ern OW-cur, ,arring di-Erre (4q4 SKr 18812k 1) (cid:9) Vuttifq1a or,Kcit t, **V KftVIT 7-1 28,1-1002 V-1. (cid:9) utT [Kt Tq' -22012122112000-V1t.VR

Tit *wi,iwmfusrrtt New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002, Sffia 5051.--In pursuance. of• Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of1832 THE GAMI (cid:9) It OF INDIA : FEBRUARY IC 2002/MAGNA 27, 1923 [PART 11—Sac. 3(11)] 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 18812K1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal! Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman: which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-22012122112000-IR(C-IM N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No. I.D. No. 18812001 Sh. Sukhwinder Singh. (cid:9) • • Workman.

Versus

Food Corporation of India. .. Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.—None.

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under Section 10(1) (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012122112000-IR(C-11) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal.:--

``Whether the action of the management of FOE' in terminating the services of Shri Sukhwinder Singh Slo Shri Haitians Singh is legal and justifi- ed? If not to what relief the work- man is entitled to?" (cid:9) .

2. NOne 'appeared 'on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that work- man is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Cen- tral Govt. be informed.

Dated : 17-1-2002

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer fcMt, 29 W9-4-0, 2002

T.W.V (cid:9) sos -Mgr-trimfa4Ta Rierr974, 1947 (1947 WT 14) WI' 1.17Ki 17 * 911"Kut (cid:9) *;a4' t¹ tcp (cid:9) q-cff (cid:9) .⁹Zif. * stOrda. *tichg

w+f (cid:9) aka, (cid:9) %fire glcifirw fol.; iq WI4 etviz xfanfin. Wimor, waif (th4 thta 18912* 1) V-1 AWIrPTU qrtatt t, (cid:9) *4)*4 ITTWT7 T 281112002 t1 517T EVT TT I

Rit .crff -^{22012122212000} (cid:9) .⁵ifft. (er

vf.t. (cid:9) VW-a New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. (18912K1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal! Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

INo. L-22012122212000-1R(C-11)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER- CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No. I.D. No. 18912001 Sh. Balwant Singh. (cid:9) • • Workman.

Versus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) Management. PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the MPnagement.—None.

Nut (cid:9) (ii)]

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter . No. L-22012122212000-IR(C-II) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Indus- trial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Balwant Singh Slo Shri Kaka Singh is legal and justified? If not to what relief, the workman is entitled to?"

2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that work- man is not interested to pursue with the pre- sent reference. In view of the above, the pre- sent reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Dated : 174-2002

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer ;lit 1W*, 29 =idt; 2002 . 507 .—o-iltiirittri f';10114 NMI-PM 19 4 7 (1941 ¶1 14) WI' aru 17 (cid:9) wilt (cid:9) uI 4", *;71'w ait.a,tc (cid:9) wt. dCSTWticia *tia,a figtsrAti (cid:9) 7.-r* ilfgrft * (cid:9) ut-a-iu- f-Trate. ul-afifitg *rilti Rk-gra lei (cid:9) fiv wfwg-eur wui141 (cid:9) ti-Wrc (#14 ae (cid:9) u 186(2* 1) dtWfvW TT* t, 711 tirtiq Itconk of 28-01-2000 ft 776 pa zrT I •

[#.Wei ^7220121225/²⁰⁰⁰-MtAili.. (et. -II)] . 4141,4 ri, *I TT TrIt/grft New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 18612K1) of the 'I.-Central Government Industrial Tribunalj Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in. the. Industrial Dispute between the employers in' relation to the management

;AM err t3Titlt, (cid:9) 16, 2002f-tntt'zr, ze21 (cid:9) 183 of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

L-22012122512000-IR (C-II ) I N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR. COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No. I.D. No. 18612001 Sh. Jarmaize Singh. (cid:9) Workman.

Versus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management. —None.

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012122512000-1R(C-11) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Indus- trial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Jarmaize Singh Sjo Shri Sardarai Singh is legal and justifi- ed? If not to what relief, the work- man is entitled to?"

Govt, for vvant of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Dated 17-14002

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer

, 29 79w7:17 2002 . UT . 5,0 & (cid:9) Nark urafazra, .1947 ( 1947 WI 14) T Er1t1 17 t Ti'rtg cut (cid:9) titan WWI"( (cid:9) . .57it t SItTE4 (cid:9) frizerWti 9;r17 wir-wra*tq, wrresr 4 frahr. Med** fans *P.trq B R alartw allwor 940* 1-471I9tr, vitiTriP)" dart (444 4a:41 18312*1:) W),31761. 4o T-tc-T1 q't ;414 ti (.1, Et T1 28-01-2002 T-If Alta* PiT Ell -22012/ 2.26/ 2000-Mt TIfl . (cid:9) )) 71.9"T . t4icirt, itzic 4firgro New Delhi, the 29th January, 200/ S.O. 508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (1,4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 183121(1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal' Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-2201/2262000-1R(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL 'TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref No. I.D. No. 18512001 Shri Ranjit Sing,h. (cid:9) Workman.

Versus

Food Corporation of India. .. Management.

PRESENT

For the Workman.,---Nont. For the Management.---None.

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on them tinder section 10(1)(d) and Sub-section 2-A of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012122612000-1R(C-II) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Indus- trial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Ranjit Singh SI() Shri Sudhagar Singh is legal and justifi- ed? If not to what relief, the work- man is entitled to 7'

2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that work- man is not interested to pursue with the pre- sent reference. 'In View of the above, the present reference is, returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed. Dated : 17-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer rtt N''/, 29 (cid:9) at,Wq (cid:9) 2002

a+r . arr. 509 --TIWTft fittriw 9.ifEriffrof, 1947 ( 1947 TT 14) "?T URI 17 (cid:9) stir WCT17 75.4%. err (cid:9) % 44-4 firtal (cid:9) art tr,kitblif *. (cid:9) is (cid:9) ai a frAce. alafitT fkaaa 4 tr11.4 nrc ar f arftiv,tcr 1st rqrmnirr EtWiZ (444 45e71 1910.111) (cid:9) wcIvar 4tra7t t, *dta tt'toi-74- 'tif 28-1-zooa (cid:9) Witii (cid:9) zi r I gff -21012122'7/2000-44 (cid:9) : (a-II)] 7ff.t. *wan., t wlItvrti New Delhi, the 29th January,' 2002 S.O. 509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 191;21(1) cr. the Central Government Industrial TribunalI Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the ethployers in relation to the management Of FCI and their workman. which was received- by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

[No.. L-220121227!2000-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE IN THE COURT OF SIMI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No. I.D. No. 19112001 S1. Balwinder Singh. (cid:9) Workman. Versus Food corporation of India. .. Management.

PRESENT :

Tor: the Workman.—None- For the Managemait—Norte.

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The, Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on them under sec- tion 10(1)(d) and Sub section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispuies Act: 1947 (here- inafter refernd as the Act), vide their letter No. L-220121227!2000-IR(C-H) dated 25-4-2001 referred the following Industrial disPute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Balwirider Singh Slo: Sh. Hardev Singh is legal and justifi- ed? If not to what relief the work- man is entitled to?

21 None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present re- ference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be infornied.

Dated : 17-1-2002. —

S. M. GOEL, Presiding 01Ther ftlxvint, 29, 7, 4t, 2002

t`* T. VT. 51 o.—TrItfirw f4i,4 Trietitiff, 1947 ( 1847 TT 1 4) -er EfITT 17 * -arrtar 1, !*;z1:4 Tom. (cid:9) TrWata- * kt-a frizr1-441: trTz ;(-4: TeSrei ern, Felt, 4 fintRre iffy ftrg k tez; ticcnik Oat-Tr* eimur warq '1'W.R a 2s/1120.02 Vi a- 51711. (cid:9) T wri ziattz (cid:9) kt€IT 19012*1) fit ATlfalst *rdt t q't (cid:9)

.Ryt, - az41422912octo-yrt .9;rtr . Oft AI)] - (cid:9) . *T4r47,

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 510.—In pursuance of Section -17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 190!2K1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal! Labour• Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-012002.

[No. L-22012122912000-1R(C-I1)] N. _P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN. THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL' TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR - COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref. No. I.D. No. 19012001 Sh. Kuljit Singh. (cid:9) Workman.,

Versus

Food Corporation of India. .. Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.--None.

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt.- Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the; under section 10(1)'(d) and — Sub-Section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refetred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012122912000.-IR(C-II) . dated referred the following Industrial dispute ' to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action, of the -management of FCI in terminating the,: services of Shri Kuliit Singh Slot Shri-Balwant Singh is legal and justified? If not to what relief, the workman is entitled to?"1836 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA.: FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 [PART (cid:9) 3(1)1 2.. None -appeared' on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears-that.workma.n is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In View of the above, the present reference is' returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be in- formed.

Dated : 17-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer r4,,a, 29 zi7EitT, 2002

. off. ⁵¹¹ .--aTICIT fera Trlitlitzw, 1947 ( 1947 Wi 14) *IC EUTT 17 * (cid:9) ⁰ (cid:9) tint 75. TIT . Thf . y nttc-11 k ticks in' fr$114 5a2R Tit tn⁴int Tire" 191-4ba rt fa-arw t**ir' Wt"WR %Maim WI tct,(in wiTtiw ttwiz (4-4-4 (cid:9) I 197/2%1) •TI'i Aeai1We q. (cid:9) tell (cid:9) q'r tttn7 W'r 28/1/2002 (cid:9) m (cid:9) ?VT %TT I [tt.RW.-22012/25312000-Rit.Qfl. (41 An] . 4'1 . 4).1 Giri, iTEU 5:trawl tr New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 511.—In pursuance Of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 19712K1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal; Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-22012125312000-1R(C-11)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

fN THE COURT OF SIMI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Ref No. I.D. No. 19712001

Sh. Gurdeep Singh. (cid:9) • • Workman.

Versus

Food Corporation of India. .. Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Managettent.—None,

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under section 10(1)(d) and Sub-section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012125312000-IR(C-II) dated 17-4-2001 referred the following Indus- trial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Gurdeep Singh Slo Sh. Dachau Singh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled?"

2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present re- ference. In view of the above, the present re- ference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Dated : 17-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer 9t 1.(•ci , 29 Arict U, 2002

¶r. WI. 512 .--3141§TYkW (cid:9) 9;TrETF977, 1947 ( 1947 9T 14) (cid:9) EIRT 17 * 3TVRIrT TT, *414' ti tin (cid:9) wire. * Waft * Ng (cid:9) k, fl ..1 WriK w-4r TW-cr-t1 44, nivvr k IWREE9Aiwifirw fcigrq 4' Wig tzawR 5aUrifliv wfwntcr watTg (cid:9) data ({{^{{FOOTNOTE *4}}}} tittfT ¹⁹ 6/ 2t 1 ) wt5Nrifira TTer t, (cid:9) Wiz; TRWR (cid:9) 28/ 1/2002 *"T Sr1cr TAT (cid:9) I

N.Siff.-^{22012125512000}-⁷¹t.qR. (ik-H)] . Eft . (cid:9) wfuct,10.

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 196121(1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal; Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Goverment on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-22012125512000-1R(C-11)] N: P. ICF_SAVA:N; Desk. Officerfillet 9:UMW: pis- 16, 200 TM .27,1 923 .1..31m II—$s ii 1837 ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Ref. No. I.D. No. 19612001 Sh. Jager Singh. (cid:9) Workman. Versus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None. For the Management. —None.

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under section 10(1)(d) and Sub-Section 2-A of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter- referred as the Act), vide their letter- No. L-220121255!2000-1R(C-II) dated 17-4-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of' .FCI in terminating the services of Shri- Jager Singh Slo Sh. Jagtar Singh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled?"

2. None appeared on behalf of the work- man despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present re- ference. In View of the above, the oresent re- ference is returned to the Central Golf-. for want of prosecution Central Govt. be informed.

Dated : /7-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer 9.e ,.. 29 afflict+, 2002

;ET.2€f. 5 1 3.-4119/419W 19919 V(191949, 1947 (1947 TT 14) (cid:9) ETRY 17 k (cid:9) k tch (cid:9) I t WE (cid:9) RFST44 *144 fritni eft 7-4-4t (cid:9) TreEr kfriREz 41cilftrvtaat4 ;04.14 In-1n wlenfirir. grfErTzut, (cid:9)

(4-4 ttwr 198(AI)w). sr v rfffi v.tcf t 3".9113. t. 28(1(2002 (cid:9) 5ficr prt tn. I

f# qff . -2 2 0-1212 5 712 0 0 0-711 ?An (9`t . (cid:9) )11

1F-Tilt. W999, frff 9;rimitt 121303-2?

- (cid:9) ew Delhi, the .29th January, 2002 S.O. 513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby nublishes the award (Ref No. 198/2K1) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 28-012002.

(No. L-22012/257/2000-T1t(C-11)1 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

1N ME COURT OF SI-WI - S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Ref No. I.D. No.198/2001

Sh. Raj Kumar. (cid:9)

.... Workman

Versus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) . Management PRESENT:

For the workman None

For the management : None.

AWARD

Dated 171-2002

rho Central' GovernMent Ministiv of Labour- in exercise of powers conferred on the under Section 10(1) (d) and Sub- Section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 thereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-22012/257/2000-IR(C-11) dated 17-4-2001 referred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management, PCT in termina- ting the services of Shri Rai Kumar Ste Sh. Slirian Ram is- legal and -justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2 None appeared on behalf of the workman despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference In view of the above, the present reference is returned fo the Central Government for want of prosecution. Central Government be informed.

Dated : 17-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer tfra, 29 9-49e, 2002

fiT - UT , 1 4.--eftrIW VOW Trfirftqq, 1947 ( 1947 TT 14) t Rfl 17 t 3:17rk-or (cid:9) to qc4,1t T6.*. ;if{ * readn• t 4114 1911471 9AT ax* vrt-vet* 411, miss' fqrqrs n'tffir4f-oan• *414 atv (cid:9) It fterfITV Rratc, qraq (cid:9) tkre (4*4 thit 1 8212%1) (cid:9) 5fTlea (cid:9) t, *39'14 tt QM/. t 2 SI 0 1102 (cid:9) 9"Tctf (cid:9) grr 22012j258!2000-pat. mt. (ter AI )1 4nraff, (cid:9) Trfirqr4 New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002

S.O. 514.--In purstance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 194T1, the Central Governitent hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1 82/2Kt) of thd Central Govermnent Industtial Tribunal/Labour Court Chaintigarir as shown in the Annextite in the Industrial Dispute betWeerithe employers, in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2002.

[No. L-22012/258/2000-1R(C-11)1 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SIMI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Ref. No. I.D. No. 182/2001

Sh. Karamjit Singh. (cid:9) Workman

Venus

Food Corporation of India. (cid:9) .... Workman PRESENT :

For the workman : None.

For the Management : None.

AWARD

Dated : 17-1-2002

The Central Government' Ministry of Labour in exercise of :towers conferred on the under Section 10(1)(d) and Sub- Section 2-A of Section' 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 thereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-21012/258/2000-1R(C-II) dated 25-4-2001 referred the fallowing Industrial dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in termi- nating the services of Shri Karamiit Singh S/o Shri Siriya Singh is legal and justified ? If not to what relief, the workman is entitled to 7'

2. None appeared on behalf of the workman despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution Central Government be informed.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer Dated : 17-1-2002.

91 fiscal, 31 W9-17-j 2002 TT . 927. 5 1 5 :•:-.-011c.afthii ail; 4tfitrH99, 1947 _(194.7. P' -14) .w1-• kici, 17 vil mtticyt #,*70181' st fftd (cid:9)

. (cid:9) 7:47t '.t (cid:9) 19 \tit alt. i la -witent471 (cid:9) tra, *Inco-bi (cid:9) . v_t ._P191< (cid:9) %-z-thy (cid:9) attEr:ifTrw filch tel 1 4k9:47 . 91-41:e. (twig'. lama .286/2 0 01.) (cid:9) 11,911510. (cid:9) t ;Ai *&1PT (cid:9) ten: f,.- Wit 3,010 11 2.002 it 3781. err WI 1 [f.gq•.-22•01 2/468/9s-m4-.mi,... (*AT)] . R-4 .trr, vrafff,

. - New Delhi,.the 31st January, 2002 S.O. 515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Att,:1947 (14 oaf 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28612001) of the " 'Central Government Industrial TribunallLabour Court ' ithutraneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial -Disisite Between" the employers in relation to the manage- - nient of MCL and their *orktinan: which was received by the--CentralGovernment on 30-1-2002.

(No. L-220121468198-1R(C-11)1 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer 27,. 1923 (cid:9) [PART II---SEc 300]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR PRESENT :

Shri S.K. Dhal, OSJS, (Sr. Branch), Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour. Court, Bhubaneswar.

'D. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE- CASE NO. 28612001 Date of conclusion of hearing-4th January, 2002 Date of Passing Award-22nd January, 2002

BETWEEN

The Management of The Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area of M.C.L., P.O. Den, Distt. Angul, Orissa. (cid:9) 1st party- Management.

AND

Their Workman, represented through' The General Secretary, Orissa Coal- Fields Labour Union, At/PO. Talcher, Distt. Angul, Orissa. (cid:9) 2nd Party-Union.

APPEARANCES:

Shri G.B. Mohapatra, Personnel Manager. .. For the 1st Party-Management.

Shri Nitya Nahak. (cid:9) For Himself, 2nd Party- Workman.

AWARD

Tlie Government of. India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1942) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order. No. L-2201214681 98118(CM-II), dated 26128-7-1999 :—

"Whether the action of, the Management of MIs. MCL by refusing to determine the age of Shri Nitya Nahak on the basis of Medical Certificate is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman en- titled?'

- 2: The case of the 2nd Party-Workman runs thus :—

In the year 1973 he went to the District of Ranchi. There, he approached the- authorities of Central Coal Field - Limited (K. D. Colliery) for a job and being directed he - submitted application written by another person in English and in the same application the native place and his age were mentioned. In that application his age Was mentioned as 18 years in order to get the job. According to the 2nd Party- Workman as per his family horoscope his date of birth is 11-8-1956. After being selected he was appointed as Mazdoor in K.D. Colliery with effect from 5-4-1973 and continued to work there, According, to the 2nd Party-Work- man he had sound health to perform physical duty, the authority had selected him and he was never asked or ad- vised to produce any 'certificate or proof in support of his •age. _ The authority only took an average view of the.2nd Party-Workman of his age withoitt basing on any medical examination: Thereafter he was .transferred to Telcher Coal Field and subsequently to Deulbera Colliery. He has fur- ther'pleaded: that he -"being illiterate was putting-his thumb impression while working in the State of Bihar and sqbse- qtwtnly being'thansfetied fa the State of DrissaYafter some . years he only learnt to aign.his pine in English language. He- is unable to read and write English and Onya. Due to his ignorance,. he .was unable -to know about his.;setvice parti- culars. The 1st Party-Management taking advantage of his ignornce •indicated. .his dato_of, birth as 677-1940 instead of 11-8-1956. When he came' to knoW that, his date of birth was...among he made .repiesentation to the 1st Party- Management but his representation was not considered. He also submitted medical certificate in support of "his' (cid:9) but that was not accepted. Taking his date of birth as 6-7-1940 he ¶RI fir (cid:9) . (cid:9) 16, 20 021Ing 27,1923 • 1839 Lain (cid:9) (ii)] _

. (cid:9) _

D. That, he himself was examined by the Asstt. Profes- sor FM & T and submitted his report to the 1st Party-Management for correction of, his date of has been made retired which is illegal. So he raised a disputt and after failure of the rectoncilianoia the • present reference has been made. According to the 2nd Party-Workman he should nave been retired in the year 2016 but he has been asked to retire in the year 2000. So he has prayed to pass award in his favour determining his date of birth as 11-8-1956 and wow him to continue in service up to 2016.

E. That, the Management has refused 'to determine the age of, the 2nd Party at a belated stage and has not accepted the horoscope and the medical certificate produced by the 2nd Party-Workman,

Under this- back ground now it would be considered whether the refusal of the 1st Party-Management, for determination of age. of the 2nd Party-Workman is justified or not?

**

3. The 1st Party-Management has filed Written Statement. Their case is that while entering into service the 2nd Party- Workman declared his date of Mail as 6-7-1940 in the year 1973 i.e. on 5-4-1973. All the service records have been maintained wherein his date of birth has been recorded as 64-1940: It is pleaded that when. the 2nd Party-workman was appointed as Mazdoor in K.D. Colliery his date of birth was recorded in the service sheet as 6-7-1940 and Form-B Register was maintained accordingly. The 2nd Party-Work- man had authenticated all his .entries including of his service register by putting his signature as well as thumb impression. The date of birth declared by him at the time of initial- appointment has been recorded in all records and the same, has been accepted by him. It has been further pleaded that, at the time of appointment at K.D. Colliery on 5-4-1973 his date of birth was recorded as 6-7-1940. At the time of `appointment the was asked to submit any certificate authen- ticating his date of birth. But he 'did not produce any certill- care. He was given chance to specify any objection in the -specified column with regard to the entries m his service register. He acknowledged the service excerpts and did not raise any- objection regarding his age.. There was a decision taken by the Coal India Limited to issue copies of the excerpts with -service records in duplicate to the individual employees 'wherein the employees were urged to retain one copy with them and return the other copy with remarks) objection in regard to the entries made therein within 15 days from the date of receipt of the service excerpts. Accord- ingly, the 2nd Party-Worman had supplied_ with the service papers containing the date of appointment, his date of birth and other detail on 4-9-1987 -by the Management of Deulbera Colliery. The 2nd Party-Workman returned back the copy of the service papers duly signed by him in English as token of his approval of the correctness of the service particulars and the entries • made therein including* the date of birth. Thereafter he raised the dispute after 25 years of service, which according to the 1st Party-Management, is not main- tainable: 'The medical certificate submitted by•the 2nd Party- Workman was not accepted because the medical examination done by the Assistant Professor, Department of FM & T is not the -appropriate • department- for • the test -. So, they have prayed for answering the reference in favour of the 1st Party- 'Management ' ' '

. (cid:9) . (cid:9) .

— 4:On the 'abov6 pleadings of the parties the following issues pave been settled. , (cid:9)

. (cid:9) 1. Whether the action of the Management of MIs. MCL by refusing to determine the age of Shri Nitya Nahak on the basis of Medical Certificate is justi- fied?

2. If not lo what relief the Workman. is entitled?

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

5. Reference has been made to this Tribunal to answer whether tee action of the Management of M Is. MCL by refusing to determine the age of the 2nd Party, Shri Nitya Nahak, on the basis of Medical Certificate is justified ? The following fact are admitted by both the parties. I am inclin- ed to State those facts, as those are necessary for discussion to answer the reference.

A. The 2nd Party-Workman did not produce any documents in support of his age when he submitted application and entered into the service under the 1st Party-Management.

B. That, he remained silent about his age though he had received the service papers indicating his date of birth as 6-7-1940. (cid:9) -

6. It is submitted on behalf of the 1st Party-Management that the date of birth of -a Workman once entered in the service book of the establishment shall be the sole evidence of his age in relation to all matters pertaining -to his services including fixation of the date of his retirement from his service of the establishment. All formalities regarding date of birth shall be finalized within three months of the appointment of a -Workman. According to the 1st Party-Management in the present case when the 2nd• Party-Workman has himself given his date of birth at the time of entering into service and that has been entered in the service record it cannot be changed when the 2nd Party-Workman has 'raised objection after 22 years. It has been further argued that the Tribunal should not entertain for fixation of date of birth or correction of date of birth' of a person who remains silent for year together and raised objection at a belated stage. On the other hand, it. is submitted on behalf- of the and Party-Workman that- he being an illiterate fellow, he did not know the formalities and as he has not been admitted in any school there is no certificate in his possession in proof -of his date of birth. Ac-' cording to him the horoscope and the voter list would indicate that, his date of birth is 11-8-56 but not 6'7-1940. No doubt, Form-B Register, which has been exhibited in this case as Ext-A reveals that, the date of birth of the 2nd Party-Work- man is 6-711940. The 2nd Party-Workman has submitted that his date of birth is 11-8-1956_ The case of the 2nd Party, Workman is that he entered into the service under K.D: Colliery, on 5-4-1973. This fact has not been disputed by the 1st Party-Management. If the date- of birth claimed by the: 2ndParty-Workman is accepted as 11-8-1956 then he was 16 years, 7 months and 24 days when he entered into service. If the date of birth as recorded by. the 1st Party-Management is accepted as true then the age of the 2nd Patty-Workman would be 32 years, 8 months and 29 days. It is submitted on behaif of the 1st Party-lejasmagement that a person below the age of 18 years cannot be appointed, as Mazdoor as in the case of the 2nd Party-Workman. So in that case his date of birth never be 11-8-1956. According to the Industrial Emp- loyment (Standing Order) Central Rule 1946 and -as per the Mines Act, 1952 the age of the 2nd Party-Workman can be recorded on production of matriculation and school leaving certificate if available. In absence of such certified copy of the certificate of date of birth as recorded in the Register = of Municipality. Local Authority or Panchayat or Register of Birth and in absence of. one, the Workman is required to supply the certificate front the Medical Officer not the beloW the rank of Assistant Surgeon indicating the probable age of the Workman and 'if - this is not possible an affidavit sworn either by the Workman or his parents or by near relative who is possible to know about the workman's actual or approximate date of birth before the 1st Class Magistrate or Oath Commissioner as evidence in support of his date of birth given by him. In the present case admittedly the workman has not prdduced any documents at the time he joins in his service. Ext.-C, report of the medical examination under Rule 29(b) which was produced on behalf of the 1st Party-Management to support their stand that, in the year 1996 he was examined and his dale of birth was accepted as 6-7-1940 and that has been accepted by, the 2nd-Party-Workman by putting signature ihereonS In this regard it is submitted on behalf of the 2nd Party-Workman that he being an illiterate fellow has signed without knowing the contents. Ext.-D, the service excel its in which the date of birth of the 2nd Party-Workman has been recorded as 6-7-1940. That has also has-been contested by' the 2nd Party-WM-kin= on some plea taken by him. This Was circulated to the -2nd • Party-Workman in the year 1987. But 'the

•

C. That, after 27 years he raised objection that his date of birth was 11-8-1956 as per his family horoscope.

as 6-7-1940 when he entered into service in the year 1973. Admittedly no document was submitted by the 2nd Party- Workman in support of his age. So when the 2nd Party- Workman represented the 1st Party-Management, the 1st Party-Management should have conducted a medical board to determine the exact date of the 2nd Party-Workman with- out accepting the documents filed by the 2nd Party-Workman. But that has not been done. So, in my opinion, injustice has been caused to the Workman, like the 2nd Party, by refusing his prayer for determination of his age before his retirement. In the other words in my opinion this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the action of the 1st Party-Management by refusing to determine the age of the 2nd Party-Workman, Shri. Nitya. Nahak is not justified.

ISSUE NO. II

8. As per my above findings in respect of Issue No. 1, the 1st Party-Management is directed to conduct a medical board, in which One of the member should be an outsideir not below the rank of C.D.M.O. of a District to determine the age of the 2nd Party-Workman. If the age, recorded by the 1st Party-Managetnent; is actepted by the Medical board as true then the 2nd Party-Workman would not be entitled to get any relief. Rut if the medical board finds that, the date of birth claimed by the 2nd Party is correct then the 2nd Party-Workman is entitled for reinstatement from the date of his retirement till be attains the age of superannuation with full back wages.

9. Reference is answered accordingly.

2nd Party-Workman remained silent and for the first time in the year 1.99) he represented tne 1st Party-Management to mange ins @ate of blab on the ground that, his date of birth was wrongly recorded at the tune of entering into service and he was not asked to produce any ceitnicate in support ot his age. according to the 2nd Yarty-Workman wnen he made such representation, the 1st Party-management showd- have examined him by a medical board to determine his exact date of birth without reiechng the, same on me ground that be bas mack representation at the belated stage. While making representation he has 'submitted a medical ceruncate being examined himself. The representation was tamed down by the 1st Party-Management stating that his case was WI lit to be retested to the arbarationmniudication. Placing reliance in the ease of Union of India—Versus-- Ram sua Sharma, reported in LLI-Vol. II-1996 it has been suomitted on behalf ox the 1st Party-Management that, this iribahat can not entertain the claim of the 2nd Party-Wors- man for correction of date of birth made after 22 years and can, not direct to consider for correction of the date of birth In the reported case, the Workman has joined in the service en 16-12-1962 and. after 25 years he woke up and he claimed that, his correct date of birth is. 2-1-1939, not 16-12-1934. His prayer was accepted by the Tribunal„ but that was set aside by the flonhic Apex Court Melting the observation that, the claim for correction of the date of birth made after 25 years is not sustainable and the Tribunal can not entertain such belated claim and direct the Government to consider for the correction, of date of birth. According to the 1st Party-Management the 2nd Party-Workman jointed in the service in the year 1973. In the year 1987 the copy of the service sheet was. given to him wherein, his date of birth was shown as 6-7-1940, He accepted the same and only in the Year 1995 i.e. after 22 years he made a representation with a prayer to correct his date of birth on the ground that the date of bath recorded in the service record is not correct. Sp accenting to the 1st Party-I11anagement this Tribunal can not pass any order for correction of date of birth made at a belated stage.

S. IC DHAL, Presiding Officer

T6t, vet , 18: ffiFT(1.7'; 2002

ffiri . . 5- 1 6 :,--,4tWfrll-c fniq Tinlfrigili, 1947 ( 1947 WI 14) ef Vitt 17 t. WvItt cur % *iz;

[N. gff-. ^{2 0 0 1 2}/ ^{1 4} 494-71. Wt. (tr was

S.Q. 51'6—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), (cid:9) the

(Ref. No. 106;1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, Dhanbad as shown in the

[No. 1,-20012j142194-1R(C-1)1 S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

Itm yxNretvi (cid:9) a, aonalffig /¹;¹⁹²³ (cid:9) 1311..

NIT( ii—tts. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT

DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 106 of 1996

PARTIES :

Under such circumstances, a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the reference is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute' Award presuming non-existense of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer. qt. fam-ft, 18 78,19t, 2002

8L 11.517 (cid:9) fq414 liftliktiTT, 1947 Employers in relation to the management of Mk. Mansar Carriers, Ex-Servicemen Co. (P) Ltd. Contractor, Camp : Piparwar P.O. Bachra, Distt. kiazaribagh and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workmen.—None.

On behalf of the Employers.—None.

STATE : Jharkhand. (cid:9) INDUSTRY : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd January, 2002

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the, following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. 1 -20012 (142)194-IR(Coal-1), dated, the 19th September, 1996.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mansar Carriers, Ex-Service men Co. (P) Ltd., Contractor Camp : Piparwar at Piparwar, P.O. Bachra, Distt. Hazaribagh is justified in terminating the services of their workmen SiShri Mahcsh Singh, Driver, K. S. John Driver, Arun Singh, Driver, B. K. Dubey, Driver, Jung Bahadur Ram Pay Loader Operator, Brij Mohan Pandey, Driver, Prabhu Singh, Khalasi, Birendra Singh Khalasi and Sudarsan. Kr. Mistry, wel- der. w.e.f. (cid:9) 22-8-93, (cid:9) 12-8-93, 14-7-93, 31-8-93, 28-2-93, 30-9-93, 31-7-93, 12-8-93 and 31-8-93 respectively? If not, to what relief are these workmen entitl- ed ?"

*rZzi tikViT Ti 16-1- 002 (cid:9) 917f gm q-T I [A. (cid:9) 20012/ 219/ 91-4ift.Tift (#1- 1 )]

ixTii. fir. teary, (cid:9) qfriei New Delhi, the 18th January, 2002 517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71192) of the Central Government Industrial Tribu- nal No. I, Dhanbad as shoWn in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-1-2002.

[No. L-20012/217/91-11t(C-1)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.' I, DITANBAD In the matter of a reference under Section 10(1) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Reference No. 71 of 1992

Dated,. the 7th January, 2002

AWARD

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Bhagaband Colliery of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri S. H. Kazmi, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

For the Employers : Shri H. Nath, Advocate. For the Workmen : Shri S. Bose, Treasurer, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh.

S ATE : Jharkhand. (cid:9) INDUSTRY : Coal1842 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 [PART (cid:9) 3(n)] AWARD

By Order No. L-20012(217)/91-I.R. (Coal-I) dated 3-8-1992 the Central Government in the Minis- try of Labour has, in exercise of the powers confer- red by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether, the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Maz- door Sangn for regularisation of S/Shri Tarini Manato and 20 other following work- ers on the rob of Bhagaband Colliery of M/s. BCCL is justified 1 11 so, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

1. Tarni Mahato.

2. Subhash Pandey.

3. Santa Prasad.

4. Mehar Chand Gope.

5. Lalan Pandey.

6. Sribhagawan.

7. Indradeo Singh.

8. Basdeo Rawani.

9. Tuleswar IVIistry.

it has been said, that their existed the ultimate rela- tionship or master and servant between me manage- ment and the concerned workmen. Further, the case is Mat the job done by the Lynam in a colliery are of permanent and perennial nature and its duration is neuter snort nor seasonal or Intermittent. Ad tne con- cerned workmen however, as per the case, having woricea for more Man 240/190 days in a calendar year ace entitled to be legitimised m their respective jobs. It has been said that mere rs sumcient scope to employ ordsnierabie number of mime time worshien in as Innen as the management has stm being employ- ing nem labourers to cm me jobs that were being done by tne concerned workmen. It is said mat m accord- ance with the terms laid down in N.C.W.A. III and IV the management cannot employ contract labour in the jobs or iyndals which is or a permanent anti peren- nial nature and;that too in dire disregard and utter violation of the provisions of Contract Labour tRegth lation and Aboiltilmi Act. It has also been said that the concerned workmen represented and approached the management for several times for their regularisa- tion but to no effect and ultimately finding no other alternative theffinaustrial dispute before the A.L.C. (C), thianbad, was raised by them through the spon- soring union. Before the A.L.C. (C) conciliation pro- ceeding ended in failure and finally the dispute was . referred to the Tribunal by the appropriate Govern-

ment for adjudication.

10. Arjun Thakur,

11. Gulu Gope.

12. Hari Kusum.

13. Rajendra Tiwari.

14. Kamta. Prasad.

15. Upendra.

16. Jagendar.

17. Harilal.

18. Subedar.

19. Uma Shenker.

20. Srikant.

21. Guljar Singh.

3. The management, on the other hand, has come out with the case that the concerned workmen were never employed as Tyndals or in any other capacity by the management of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. and as such there is no relationship of employer 'and employee be- tween the management and the concerned workmen._ Further, it has been said that Bhagabandh Colliery has sufficient number of tyndels and therefore the question of employing 'other tyndeis does not arise at all and since the concerned workmen never worked under the management there is no question of their completing 240/190 days attendance. It has also been said that \ !even if assuming though not admitting that due to sudden emergent work contractors were appointed to save the plant and machineries such temporary nature of jobs given by the contractor to the workers emp- loyed by him in the mine does not make contractor workers to be -regularised/departmentalised and fur- ther whenever- contractors are appointed to perform way job the said contractors employ their own men for completing the jobs given in the work order and in such cases there is no employer-employee relation- ship between the management of BCCL and the con- tractor workers and the jobs of the concerned work- men are automatically finished by the completion of the work by the contractors and as such they cannot claim continuous employment. It has also been said that in BCCL being a Government of India Under- taking their is appointment procedure prescribed for every appointment and also while making appointment the management is required to follow the guidelines regarding reservation of post of SCIST candidates Further, if the job is not there the question of taking, on the- roll of contractor's workmen cannot arise. Further the case is that the concerned workmen were never employed through a contractor for doing any permanent nature of. job and as such, the question 2. Precisely, the case of the sponsoring union is that all the 21 concerned workmen are the workmen under the management regularly working since 1987 in their Bhagabandh Colliery as Tyndals against per- manent post and they have worked all along under the direct instructions, supervision and control of the management. Further, it has been said that during the course of their employment, the concerned workmen were regularly engaged to work as Tyndals with res- pect to heavy store materials and colliery equipments of various descriptions including pipes, pumps, coal tubs, transformers etc. It has also been said that al- though the concerned workmen were shown to be working under a contractor but in fact the so-called contractors were set up persons of the management and the concerned workmen were not only directly allotted the work but the management also inspected the places of work, kept attendance, supervised and assessed the work done by them and the hours of work in respect of the concerned workmen were regu- lated just in the same manner as those of the regular workers and they enjoyed the same facilities. Thus,. 1843 WT (cid:9) :1¹¹i.ciilt 16, 20021/111' 27,1923 of supervision by the management does not arise and the concerned workmen in view of such position can- not be said to be entitied for regularisation or tor any relief whatsoever.

4. From the stands taken by the respective sides it becomes clear that the moot question involved is whe- ther the concerned workmen ever worked as Tyndels in Bhagabandh colliery of the management and whe- ther in that capacity they worked continuously or for a:period of more than 240/190 days in one calendar year.

5. Both sides have adduced oral as well documen- tary evidence which would be taken note of while making discussions hereinafter.

WW-2 is none other than one of the concerned workmen, named Santa Prasad. Apart from making few statements as regards their working and discharg- ing the duties of Tyndels in the colliery, he has accept- ed that Sujit Modak was a contractor employed by the company whom he knew and it was he who had supplied them to the company and thereafter they were employed to work by the company. He has also said that he and other concerned workmen were paid their wages through colliery office and their work was supervised by the officials of the management. In his cross-examination he has accepted that he worked under Sujit Modak who used to take-work from them and upon the question being asked as regards the pay- ment of wages he has replied that sometimes he and others were paid by the company's office and some- times by Sujit Modak. These statements made by this witness are.quite inconsistant with the statement made in the written statement as noticed above. In (cid:9) the written (cid:9) statement it stands not stated anywhere that the concerned workmen were supplied, engaged (cid:9) or worked through a contractor named Sujit Modak and were paid wages also by him sometimes or it was he who used to take work from them. The clear case made out therein was that they all were directly engaged by the management, were paid wages directly and also they all worked under the direct supervision of the management. It is further relevant to be noticed here the documents which have been marked as Ext. W-2 series which are said to be the work slips produced from the side of the workmen. In all of them at the top the name of the said contractor, Sujit Modak is mentioned and further in some of those slips only the names of 5 or 6 concerned workmen, in some 14 to 15 and in some of those slips the names of 9 or 10 of the concerned workmen are mentioned and those slips are for a particular day and in most of them the names of the concerned workmen are not repeatedly mentioned for several days work. It cannot be lost sight of that herein the claim of the concerned work- men is that they all worked continuously for more than 240 or 190 days in a cah-ndar year and as such they should be regularised on the posts of tyndels and par- ticularly Ext. W-2 series are the documents over which the reliance has been placed for the said pur- pose. But as it is obvious from the above and upon the scrutiny of those documents even if they are taken to be authentic despite being produced from the side of the concerned workmen, the continued engagement of the concerned workmen for a period more than 240/190 days does not appear, rather they suggest their irregular or intermittent engagement through a contractor for the work assigned in the concerned col- liery. Considering the nature of the aforesaid document (Ext. W-2 series) it appears that a specific question was being asked from the said witness (WW-2) to the effect that the slips filed by the union show that on a particular day name of only particular number of the concerned workmen out of 21 are mentioned, -so does it not mean that on no-particular day all the 21 concerned workmen were given work In reply to -this question the said witness answered that if on a day the company required work from, say, 15 work- men it gave slips in the name of those 15, which 15 did the work. Similarly the next time a particular num- ber of workmen were given -slips who used to work. He has further replied that those not mentioned in the 6. Out of two witnesses examined on behalf of the workmen WW-1 is one Gopal Prasad Gupta who claims himself to be an employee of the concerned establishment working as Attendance Clerk-cum-Time Keeper. As regards the concerned workmen he has said that he had marked their attendance since the year 1987 and they were working as Tyndels. In course of his evidence he has proved and identified certain documents also produced from the side of the workmen. He has proved one overtime slip which contains the name of six concerned workmen only, marked Ext. W-1. Further he has proved and identified the signature . of few officials of the management upon few work engagement slips which have been marked as Exts. W-2 to W-2/14. He has also proved 'one letter sent by Foreman Incharge to the Supdt. Engineer, Btu ga- band Colliery in regard to sending 24 length pipe as ,per order and the same is said to have contained the L.T,C. of one of the concerned workmen also. It is thus obvious that this witness is an important witness from the side of the workmen in the sense that not only he has come forward to support the claim of the concerned workmen, rather he has proved and identi- fied all those documents produced on behalf of the concerned workmen. Having gone through his entire statement it appears that at one place he has said that he had marked the attendance of the concerned workmen since 1987 and thereafter at another icf ace he has: said that in that register the attenance of only permanent employees was marked. Nowhere in his evidence he has said, and understandably so, as it is not even the case of the concerned workmen that they were the permanent employees of the management. In course of his cross-examination also he has said that only panianent employees or the employees per- mitted by senior officials are allowed to go underground and has also said that the concerned workmen have not got no any appointment letter from .M/s. BCCL. He has expressed his ignorance as regards the presence of any contractor, named Sujit Modak' working in the concerned colliery. However, he has stated that in all - the documents (Ext. W-2 series) the name of Sujit Modak has been written at the Head, followed by the names of the- workers. He has denied the concerned workmen being the employees of the contractor, Sujit Modak. According to him, he is Asstt. Secretary-of the -sponsoring union in -the 'colliery and 'also- the Area Vice President' of'-the -sponsoring union. At another place he has said that for deposing before the Tribunal he has not obtained permission from the management.

18-,ttk THE GAZETTE OF EhTWA.; ,FRB4GA4 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART II-7—SEC- 30.01 slip did not work. But the slips were issued in the name of only these concerned 21 workmen. He has said that it is not a fact. that as per the filed slips, those were issued for only a particular day and that those were operable for not more than one day. Thus, from these statements it is appaient that the said wit- ness being one of the concerned workmen has accept- ed the position which emerges out of those slips and though he has denied the fact but it is apparent from those slips that those were issued for only a particular shift on a particular day and those were meant for not more than one day.

Engineer, Bhagaband as regards handing over of total 24 length pipe as, per the order and same is said to have contained the L.T.I. of Tarini Mahato, one of the concerned workmen and the said letter is dated 19-2-90. Even if it is taken for the time being that despite being produced from the side of the workmen this can be taken to be genuine, but .I am afraid from these two documents it cannot be conclusively gather- ed that the concerned workmen discharged the work of tyndels although their engagement in the concerned colliery. At the highest in view of Ext. W-1 it can be said that on a particular day only six of the con- cerned workmen were asked to carry out the job of tyndal. In any view of the matter as it has already been found above that it stands not established that the concerned workmen worked for a period of more than 240/190 days in a calendar year, even if it is held that the concerned workmen performed the work of tyndels that is not going to make any difference and no relief as such can be extended to the concerned workmen.

8. So far as the materials produced from the side of the management are concerned besides few con- tractor's bills which have been marked as Exts. M-2 to M-2/3, one document showing yearwise strength of tyndels by Bhagaband area from the years 1987 to 1991 has been produced which is marked Ext. M-1. This document particularly has been filed to show that the strength of tyndels has been sufficient to the re- quirement of the management and thus there is no need of employment of any more regular tyndel or casual or temporay engagement of tyndels. The two witnesses have also been examined who are the Engi- neer and Asstt. Manager respectively worldng in the concerned colliery of the management. They both have supported the case of the management and have denied continuous or regular working of the concerned workmen in the concerned colliery as tyndels. They do not seem to have stated anything in course of their cross-examination which could in any way discredit their earlier statements made.

Therefore, considering the oral testimonies of the witnesses as well as aforesaid documents produced it is not possible to come to the conclusion that, in fact, the concerned workmen worked continuously right from the year 1987 or for a period more than 240 or 190 days in one calendar year and further there is nothing bn the basis of which it can be inferred that these workmen worked under the direct control and supervision of the management. However, though in the written statement of the sponsoring union the fact as regards the presence of any contractor or the en- gagement of the concerned workmen through the said contractor have been conveniently 'suppressed which later emerged and came to light in the oral testimony of the aforesaid witness (WW-2) and further although the management in its written statement has denied the engagement of the concerned workmen at all in any work whatsoever by the management, but from the aforesaid documents (Ext. W-2 series) at least it becomes clear that the concerned workmen even if not regularly and even if not for any definite nature of work, but they all worked in the colliery through a contractor named Surjit Modak. Since the authenti- city and genuineness of those documents are not under challenge as not even suggestion has been made to the workmen's witness that those documents are either manufactured or forged etc. or the same do not con- tain signatures of few officials of the management, those documents cannot be viewed with suspecion or rather required to be discarded altogether.

7. Now, the second aspect very trench connected with the issue involved is whether the concernedwork- men ever worked as Tyndals which is being consider- ed as a work of permanent and perennial nature, In this regard as far as the witnesses on behalf of the workmen are concerned they have simply said that the concerned workmen used to work as tyndels and they have nowhere given the details as to what nature of work they used to perform and were doing what dur- ing the period of their engagement. In the written statement, however, it has been mentioned that the concerned workmen used to be assigned work with respect to heavy stores materials and colliery equip- ments of various descriptions including pipes, pumps, coal tubes, transformers etc. Apart from these; Exts. W-1 and W-3 are the two documents filed to show the nature of work being performed by the concerned workmen. Both these documents have been produc-d by the sponsoring union itself; Ext. W-1 is overtime slip which mention the nnme of six of the concerned workmen only and that is with respect to unloading rails at Kandwadih on a particular day. Ext. W-3 is, a letter of Overman Incharge addressed to Supdt

9. By now it stands well settled particularly in view of recent decision of the Hon'blc Supreme Court in SAIL's case reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1121 (Steel Authority of India Ltd. & others VS. National Union Waterfront Workers & others) that there cannot be any concept of automatic absorption in case of the contract labour, rather in order to get any relief it has got to be established be- fore adjudicating authority that the engagement of a contractor was a mere camouflage in order to frustrate the interest of the workmen concerned and to derive undue benefit. It is also to be satisfied that despite existence of any contractor or engagement of the work- men through a contractor for all practical purpose the workmen remianed under the direct control and super- vision of the employer and were paid the wages and were extended the facilities directly by the manage- ment. In the instant case firstly the sponsoring union initially was reluctent to admit the fact as regards the presence of a contractor or the engagement of the con- cerned workmen through a contractor and secondly during the entire proceeding nothing cogent has been put forward to demonstrate that the engagement of the concerned workmen through a contractor was a mere camouflage to deny legitimate right of the- con- cerned- workmen.

jsmr ll--zip ³ (li)] (cid:9) sT¹³⁹l⁶.21: %cora 16, 2002/i'Mf 27,1923 , (cid:9) 1845 •

AWARD

By Order No. L-20040/10/94-IR (Coal-1) dated 21st November, 1996 the Centtal Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the. following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

10. In view of all the aforesaid observations, con- siderations and diScussions based on the materials on record, I come to the irresistible conclusion that the claim of the sponsoring union as regards regularisation of the concerned workmen in the concerned colliery of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. is not justified and .consequently the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. •

"Whether the demand of the ONGC Employees Asso- ciation that the . workmen are discriminated by the management in reimbursement of cost of uniform, stitching charges, washing allowances and canteen subsidy is justified 7 If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ?"

11. The award is thus rendered as hereunder :— The demand of Rashti-iya Colliery iVlazdoor Sangh for fegalariSation.of Tarni Mahato and 20 other workmen on the roll of BhUgaband Colliery of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. is not justified and the concerned workmen are not entitled for any relief.

However, there would be no order as to costs.

S. H. KAZMI, Presiding Officer

fk74-1, 18 lams, 2 0 0 2

*LW. ^{5 1 8}:--TfirefilTffi' fugue 3atufritm, 1 947

( 1947 ¶1 1 4) (cid:9)

€11T1 17 t V98TuT

41-a, (cid:9) 49:*

77VIT 9⁴:⁰⁷ (cid:9) 4A77i 719. (cid:9) * 5r-EEMa Trq 1:-Tqlqw1 3trz (cid:9) 4 MREF TrWyliTT fa-ag (cid:9) *n'tzr knvi-7 MeirTiW ⁹;rfETWTW, (cid:9) Yard (4q4 #-Iff 35/ 1 9 9 6 ) ffir4 51*Ttifff (cid:9) t, q>i raLf WC-Fri f 1 6-1-2 0 0 2

5119. U1:1If q7 I

N. ⁷⁹.-20040110/9 4-141"117. (Tri-1)]

⁷/Tovf. rf.rfff, arq< kilaa

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2002

S.O. 518.—Ln pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 35/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Koikata as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oil & Natural Gas Co. and their workman,. which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 16-1-2002.

[NO. L-20040/10 /94-1R ( C-01 S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLK,ATA

Reference No. 35 of 19%

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Diu & Natural

Gas Corporation.

AND

Their Workmen.

2. The present reference arises out of the dispute raised by the 0.N.G.C. Employees Association, hereinafter to be referred as the Union, regarding discrimination in the pay- ment of the uniform, stitching charges, washing allowance and canteen subsidy to the unionised employees vis-a-vis the officers of the Corporation. It is stated in the written statement of the union that the management of O.N.G.C. discriminated the'workmen in the matter of reimbursement of the cost of uniforms etc. giving rise to the industrial dispute. It is stated that on or about 05-12:1987 the Corporation issued a circular No. 84 of 1987 bearing No. MAT/PMC/13/ 109/1.."337 by which it was decided that The colour, quality, quantity and frequency of issue etc. of the items of the uniforms of the officers shall be same as for the employees of the unionised categories. Subsequently. stitching charges as mentioned in the circular dated 05-12-1987 circulated on 07-12-1987 were en- hanced and the said stitching charges were further modified by order dated 29-08-1987 by :In office order. Tt is further stated that washing allowance of the same quality and ouantity of uniforms were also same for the workmen and the. officers which were revised at Rs. 30 per month. It is also further stated that canteen subsidy or reimbursement of lunch etc. was also the same and similar for the both categories of emnlovees at Rs. 8 per day vide circular dated 14-06-1984 and dated 31-01-1985. This canteen subsidy or lunch allowance was revised through' a circular dated 16411-1992 following the office memorandum dated 07-01-1992 at Rs. 15 per day for the both categories of employees and the same was also effected. So, it is stated on behalf of the union that uniform with rurality and quantity and frequency were the same for the both cluegories of employees and similar stitching cffirges were also admissible. Same was the case in the matter of washing allowance and also the canteen .subsidy remained the same and similar for both categories of emoloyees. Tt is further stated that the management by an office order dated 27-10-1993 made an attempt to discriminate between the v:orkmen and the officers by way of introducing payment of lumnsurn amount for the officers as neaffili uniforms, stitching charges, washing allowance and canteen subsidy. Tt is stated that this naked discrimination gave rice to discontent and compelled the union to take the issue through legal measure in conci- liation under the Industrial Disputer Act. The conciliation TWOCPC(iillgti were taken up by the Assistant Labour CommissiOner (Central) end the management did not co- onerate and therefore it failed. Thereafter. another dispute was aIan roked. hut the management simply avoided to parti- cipate in it saying that a similar dismite had earlier ended in frffirire. It is. therefore, alleged that the management has direr-in-tin-11/2j between the two categories of employees afore- said and has cruised loss to the unionised employees in this IWOCCce,, which is improper and illegal. It has further been stated that so fn.' as the Amount in lump sum to be paid to the nITIPP'c ;n this regard has been ordered to be. deposited in their C.P.F. entitling them to get benefit in the pagment of Income-thy ;Ilse, and therefore the entire action of the management is prejudicial to the interest of the unionised employees and therefore it should be declared to be illegal and implorer.

PRESENT

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma, Presiding_ Officer

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of Management Mr. A. K. Poddar, Additional

Legal Adviser.

Oh behalf of Worlcinen Mr. R. N. Bhattacharme.

President of the Union.

STATE : West Bengal (cid:9) INDUSTRY : Oil & Natural Gas

#62 Gp2002-28

foundation. It is denied that the management of the ONGC discriminated the workmen in the matter of reimbursement_ of the cost of uniform, stitching charges, washing allowance and canteen subsidy, as alleged and there is nd scope to raise such an industrial dispute. It has also been further staled that so far as the statements in several paragraphs of the union are concerned, these are matters of record and considering the entire circumstances there is hardy any scope to allege discrimination between the officers and the workmen of the Corporation in reimbursement of cost of uniforms, stitching charges, washing allowance and canteen subsidy. it is stated that whereas the workmen get these benefits directly, the officers are not being paid directly and the amount to their credit are adjustable to their Contributory Provident Fund. So, it is stated that there is no basis to contend the fixation of entitlement in the matter of cost of uniforms, stitching charges, washing allowance and canteen subsidy for the officers and the workmen as a matter of discrimination. It is stated that the enhancement of the rate as to the uniforms, stitching charges, washing allowance and canteen subsidy for the officers is in no v;ay linked with the rate prevailing in the Corporation tor the workmen. Therefore, the allegation of discrimination is misconcieved and unfounded. It is also stated that it is incorrect to say that the first dispute raised before the A.L.C. tailed because of the non-cooperation on the part of the Management and actually the A.L.C. was apprised of the facts and circumstances, but the conc;Iiation could not be arrived at and on the same ground the second dispute has been raised. It has been denied that there has been any conspiracy on the part of the management to cause discrimi- nation between the workmen and the officers, as alleged and it is stated that the workmen are being paid at tne rate fixed -by the Corporation revised from time to time on the basis of the agreement between the management and the employees' union.

4. So far as the evidence is concerned, the union, has examined one witness, namely, Ashutosh Dey Sarkar who happens to be a Store Keeper at the Main Office -of the 0.N.G.C. at 15, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata. lie has stated that the provision for uniform allowance was the same for the officers and the workmen vide circular dated 05-12-1987, which has been marked Ext. W-1. It is also stated that the colour, quality, quantity and frequency of the items of the uniform were the same for the- both categories of employees. He also further stated that by an order dated 07-12-1987, Ext. W-2, and another order dated 29th August, marked Ext. W-2(a), similar rate of reimbursement at enhanced rate were prescribed for both the categories of employees. He further stated that by an office order dated 27-10-1993 the officers were provided monetary allowance of uniform, stitching and canteen subsidy as mentioned in the circular, which is marked Ext. W-4. In the Meanwhile there was a circular issued on 16-01-1992 also_ which is marked Ext. W-3. According to the latest circular Ext. W-4, the money value of uniform etc. are renuired to be deposited in the P.F. Account of the officers and this way the officers are also to get the benefit of Income 'Tax and earning interest also. Therefore, it has been stated by him that the employees of workmen category have been discriminated against by the management by this order. It is also stated that whereas officers are getting money value of better quality of uniform and higher canteen subsidy, the workmen are not being similarly paid and they are required to produce receipts for reimbursement of the amount to which they arc entitled. However, in his cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the payments aforesaid being made on the basis of a memorandum of settlement effective from 01-01-1992 and the memorandum of settlement has also been admitted by him and marked Ext. M-1. It is thus obvious that the documents en behalf of the parties are practically admitted. However, the management did not examine any witness in this case.

5. Both the narties filed their written areuments and also made some Mal submissions. On the one hand it has been emnhasises on the part of the workmen that because originally in the matter of payment of uniform allowance and other associated benefits. including canteen subsidy, both the cate- gories of employees i.e.. officer catonmg as well as the unionised employee cateaory were treated atner with each other_ But. subsetthentiv. by the circular dated 27-10-1983. Frt. W-4, the dimrimination has been made between the two catenories and therefore it is pillajr jmni-nner and invalid and n- on,„1,1 he struck down On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the manneement that actually there is no case for the workmen to challenge the order regarding the payment of uniform allowance and subsidiary allowances, because so far as the workmen are concerned, there is no curtailment in their facilities in this regard and payments are 'being made on the basis of the settlement Ext. M-I, revised from time to lime vide Exts. W-2 and W-3. However, it is stated that so far as the officers are concerned, an order was issued on 27th October, 1993, Ext. W-4 by which officers who did not opt for Self Contributory Post Retirement .. and Dealth in Service Benefit Scheme, a (afferent rate was provided for payment in lump sum and because these cate- gory of officers opted for depositing part of these benefit to C.P.F., the same was allowed by the Corporation. It is stated that it cannot be treated as 'a case of discrimination when some arrangement has been made by the employees of superior category for special reason as mentioned in Ext. W-4. Merely because some special provision Pas been made for the category of officers the workman cannot have a grievance of discrimination and moreover, the rates have been accepted by the majority of unions and employees are receiv— ing the same without any grievance or objection and the present dispute has been raised only by an unrecognised and insignificant union. Therefore, it has been submitted on behalf (cid:9) e of the management that in view of the observations made in the cases of Workmen of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v_ Manage- ment of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. &Ann, MR 1969 SC 1280, M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Their work- men. AIR -1981 -SC 2163 and Herbertsons Ltd. v. Workmen 7 of Eerbertsons Ltd., & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 322 such disputes . cannot be raised by the union of 'workers not haying a re- presentative character when the association of unions or the major unions have accepted it.

•

44 6. It is obvious that the provisions as per Ext. W-4 have been made on special ground considering 'the position • of the officers not opting for P.R.B.S, and it has not reduced the facilities of the other workmen. It has been submitted that such kind of -plea of discrimination is raised-on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but the question of discrimination arises in the case of equals dr similarly situated Persons and not between unequals. It has been rightly submitted that there is difference between the situation of an officer not covered by P.R.B.S. and the ordinary employees, and therefore, such a grievance cannot he raised, because, of course, workmen get some other allowances according to their assigned duties also, which the officers do not get and the employees cannot claim the same pay scale as that of the officers. It in, therefore. submitted that the dispute raised by the present onion is not fit 'to be entertained and there is no Question of discrimination involved in it. So far as the grievance of the union regarding denosite of the amount of Payment (cid:9) the officers in the C.P.P. and the consequent benefit in the matter of payment of Income Tax is concerned, the deposlte in C.P.E. is a voluntary scheme and any employee can opt for it and so far as rebate in the payment of Income Tax is concerned. it is also limited and not unlimited, be- cause deductions are made only to the extent of a particular amount of deposites of an employee as per the Finance Act. Such considerations are outside the scope of consideration by the Tribunal. (cid:9)

7. f quite agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the management and I do not find any reason to hold that the action of the management of O.N.G.C. in the present rase has been disdriminatort against the employees of unionised (ulterior., as contended. The reference. therefore, is answered in the affirmative and decided accordingly. There is no scope - for interference.

Award accordingly.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkata,

The 7th January, 2002.

fqTffni, 21 7qqt, 2002

TT.TIT. 5 1 9:--3;11WW1TT fq7M. Tifilf97111, 1947 ( 1947 lT 1 4 ) (cid:9) BITTY 17 *' *Pi (cid:9) tfTur 2ITTIT 7977 iN77,1*-4/i % Sfthrd'a- % 404 197).7.Ti TrIT (cid:9) TTITTT,1" (cid:9) 4t9", 77.1)¹ if ¹⁹¹Z qtettITT1847 41176.Thti1774:%7Ttf 16, 2002[ffN 27,1923 Nprii--S 3 (iin (cid:9) APPEARANCE :

For the Workman.—Unrepresented.

For the Management.—Sri K. Sam-

basivam, Addl. CGSC. New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for-adjudication vide Order No: L-400121132199-IR(DU) dated 29-09-1999.

S.O. 519.—In pursuance, of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chen- nai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the The General Manager, Telecommunica- tions, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21-01-2002.

[No. L-40012113211999-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

'Friday, the 28th December, 2001

PRESENT :

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, Chennai, where it was taken on file as COID. No. 361;99. When the matter was pend- ing enquiry in that Labour Court, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Labour Court to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Labour Court, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 711'2001 and notices were sent to the parties on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this. Tribunal on 23-10-2001. On that date neither party was present to prosecute this case further. Then fresh notices were sent to them for the adjourned dates for their appearance.

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 71112001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court CGID No. 361199)

When the matter was taken up to-day finally, the I Party1Workman'is :not present and there is no representation at all on the side of the I Party'Workman. The learned counsel for the II Party'Management who appeared earlier and filed the statement of objection is present and advanced his argument.

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudica- tion under clause .(d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), bet- ween the Workman Sri G. Moorthy and the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chenealpattu.)

BETWEEN

Sri G. Moorthy. (cid:9) Party[Workman

AND

The General Manager, (cid:9)

Upon perusing the Order of Reference in respect of this industrial dispute between the parties, the copy of the Claim Statement, filed by the Petitioner before the conciliating authority while raising this industrial dis- pute, the Counter Statement of the Respon- dent, other material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II PartylManagc- ment, after considering all the relevant aspects, this Tribunal has passed on merits the following :—

II Party!

Management

AWARD

Telecommunications, Chetlgalpattu SSA, -Kancheepuram Dist..

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. Chennai.

1848 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA FEBRUAR

Y 16, 2002/MAMA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART II—SEc. 3(11)]

s (cid:9) actually worked. The essential conditions of for adjudication by this Tribunal is a follows :—

scheme are :-

1. The casual labour should have been engaged prior to 3L3-1985; 2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;

"Whether the demand of the workman Shri G. Moorthy for reinstatement by the General Manager, Telecom- munications. Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

3. He should have put in 240 days conti- nuous service in any one of the preceding years prior to 01-10-1989; and

4. There should not be a break for a period of more than one year.

The Casual Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On verification it was found that the service particulars sub- mitted by the Petitioner from 1983 to 1994 were bogus and manufactured one. Hence, the department did not consider the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted false service particulars, with a view to gett- ing employment and other benefits from the department. The alleged work, done by the

Petitioner is not skilled and perennial (cid:9) in 2. As the I PartyIWorkman Petitioner has not appeared before this Tribunal and filed his Claim Statement, the II Party ATariage- rnent has filed their Counter Statement as a reply to the Claim Statement filed by the 1 PartylPetitioner for this dispute he has raised before the conciliating authority for concilia- tion. The xerox copy of that Claim Statement of the I Party has been filed by the IT Party; Management before this Tribunal. (cid:9) It is averred in that reply by the II Party;Manage- ment, (hereinafter referred to as respondent) that the contention of the Petitioner while raising this dispute that he was appointed as Casual Labour during 1982 and he was con- tinuously working, with the Respondent and had put in 2981 number of days and he was terminated on 25-4-1995 are not correct. It is further averred in the Counter of the Respondent that the Petitioner had

worked only 84 days (cid:9) during 1995 as

nature. As on date, there is no such work and post with the department.. The Respondent Department does not engage any casual mazdoor and as on date there is no casual mazdoor in the department. Since there is no work and there is no post, there is no scope

for the Petitioner for his re-employment in

the Respondentlelecom. Department. The Petitioner was engaged on casual basis as and when required by the department, hence he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner which has been raised as referred to this flon'ble Tribunal as an industrial dispute for adjudication may be dismissed.

3. The Point for my consideration is —

Casual Labour. The service certificates men- tioned by the Petitioner in the claim said to be for his service in the previous period are all bogus and manufactured by the Peti- tioner. Since there was no sufficient work, he was not further engaged. The Petitioner was not appointed and terminated at any point of time by the respondent Telecom Department and hence, the question of ap- pointment, termination and continuance of service does not arise. The Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the un- skilled casual work on daily rated wages. The work done by the Petitioner is• purely casual in nature and also not perennial. The Peti- tioner was never informed by the Respondent

that he will be taken back to service in the .

"Whether the demand of the workman Shri G. Moorthy for reinstatement by the General Manager, Telecom- munications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is legal and, justified? If not to what relief he is entitled ?"

Point :—

Respondent:Telecom Department. Since the Petitioner had not completed 240 days. the question of continuance of service and notice under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise. In 1989 a scheme call- ed grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labour was introduced for the Casual Labourers who

Though the Petitioner'Workman Sri G. Moonily has raised this industrial dispute against the General Manager. Telecommuni-ZMtla : t5T6t 16, 2002111TEr 27,1923 1849 of reference by the Govt. as an industrial dis- pute, for the demand, the concerned workman made for his reinstatement in service by the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu SSA as casual mazdoor cannot be considered as legal and justified. Hence:, he is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in this, dispute against the II Party:Management. Thus, the, point is answered accordingly.

4. In the- result, an Award is passed hold- ing that the I Party:Workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th December, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Frresiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

On either side.—None

Documents Marked :

For the I Party:Workman.—Nil

For the II Party:Management.—Nil

farc'f, 21 q'ci q'ti, 2002

W1.3.,Ci. 5 2 ⁰.--⁹²-¹Af⁴M fare VftifiRli, 1947

( ¹⁹⁴⁷ TT ¹⁴) Tft am 17' fi 3p1(1k7 FRWIT 31W faqui* Nr4trata (cid:9) f441w4) 4j-c w4wrei (cid:9) era, 44,4.4 41,-Tiqua. TrIel-Prwfwg 4)4'17 TfTWR TrI-cnftm qtawtur 4-44:R* gaga

tit,ta 5 5/ 2 000) W'r SMTIVTa grit t, g>1

ATXTT (cid:9) 21-1-2002 *1 Yfic0" (cid:9) 41" I

[1:t. (cid:9) -40012/ 1 79/ 2 000-411.RR- (t.z1 )1

F9-err "CM' N'ITT, ITT 3.TfuTrti

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002 cations, Chengalpattu SSA demanding re- instatement as casual mazdoor, he has not chosen to file his Claim Statement either before • the Principal Labour Court when it was pend- ing before that Court or before this Tribunal after the matter has been transfetred-tb the file of this Tribunal. The II Party:Management alone had chosen to file the statement of objection, as a reply to the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner, while he raises this industrial dispute before the conciliating authority against them. The xerox copy -of the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner earlier before the conciliating authority in res- pect of this industrial dispute has been filed by the Respondent. It is clearly averred in the Statement of objection of the Respondent: Management that the Petitioner:Workman was engaged only for 84 days during 1995 as Casual Labourer and the service certificates he produced earlier as though he was in ser- vice in the respondent: department from 1982 were found to be bogus and manu- factured one. It was categorically alleged in the Statement of objection that he has sub- mitted false service certificates and the depart- ment had not engaged him as casual mazdoor as claimed by him. It is further contended in, the Statement of objection that he had not fulfilled the requisite qualifications to grant him Temporary Status Mazdoor under the Scheme introduced in the year 1989 for the Casual Labourers who actually worked in the Respondent Department All these specific averments in the Statement of Objection have not been disputed or denied by the Petitioner; Workman: who raised this industrial dispute by stating his contention before this Tribunal. It is specifically averred in the Statement of Objection of the Respondent:Management that the Petitioner was not appointed and terminated at any -point of time and. hence the question of. appointment termination and con- tinuation in service does not at all arise. All

these averments have not been disproved by

the Petitioner:Workman by mentioning' his

plea- as well as proving the same with legal

S.O. 520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 55:2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal; Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of D:o Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-1-2002.

evidence, before this. Tribunal. Under such

circumstances, as it is- inentioned in the order

(No. 1.-400121179:2000-1R (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer 1350 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA_: FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART II—SEC. 3(6)1 ANNEXURE (cid:9) 1999. The management instead of regulariz- ing the services of the first par.y workman, BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (cid:9) has terminated his services and the action of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR (cid:9) the management is not correct. First party COURT, BANGALORE (cid:9) for these reasons and for some other reasons Dated : 8th January, 2002 (cid:9) has prayed to pass award in his favour.

PRESENT :

HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKARNI, B-COM, LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER • CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COI TRT, BANGALORE

C.R. No.' 55[2000

I PARTY :

Shri V. Gopalakrishna Venkateshappa No. 177, R. K. Lay out, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore-560070, Advocate—M. S. Anandramu.

II PARTY :

Chief Post Master General, Palace Road, Bangalore-560001.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred -by clause (d) of • sub- section 2A of .the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dis- pute vide order No. L-40012 179 200.01IR (DU) dated 9th Amtust, 2000 for adjudica- tion on .the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE -

"Whether the Post Master General of Karnataka is justified in refusing em- ployment to Shri Gopalakrishna former EDDA? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. First party was working with the Second Party, Employment was refused to him and therefore this Industrial Dispute is raised.

3. Parties appeared and First party filed Claim Statement. The Second Party has not filed any Counter.

4, The case of the first party in brief is as follows :

5. The first party workman has passed- PUC and he enrolled his name in the Employment 'Exchange and he was engaged by the manage- ment as ED Packer, Stamp Vendor, Delivery Agent etc. in the year 1992 to 20th February, 6. The Management has not filed any Counter. Thereafter the case was posted for evidence. First party got examined himself and has given evidence in support of the allega- tions made in the Claim Statement. This workman is not cross examined by the manage- ment.

7. 1 have heard the learned counsel appear- ing for the management. The Claim of the workman and the evidence of the workman has remained unchallenged because the management, though appeared has not filed any Counter to challenge the allegations made by the Workman. There is no reason to dis- card the evidence of workman.

8. It is clear from the evidence of work- man that he has worked for nearly 7 years continuously with the department. Refusal of work is not proper. The management has not filed any representation. Taking all this into consideration, I pass the following order.

.ORDER

The reference is partly allowed holding that refusing of employment is not correct and the management is directed to take him to work and regularize his services if he fulfills necessary conditions. Accordingly Award is passed.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 8th January, 2002).

V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer fa t, 21 Watt, 2002

TT.W. 521:--TINIMTW f441-4 Tifili9RIT, 1947 ( 1947 TT 14)Trt ITITT 17 V9J.(71 (cid:9) i7eX TITTIT Wt"q 44717, 't (cid:9) hr 4: srdadn- pia t-441'W*I (IT *1'7, 9.70-ciu (cid:9) figaR urn tirxTiT OrqIiTm q-finrur, as (cid:9) ar= (Tk4 Tit4T 710/2001) (cid:9) SI7Ifb17. TTatt ,1-417c A271. (cid:9) ti (cid:9) 2 1- 1- 2 0 0 2 (cid:9) ATM pit T I

[4. T7-40012/190/99-Vit7R.

qaci 'M auf, .377 r9.-Tnli1851 16, 20o2ilitl1 (cid:9) I Ig144: (cid:9) t int° NiT111--zPI 3 (ii)] (cid:9) . (cid:9) . ... New Delhi, the. 21st January, 2002

authority by raising the dispute, tiled by the Respondent, the Counter Statement of the Respondent, other material papers on record, xerox copies of nine mutter rolls tiled by the Respondent and upon hearing the arguments advanced by he learned counsel for the It Part y/ Mttliagement, :dice con- sidering all the relevant aspects, this Tribunal has passed on

merits i he following

AWARD

S.O. (cid:9) pursuance!' of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the General Manager, Telecommunications, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21-01-2002.

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Government for adjudication by this [No. 1,40012/190/1999-4R(DU)1

Tribunal is as follows :—

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

"Whether the action of the General Manager,'telecom- ANNEKURE

munications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Sri D. Jayakumar casual mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?" BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Friday. the 28th December, 2001

PRESENT:

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSRTAL DISPUTE NO. 710/2001

(Tamil Nadu Principal S Labour Court CGIT No. 360/99)

tin the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (dl of Sub-section (I) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industtialt Disputes Adt. 1947 (14 of 1947). _between the Workman Sri. D. Jayakumar nod the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalputtu.)

BETWEEN

Sri D. Jayakumar. (cid:9) ... (cid:9) Party/Workman

AND

(cid:9) TI Party/Management

The General Manager. Telecommunications, Chengalpattu SSA. Kancheepuram•Dist.,

— Chennai.

APPEARANCE-;

For -the Workman t: Unrepresented.

2. The Counter Statement of the IT Party/Management has been filed as a reply to the dispute that has been raised by the Petitioner/Workman before the conciliating authority, the Xerox copy of the same has been filed by the II Party/ Management, since the Petitioner has not appeared and filed any Claim Statement before this Tribunal. It is averred in that reply by the It Party/Management, (hereinafter referred to as resnondent) that the contention of the Petitioner while raising this dispute that be was appointed as Casual Labour on 01-12-1984 and he was continuously working with the Respondent and had put in 1460 number of days and he was terminated on 25-6-1995 are not correct. It is farther averred in the Counter of the Respondent that the Petitioner. had worked only 172 days during 1995 as Casual Labour. The service certificates mentioned by the Petitioner in the claim said to he for his service in the previous period are all bogus and manufactured by the Petitioner. Since there Was no sufficient work, he was not further engaged. The Petitioner was not appointed and terminated at any point of time by the respondent Telecom Department and hence, the question of appointment, termination and continuance of service does not arise. The Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled casual work on daily rated wages. The work done by the Petitioner is purely casual in nature and also not perennial. The Petitioner was never in- formed by the Respondent that he will be taken hack to service in the Respondent/Telecom Department. Since the Petitioner had not completed 240 days, the question of conti- nuance of service and notice under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not arise. In 1989 a scheme called grant of Temnorary Status to Casual labour was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are-

For the Management : Sri K. Sambasivam, Addl. CGSC.

1- The casual labour should have been engaged prior

to 31-3-1985; (cid:9) •

2. He should be currently employed on the date of the

implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;

The Government of Tndia, Ministry of Labour in exercise of. powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14. of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Disente for adiudiCation vide Order No. L-40012/190 /99-IR (DU) dated 27-09-1999.

3. He should have put in 210 days continuous service in any one of the preceding years prior to 01-10-1989: and

4. There should not be a break for a period of more

than one year.

- This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Ninth Principal Labour Court. Chennai, where it was taken on file as CGID No. 360/99. When the matter was tending enquiry in that Labour Court. the Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to :order transfer of this case from that Inbour Court to this Tribunal for' adjudication. On receipt of records from that -Labour Court, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 710/2001 and notices were sent to the parties 'on either side. informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal. with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 16-10-2001. On that date neither party was present to prosecute this`case further. Then fresh notices were sent to them for the adjourned dates for their appearance

When the matter was taken un to-thy finally, the f Party/ Workman is not present and there is no representation at all on the side of the I Party/Workman. The learned counsel for the TT Party/Management who appeared earlier and filed the statement of objection . is present and . advanced his armament.

Unon relining the Order of Reference in respect of this jacinth:in] &smite between the °attics, the copy of the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner before the conciliation

The Casual Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On verification it was found that the service particulars submitted, by the Petitioner from 1983 to 1994 were bogus and manu- factured one. Hence, the department did not consider the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted false service particulars, with a view to getting employment and other benefits from the department. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date. there is no such work and post with the department The Respondent Department does not engage any casual mazdoor and as on date there is no casual mazdoor in the department. Since there is no work and there is no nest. there is no scene for the Petitioner for his re-employment in the Restiondent/Telecom Department The Petitioner was engaged 'n casual hesis as and when reouirsd by the detirtreent. heore ho (cid:9) Cnr rehictntement ac nor the lam and as wen as Temnorary Status Muzdoor Scheme. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner which has been raised as referred to this tion'bie •1852 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16. 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART II—Sec. 3(ji)1 - (cid:9) - Tribunal as an industrial dispute for adjudication may be d ism issed.

3. The Point for my consideration is.-

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom- munications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Sri D. Jayakumar casual mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?' Point :—

Though the Petitioner/Workman Sri D. Jayakumar has raised this industrial dispute against the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu SSA demanding reinstate- ment as casual mazdoor, he has not chosen to file his Claim Statement either before the Principal Labour Court where it was Tending before that Court or before this Tribunal after the matter has been transferred to the file of this Tribunal. The tt Party/Management alone had chosen to file the state- ment of objection, as a reply to the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioir, while he raise this industrial dispute before • the conciliating authority against them. The Xerox copy of the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner earlier before the conciliating authority in respect of this industrial dispute has been-filed by the Respondent. The Xerox copies of nine muster rolls have been filed as documents in support of the stand taken by the Respondent/Management in disputing the claim made by the Petitioner/Workman in this industrial dispute. It is clearly averred in the Statement of objection of the ResPondent/Management that the Petitioner/Workman was For the 11 Party/Management

No. SI. No. Muster Roll For the month of 3.

1. 4978/13 December, 1994 5808/22 May, 4990 20866/920867/14 June, 1991 4.

September, 1991 5. 20868/2 October, 1990 6. 20869/12 January, i992 7, 20869/23 February, 1992 8. 4631/20 June, 1992 9. 2/24 August, 1992 10. 4/12 November, 1992 11. 4/ 14 November, 1992 12. 5/4 January, 1993 13. 5/7 February, 1993 14. 5/ 10 March, 1993 15. April, 119933 99 16.

555/1;212;

17. . June, 1993 18. 59/4 Decembet, 1992 9-{ fact, 21 Wiqff, 2002

engaged only for 172 days during 1995 as Casual Labourer and the service certificates he produced earlier as though he was in service in the responcleat department from 1953 to 1994 were- found to be bogus and manufactured one. It Wm- categorically alleged in the Statement of objection that he has submitted false service certificates and the department had not engaged him as casual mazdoor as claimed by him.

It is further contended in the Statement of objection that he had not fulfilled the requisite qualifications to grant him temporary Status Mazdoor under the Scheme introduced in the year 1989 for the Casual Labourers who actually worked in the Respondent Department. All these specific averments in the Statement of Objection have not been disputed or denied by the Petitioner/Workman who raised this industrial dispute by stating his contention before this Tribunal. It is specifically averred in the Statement of Objection of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner was not appointed and terminated at any point of time and hence the question of appointment, termination and continuation in service does not at all arise. All these averments have not been clisprOved by the Petitioner/Workman by mentioning his plea as well as proving the same with legal evidence, before this Tribunal.

Under such circumstances, as it is mentioned in the order of reference by the Government as an industrial dispute for the demand, the concerned workman made for his reinstate- ment in service by the General Manager, Telecommunications.

, Chengalpattu SSA as casual mazdoor cannot be considered as legal and justified. Hence, he is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in this dispute against the It Party/Management. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

4. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the I Party/Workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th December, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side'. None

Documents filed :

For the I Party/Workman z Nil

51-19' 5NT TT 1

⁷³-⁴⁰⁰¹²/ ¹92[99-MtMR. (31 T.)]

t'<•1 (cid:9) Trzr (cid:9) TifErfit New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002

S.O. 522.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act., 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chermai as shown in the Annexure, in the indus- trial dispute between the employers in relation to The General Manager, Teleiommunications, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21-01-2002.

[No.-L-40012/192/99-IR(DU KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 28th Deeeniber, 2001

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 705/2001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court CGID.No.355/99 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act., 1947(14 • 1853

Brad NT (cid:9)tivmr;tirge 11,2002/T( 47 i7,19.23

(14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri S.Prabaksrats and the Management of the General Manager, Tele- communications, Chengalpattu SSA).

BETWEEN

(cid:9) : I Party/Workman - Sri S. Prabakaran

AND

The General Manager, (cid:9) : II Party/Management Telecomm-ntications. Chenarliattu SSA. Kanchnip- ntm Dist. Chcangi.

APPEARANCE :

: Unrepresented.

For the Worknian.

For the Managemen (cid:9) : Sri K.Sambaasivam,

Addl. CGSC

The Govt of India, Ministry of Labour in exor- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial • Dispute Act., 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the con- . cerned Industrial. Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L-40012/192/99-IR(DU) dated 27-094999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, Chennai, where it was taken on file as CGID. No. 355/99. When the matter was pending eirquiry in that Labour Court, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case Dom that Labour Court to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Labour Court, the case has been taken C file as I.D. No. 705/2001 and notices were sent to the I Party/Workman and the counsel on record for the II Party/management, informing them about the trans- fer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to` appear before this Tribunal on 23-10-2001. On that day, the counsel for the II Party/Management alone was present. The I Party/Workman was not present, inspite of registered notice was served on him. Though subsequent notices were sent to the I Party/ Petitioner and was served on him, he has not chosen to appear before this Tribunal and to file his Claim Statement. The counsel for the II Party/Management has filed his Statement of Objitetion along with the Xerox copy of the statement of Petitioner% claim, he filed before the conciliating authority while raising his claim and has advanced his arguments.

after considering all these relevant aspects; this TM; bunal has passed on merits the following

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference bjthe Central Govt. for adjudication' by this Tribunal is as fellows :—

"Whether the action of the Genetal Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri S. Prabakaran as casual mazdoor is legal and justified If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the Statement of Objection filed by the II Party/Management Telecom. Depart- ment, Chengalpattu SSA are briefly as follows :—

This Statement of Objection of the II Party/Mana- gement has b ten filed as a reply to the dispute that has been raised by the Petitioner/Workman before the conciliating authority, the xerox copy of the same has been filed by the II Party/Management since the Petitioner has not appeared and filed any Claim Statement before this Tribunal. It is averred in that reply by the II Party/Management (hereinafter rears to as Respondent) that the contention of the Petitioner while raising this dispute that he was appointed as Casual Labour on 15-10-1984 and he had put in 387 number of days in service and he was terminated du- ring 1945 are not correct. It is further averred in the Collator of the Respondent that the Petitioner in his Claim Statement filed before the conciliation pro- ceedings, had not pleaded about his engagement i.e. place of work and mode of employment and employed by whom. The Petitioner was not submitted any service particulars bofore the Labour Commissioner in the conciliation proceedings and bofore this Hon'ble Tribunal till date to substantiate his claim made in the claim petition. In the absence of service parti- culars and in the absence of pleading, the department is unable to say whether the Petitioner has worked or not and also not able to file counter in detail in this case. Under such circumstances, the Respondent/ Management reserve the right to file additional counter, if necessary. Hence, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition.

3. The point for my consideration is —

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Tele- • communications, Chengalpatta in termination the services of Shri S.Prabakaran as, casual mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

Point :—

Upon perusing the Ceder of Reference in respect of this industrial dispute between the parties, the copy of the Claim Statement filed by, the Petitioner before the conciliating authority by raising the dispute filed by the Respondent, statement of objection filed by the II Party/Management, the other material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management, • 362 GI/2002-29

Though the Petitioner/Worlcmart Sri. S.Prabakaran has raised this industrial dispute against the General1854 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGFIA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART II—Sac. 3(ii)] (Dictated to, the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in in the open court on this day the 28th December, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

On either side (cid:9)

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On either side

Nil

fc , 21 vvici , 2002

.T41. 52 3. —WIterriTfi &TR Tffiffizig, 1947 ( 1947 TT 14) (cid:9) 9-RT 17 (cid:9) to! if, WM' TRWIT watts (cid:9) adkici * ST411t * #44 fqzfturF): RIK 71.4; 414rd (cid:9) vt4Er

N-T-R (cid:9)

tilMFAT gfETTKI:rr At-r4 (cid:9) riWIZ (44 kitttf 7 0 6/ 2 0 0 1 ) fr TrWrilTU (cid:9) t (cid:9) t, (cid:9) tat TrICR, T) 21-1-2002 fir 3176 ral /IT I

[Kt g%-40012/193/99-Mt q*17. (cid:9) Tic,.))

Tnicf Km- d'rti, (cid:9) lafilThlt

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002

S.O. 523.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the indus- trial dispute between the employers in relation to the The General Manager, Telecommunications, and their workmen, received try the Central Government on 21-01-2002.

[No.-L-40012/193/1999-IR(D U)] KULDEEP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, CHENNAI

Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu, Kan- cheepuram Dist. Chennai, demanding reinstatement as casual mazdoor, he has not chosen to file his Claim Statement either before the Principal Labour Court earlier or before this Tribunal after the matter has been transferred to the file of this Tribunal and notice to that effect was set ved on him. Though the notice of transfer of this case to the file of this Tribunal has been served on the I Party/Workman, many times, he has not chosen to appear before this Tribunal and to file his Claim Statement toprosecute his case further. But the II Party/Management alone had chosen to file the statement objecting to the claim made by the Peti- tioner/Workman by raising this industrial dispute against them. It is categorically denied in the Sta- tement of the Respondent/Managethent that the Peti- tioner/Workman was appointed as Casual Labour on 15-10-1984 and he had put in 387 number of days in service and he was terminated during 1995. It is further contended in the Statement of objection of the Resmindent/Management that in the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner/Worlanan before the conciliation peoceedings, there was no pleading about his engagement i.e. place of work and mode of employment and employed by whom. It is further contended that the Petitioner had not submitted any service particulars before the Labour Commissioner in the conciliation proceedings and also before this Hon'ble Tribunal till date to substantiate his claim made in the earlier claim petition in respect of this industrial dispute. It is specifically averred in the statement of objection filed by Respondent/Mana- gement that in the absence of service particulars and in the absence of pleading, the department is unable to say whether the Petitioner has worked or not and also not able to file counter in detail in this case. All these specific averments in the Counter Statement have not been disputed or denied by the Petitioner/ Workman who raised this industrial dispute. All these" averments have not been disproved by the Peti- tioner/Workman by making plea as well as proving the same with legal evidence. Under such circum- stances, as it is mentioned in this industrial dispute Schedule of Reference for the demand he made for reinstatement by the Gereral Manager, Telecommu- nications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor cannot be

Friday, the 28th December, 2001 considered as legal and justified. Hence, he is not

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 706/2001 entitled to the relief hp prayed for in this dispute against the II Party/Telecommunication mmunication Department of Kancheepumm District, Chennai,. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

(Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court

(CGID No. 356/99)

4. La the result, an Award is passed holding that

the I Party/Workman is not entitled to any relief.

No Cost

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes [gm (cid:9) 3 (i.i)l

Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri S. Devanbu and the Management of the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu SSA).

BETWEEN

I Party/Workman Sri S. Devanbu

AND

II Party/Mar agement The General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu SSA, Kancheepuram Distt., Chennai.

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman (cid:9) Unrepresented For the Management (cid:9) Sri K. Sambasivant

Addl. CGSC.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 'of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/193/99-IR (DU) dated 27-09-1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, Chennai, where it was taken on file as CGID No. 356/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Labour Court, -the Govt of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Labour Court to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from• that Labour Cowl, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 706/2001 and notices were sent to the I Party/Workman and the counsel on record for the II Party/Management, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 23-10-2001. On that day, the counsel for the II Party/Management alone was present. The I Party/Workman was not present, inspite of registered notice was served on him. Though sub- sequent notices were sent to the -I Party/Petitioner and was served on him, he has not chosen to appear before this Tribunal and to file his Claim Statement. The counsel for the II Party/Management has filed his Statement of Objection alongwith the Xerox copy of the statement of Petitioner's claim, he filed before the conciliating authority while raising his claim and has advanced his arguments.

Upon perusing the Order of Reference in respect of this industrial dispute between the parties, the copy of the .Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner before the conciliating authority by raising the industrial dispute, statement of objection filed by the II Party/ Management, the other material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II. Party/Management, after

1855.

g61 'MIN.: trete 16, 2 0 0 zigruzi, 9 2 3

considering all these relevant aspects, this Tribunal has passed on merits the following :

AWARD .

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudi- cation by this Tribunal is as follows :

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri S. Devanbu as casual mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the Statement of Objection filed by the II Party/Management Telecom Depatt- meat, Chengalpattu SSA ate briefly as follows :

This Statement of Objection of the II Party/ Management has been filed as a reply to the dispute that has been raised by the Petitioner/Workman before the conciliating authority, the xerox copy of the same has been filed by the II Party/Manage- ment, since the Petitioner has not appeared and filed any Claim Statement before this Tribunal. It is averred in that reply by the H Party/Manage- ment (hereinafter refers .to as Respondent) that the contention of the Petitioner while raising this dispute that he was appointed as Casual Labour On 01-12-1984 and he had put in 1225 number of days in service and he was terminated:during 1995 are not correct. It is further averred in. the Counter of the Respondent that the Petitioner in his Claim Statement fled before the conciliation proceedings, had not pleaded about his engage- ment i.e. place of•work and mode of employment and employed by whom. The Petitioner has not submitted any service particulars before the Labour Commissioner in the conciliation proce- edings and before this Hon'ble Tribunal till date to substantiate his claim made in the claim peti- tion. In the absence of service particulars and in the absence of pleading, the -department is un- able to say whether the Petitioner has worked or not and also not able to file counter in detail in this case. Under such circumstances, the Respon- -dent/Management reserve the right to file addi: tional counter, if necessary. Hence, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition.

3. The Point for my consideration is :

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri S. Devanbu as casual mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"?us _ THE GAM. It OF INDiA :'FEBRUARY 16, 2)3022MAG'HA 27, 1923 [Nat H—Sic. nib] Point

pain as casual mazdocr canna be considered as legal and justified. Hence, he is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in this dispute against the II Party/ Telecommunication Department of Kancheepuram District, Chertnai. Thus, the point is answered acco- dingly.

4. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the I Party/Workman is not entitled to any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th December, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

On either side (cid:9) None

DOCUMENTS MARKED ;

On either side (cid:9) Nil

fqc.cir, 21rWrge, 2002

V.7T 5 24.-4WITM fra Rfer-Rut 1947 (1947 -ter 14) (cid:9) Ulti 17 4.1 ii9:7711 ir, tilt4 4-k"TT7 (cid:9) •71, kti 4 (cid:9) € 19W14; (cid:9) el 4:Th (cid:9) ite"fr, ¹⁵¹-q'³¹,-;ci (cid:9) t aft/aft watts erkirc, sr4udv ti,44 VS): 414,. (cid:9) * (cid:9) 40-4- frii;t;e. TrItriTrw fay u *.t4 u 'conic sihitftfi

TrftwTur -47'4*ttrnz (#4.4- tit-La 70112001) T't f45 (cid:9) t 41' (cid:9) 97-4'17 T"( 21-1-2002 T.) 3175: Or =TT I

[⁴ . ⁷⁴-400121196/99-M 41T. (a. TO] T.,q414 (cid:9) Erut, (cid:9) RfuTlft

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002

S.O. 524.—In pursuance cf Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cents al

Government hereby publishes the Award of the

Central. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Cr art,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation r to

The Chief General Manager, Telecom, the General Manager, Telecommunications, EThe Divisional Engineer 0/o. The General Manager, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21-01-2002.

L-40012/196/1 999-IR (DU)] Though the Petitioner/Workman Sri S. Devanbu has raised this industriaJdispute against the Gemara! Manager, (cid:9) Te ecomniunications, (cid:9) Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram Distt. Chennai, demanding reinstate- ment as casual mazdoor, he has not chosen to file his Claim Statement before the Principal Labour Court earlier and to appear and participate as a party to this industrial dispute raised by him and put forth his contention by filing his Clahn Statement in sup- port of the claim he made against the II Party/ Management. After the matter has been transferred to the file of this Tribunal and notices to that effect were served on him, informing him about the transfer of this case to the filo of this Tribunal, he remained un-represented, for this dispute, pending adjudication before this Tribunal. But the II Party/Managemcnt alone had chosen to file the statement objecting to the claim made by the Petitioner/Workman by raising this industrial dispute against them. It is categori- cally denied in the Statement of the Respondent/ Management that the Petitioner/Workman was appo- inted as Casual Labour on 01-12-1984 and he had put in 1225 number of days in service and he was terminated during 1995. It is further contended in the Statement of objection of the Respondent/ Management that in the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner/Workman before the conciliation pro- ceedings, there was no pleading about his engage- ment i.e. place of work and mode of employment, the period of employment under the official of the Res- pondent/Department. It is further contended that the Petitioner had not submitted any service parti- culars before the Labour Commissioner in the conci- liation proceedings and also before this Hon'ble Tribunal till date to substantiate his claim made by raising industrial dispute against the Respondent/ Management. It is specifically averred in the state-. meat of objection filed by Respondent/Management that in the absence of service particulars and in the absence of pleading, the department is unable to say whether the Petitioner had worked or net and also not able to file a detailed counter disputing the claim of the Petitioner in this case. All these specific averments in the Counter Statement have not been disputed or denied by the Petitioner/Workman as he is remained unrepresented before this Tribunal for the industrial dispute, he raised, for adjudication by this Tribunal. All these averments of the II Party/ Management in the Statement of Objection have remained unrebutted or disproved by the Petitioner/ Workman by nuking a plea as well as proving the same With acceptable legal evidence. Under such circumstances, as it is mentioned in this industrial dispute, Schedule of Reference for the demand the Petitioner has made for reinstatement in service by the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengal-

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer atiin

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Friday, the 28th December, 2001

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 701/2001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court CGID No. 351/99)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication 'under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri G. Bhaskar and the Management of Telecom).

BETWEEN

Sri G. Ehaskar (cid:9) : I Party/Workman AND

1. The General Manager,

Teleeoftimunications, Kancheepuram, Cherthai.

/ The Chief General Manager,

,Telecommunications, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

3. The'Di visionalEngineer (Admn.),

O/o. General Manager,

'TeleCommunications,

Kancheepuram, Chennai.

4. The Sub Divisional Engineer,

Telephones (Groups), Gummidipoondi. (cid:9) : TI Party/Management APPEARANCE:

For the Workman'. (cid:9) : Unrepresented For the Management (cid:9) : Sri K. Sarnbasivam,

Addl. CGSC The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in -exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 ofindustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial'Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/I 96/99-IR (DU) dated 29-09-1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, Chennai, where it was taken on file as CGID No. 351/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this Case.from that Labour Court to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of trs 223

51:::

records from that_Labour Court, the -case -haS been taken on -file as in No. '701/2001 and notices Were Sent to the parties .on either side, infonting them about the transfer Of this Cate to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal :en 15-10-2001. On that date neither party was pfesent -to prosecute ;this. case further. Then fresh 'notices -Were setit to them for the adjourned dates for their appearance.

When the matter was taken up today:finally, the Party/Workman 'is not present, and 'there 'representation at all on the sideof the-I Party/Work- man:. The learned counsel far the -II PartY/Manage- ment who appeared earlier and filed the stateinent of objection is present and advanced his 'argument.

Upon perusing the Order of Reference in respect of this industrial dispute between the Parties, Counter Statement, and other material papers doTrek rd, and iaboithearing the arguinents advariced by life learned coutilel for the 'II:Party/Management and after con- sidering all the relevant aspects, this Tribunal has passed on merits the following :

AWARD

The Industrial bisptite referred to in the above order or reference by the Central Govt. for adjudi- cation by this Tribunal isas follows :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Telecom in terminating the services:, of Shri G. Baskar as casual mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled 2" 2. The Counter. Statement of the H Party/ Management has been filed as a reply . to the -dispute that has been raised by the Petitioner/ Workman before the conciliating authority, since he has not appeared and filed any 'Claim Statement before this Tribunal. It is averred in that reply by the II Party/Management, (hereinafter referred to as respondent) that ,the contention of the Petitioner while raising this dispute that he was appointed as Casual labour on 3-12-1983 and he was continuously working with the Respondent and had put in 1414 num- ber of days and the was terminating on 15-5-1995 are denied. It is further averred in the counter of the Respondent that the Petitioner had worked fore only 87 days during 1995 as Casual Labour. The 'service certificates mentioned by the Petitioner in his claim said to be for, his service, in the previous period are all bogus and manufactured by the Petitioner. Since there was no sufficient work, he was not further engaged. The Petitioner was not appointed, and terminated at any, point of time by the respondent Telecom Department1858 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :. FEBRUAR 16, 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] G. Baskar as casual mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is he entitled ?"

Point :

and hence, the question of appointment, termi- nation and continuance of service does not arise. The Petitioner was engaged purely ,on casual basis for the unskilled casual work on daily rated wages. The work done by the petitioner is purely casual in nature and also not perennial. The Petitioner was never informed by the Respon- dent that he will be taken back to service in the Respondent/Telecom Department. Since the Petitioner had not completed 240 days, the question of (cid:9) continuance of service and notice under section 25F of Industrial Di sputes Act, 1947 does not arise. In 1989 a scheme called grant of temporary Status to Casual Labour was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are --

1, The casual labour should have been en-

' gaged prior to 31-3-1985;

2.. lie should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme

i.e. 01-10-89; . (cid:9) .

3. He should have put in 240 days continuous service in any one of the preceding years prior to 01-10-1989 ; and

4. There should not be a break for a period

of more than one year.

The Casual Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On verification it was found, that the service particulars submitted by' the Petitioner from 1983 to 1994 were bogus and manufactured one. Hence, the department did not consider the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted false service particulars with a view to getting employment and other benefits from the department. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and peren- nial in nature. As on date, there is no such work and post with the department. The Respondent Department does not engage any casual mazdoor and as on date there is no casual mazdoor in the department. Since there is no work and there is no post, there is no scope for the Petitioner for his re-employment in the Respondent/Telecom Department. The Petitioner was engaged on casual basis as and when required by the department hence he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status, Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner which has been raised as referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication may be dismissed.

3. The point for my consideration is —

Though the Petitioner/Workman Sri G. Baskar has raised this industrial dispute against the Management of Telecom, demanding reinstate- ment as -casual mazdoor, he has not chosen to to file his Claim Statement either before the Principal Labour Court, where it was pending earlier or before this Tribunal after the matter has been transferred to the afile of this Tribunal. The II Earty/Management alone had chosen to file the statement objecting to the claim 'made by the. Petitioner/Workman by raising this industrial dispute against them. The xerox copies of muster rolls have been filed as documents in support of the stand taken by the Respondent/ Management in disputing the clai n made by the Petitioner/Workman in this industrial dispute. It is clearly averred in the Statement of Respondent/Management that the Petitioner/Work- man was engaged only for 87 days during 1995 as Casual Labourer and the service certificates he produced earlier as though he was in service in the respondent department from 1983 to 1994 were found to be bogus and manufactured one. It was categorically alleged in the Counter State- ment that he has submitted false service certi- ficates and the department had not engaged him as casual mazdoor as claimed by him. It is further contended in the Counter Statement that the Petitioner had not fulfilled the requisite qualifications to grant him Temporary Status Mazdoor under the, Schein& introduced in the year 1989 for the Casual Labourers who actually worked in the Respondent Department. MI these specific averments in the Counter Statement have not been disputed or denied by the Petitioner/ Workman who raised this industrial dispute by stating his contention before this Tribunal. It is specifically averred in the Counter Statement of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner was not appointed and terminated at any point of time and hence the questi on of appointment, termination and continuation in service does not at all arise_ All these aver- ments have not been disproved by the Petit' oner/ Workman by mentioning his, plea as well as proving the same with legal evidence, before this Tribunal. Under such circumstances, as it is mentioned in the order of reference by the Govt. as an industrial dispute, for the demand, the concerned workman made for his reinstatement in service by the Management of Telecom as casual mazdoor cannot be considered as legal "Whetherthe action of the Management of Telecom in terminating the services of Shri1859 3 (1i)] 6114$ 60-1074W .r6-41rb 16, 2002/T1Pst 27,1923: (cid:9) and , justified. Hence, he is not entitled to the relief he prayed' for in this dispute against the II Party/Management Telecom Department. This, the point is answered, on merits, accordingly.

4. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the I Party/Workman is not entitled to any relief_ No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th December, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None

Documents filed :

For the I Party/Workman : Nil

For the II Party/Management :—

S. No Muster Rol. ,No.

For .the (cid:9) Name:of the Person month

1. 5555/23 March, 1984 Sri C. Raman 2. 4769/7 May, 1984 (cid:9) Sri P. Yesudian 3. 4769/13 May, (cid:9) 1984 (cid:9) Sri. A. Ganga-

dharan 91 fq(-QII, 21 (cid:9) -4rnsit, (cid:9) 2002

E673:11% 5 25 fErlia. ;actin, 1947 ( 1947 (cid:9) 14). Or WM 17 (cid:9) wric TRM17 Aritc-iiitkrc (cid:9) T41I-da * *1.14 fitufei• ells rq{{^{{FOOTNOTE *}}}} aetrcl (cid:9) air,atrufran nrrf icito4 tf *Pitg Ht9,lt afteiriTT %i for 71 ri chre (7,1" Sit 7 1 4/200 1) WI N=t4i4in TTaal' t, @ag trt9,rt *"( 21-1-2002 (cid:9) 511R-f (cid:9)

I crq-400121200199--41{NR. (cid:9) rfcc )1

¶,Freq' trq Wit tfEr q-FETWia New Delhi, the- 21st January, 2002 S. 0. 525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, CHENNAI as, shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the General Manager, Telecommunications, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21-01-2002:

[No. L-40012/200/1999-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 28th December, 2001 Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 714/2001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court CGID.

No. 364/99)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri L. Srinivasan and the Management of the General Manager, Telecommunications, Kanch- cheepuram Dist.).

BETWEEN

Sri L. Srinivasan : I Party/Workman

AND

The General Manager, (cid:9) : H Party/Management Telecommunciations, Kancheepuram (cid:9) Dist.

APPEARANCE

For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,

C. (cid:9) Premavathy, Advocates.

For the Management : Sri K. Sambasivam,

Addl. CGSC The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (I) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Indutrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/200/99-IR (DU) dated 29,09-1999.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil' Nadu Principal Labour Court, Chennai, where it was taken- on file as CGID No. 364/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Labour Court, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour 'ivas pleased to order transfer of this case from that Labour Court to this Tribunal for •adjudication. On receiprt of records from that Labour Court, the case has been taken on file as I. D. No. 714/2001 and notices were sent to the (cid:9) counsel on either side on record, in- forming them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 17-10-2001. On that day, the counsel on either side were present. Then the case was adjourned to 20-11-2001 for filing of Claim Statement by the I Party/Workinan.

¹⁸⁴⁰ (cid:9) THE GAZPT lb OF EiDIA FEJ²FlaTARY. r²⁰⁰²/MAGIHA ²⁷, ¹⁹²³ [PART IL--SEC. 3001 Though the matter has been adjourned to various hearing dates, extending time for filing Claim Stateinent of the I Party on the request of the counsel' on record, no Claim Statement has been filed till this date. The counsel for the II Party/ Management has filed his Statement of Objection along with the Xerox copy of the statement of Petitioner's claim, he filed before the conciliating authority while raising this industrial dispute and has advanced his arguments.

Upon perusing the Order of Reference in reepect of this industrial dispute between the parties, the copy of the Claini Statement filed by the Petitioner before the conciliating authority while raising this dispute, filed by the Respon- dent as 'a document here in this case, statement of objection filed by the II Party/Manage -.tent, the other material papers on record, and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management, after considering all these relvant aspects, this Tribunal has passed on merits the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of reference by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :-- "Whether the action of the General Manager, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu in termina- ting the services of Shri L.Srinivasan as casual - mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the Statement of Objection filed by the II Party/Management Telecom Depart- ment Cher nalpattu SSA are brielfy as follows :—

This Statement of Objection of the II Party/Mana- gement has been filed as a reply to the Claim State- ment filed by this Petitioner before the conciliating authority, while raising this dispute before him for conciliation. The xerox copy of the same has been filed by the II Party/Management, since the Petitioner has not appeared and filed any Claim Statement before this Tribunal. It is averred in that reply by the II Party/Management (hereinafter refers to as Respon- dent) that the contention of the Petitioner while ra- ising this dispute that he was appointed as Casual Labour on 01-08-1983 and he was continuously wor- king with the Respondent/Telecom Department and he was terminated during 1995 are not correct. It is further averred in the Counter of the Respondent that the Petitioner in his Claim Statement filed before the conciliation proceedings, had not pleaded about his engagement i.e. place of work and' mode of em- ployment and period of employment under the official of.the gespuuctent/Department. The Petitioner has not submitted any service particulars before the Lab- our Commissioner in the conciliation proceedings and before this Hon'ble Tribunal till this date to substan- tiate his claim made in this industrial dispute. In the absence of service particulars and in the absence of pleading, the department is unable to say whether the Petitioner has worked or not and also not able to file counter in detail in this case. Under such circum- stances, the Respondent/Management reserve the right to file additional counter, if necessary. Hence, the Honble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition.

The Point for my consideration is —

"Whether the action of the General Mana- ger, Telecommunications, Chengalpattu in ter- minating the services of Shri L. Srinivasan as casual mazdoor is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

Point :—

Though the Petitioner /Workman Sri L.Srinivasan has entered appearance through a counsel, he has not chosen to file his Claim Statement either 'before the Principal Labour Court earlier or before this Tri- bunal after the matter has been transferred to the file of this Tribunal and notice to that effect was served on his counsel on record. Though his counsel has filed vakalat on his behalf in this case even before the Tamil Nadu Principal. Labour Court on 23-8-2000 itself, when it was pending there, and the notice cf transfer of this case to the file of this Tribunal has been served on him many times, neither himself ncr' his client the I Party/Workman has chosen to appear before this Tribunal to Prosecute this industrial dis pute referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by filing his Claim Statement, supportive documents and other materials. On the other hand, the Petitioner and his counsel on record • remained absent for all the hear- ings before this Tribunal leaving the matter unre- presented. But the II Party/Management alone had chosen to file the statement objecting to the claim made by the Petitioner/Workman by raising this industrial dispute against them. It is categori- cally denied in the Statement of objection of the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner/Work man was appointed as Casual Labour on 01-08-1983 and he was continuously working with the Respon- dent/Telecom Department and he was terminated during 1995. It is further contended in the Statement of objection of the Respondent/Management that in the claim Statement filed by the Petitioner/Workman before the conciliation proceedings, there was nc plea ' ding about his engagement i.e. place cf w7ric and mode of employment and period cf employment order the official of the Respondent/Department. It is %Twit:971,9 16, 2002/;0$27;1923"-.

S.O. 526.—In pursuance cf Section 17 cf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cent- , tral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/16 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Kolkata as shcwn in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management cf Calcutta Telephones and their wc rkman, which was received by the Central Government en 21-1-2002.

[No. L-40012/245/94-m (DU)l KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Cfficer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 03 of 1996

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of Calcutta Telephones

AND

Their Workman

Present :

further -contended that the .Petitioner' has not su - (cid:9) eWDellu, the 2 st any (cid:9) Ott mitted any service particulars before the Labour 7 Commisssioner in the conciliation proceed- ings and also before this Hon'ble Tribunal till this date to substantiate his claim for which the indus- trial dispute has been raised. It is specifically aver- red in the statement of objection filed by Respon- dent/Management that in the absence of service particulars and in the absence of pleadings the de- partment is unable to say whether the Petitioner has worked or, not and also not able to file counter. in detail in this case. All these specific averments in the Counter Statement have not been disputed or denied by the Petitioner/Workman who raised this industrial dispute, by letting in rebuttal evidence by way of acceptable documentary or legal evidence. All these averments have not been disproved by the Petitioner/Workman by making plea as well as pro- ving the same with legal evidence. Under such cir- cumstances, for the relief mentioned in this indus- trial dispute Schedule of Reference, as the demand of the Petitoner for reinstatement in service by the General Manager, Telecummunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor cannot be considered as legal and justified. Hence, he is not entitled to the relict he prayed for in this dispute against the II Party/ Telecommunications Department of Kancheepuram District, Chennai. Thus, the point is answered -accordingly.

4. In the rusult, an Award is passed holding that the I Party/Workman is not entitled to any re- lief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th December, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

°neither. side : Nil

4t fSrrTl, 21 WiNti, 2002

fqq14 Rferitiff, 1947(1947 WI" 14) ti i (cid:9) I i 17 fi. V"1,1701' (cid:9) titlizr altientit "t''(€6 ;19' (cid:9) tr-Etrda * (cid:9) ft-4RO 9417 *4*rd

(cid:9) tW, TtT4tt 4 ft-riqbe (cid:9) leitftm f4-(fg TRTIT Vretitrzr 9;rfirgrtur eFf-crra * titz #wtit 03106) .*1 ahri fish t, TR-SR (cid:9) f 21/1/2002 WI sfrca* (cid:9)

I

o o 1*4 5164-Titt RR (IT /1)]

VIVA (cid:9) qferWit 362 01/2002-30

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma

.......Presiding Officer Appearance :

On behalf of Management Mr. T. Chowdhury,

Advocate.

On behalf of Workman (cid:9) Mr. M. Dutta,

Advocate.

State : West Bengal (cid:9) Industry : Telephones

AWARD

By Order No. L-40012/245/94-1R (DU) dated 26-02-1996 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under sections 10(1Xd) and (2A) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication

"Whether the action of the management of Calcutta Telephones in terminating the services of Shri Jagannath Dey, is justified fair and proper? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The present dispute arises on account of a dispute raised by one Jagannath Dey who happened to be an employee of the Calcutta Telephones and was removed from his service with effect from 01-08-1988 without any reason being assigned and in contravention of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (cid:9) -166 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDLIF- "FEWD—:KRY i.g.,'-1041" &IA 27, 1923 .[PART 1 (cid:9) ,(01- snidrvitnit Of the Fineman -- ant the Iiiinkri4ce-WaS terininated on 01208-1'988; but prior to` if hid Worked continuously till the date of his termination' and thus he had worked fof atotal period of 533 days. He also stated that, he used to sign las attendance in the register and was being paid on Monthly bisia on the liasis of daily wage which was Rsi 60/- at the time of his termination. De did not receive any retrench- rintit no*, nth' any tonnensatiOn Was paid 'to He also staled that he tried to ptoctne job after termination, but it had no effect. In his Cross- examination it has been suggested that he had telt the service himself' and was not actually terminated by the management Which he hai denied and he has stated that he puts reliance on Ext. W4 which is the xerin copy Of the office into regarding hiS service.

3. On receiving notice, both the parties appeared and filed their respective written statements. In, the written statement filed on behalf, of the workman it has been stated that he was appointed as casual worker by the Calcutta Telephones on 21-08-1986 and he continued to work as such, for a :piety long time. He had also a clean and maritorious record of service. But all on a sudden, in an unceremonious Mariner varbally his service was terminated with effect from 01-08-1988. During the period Of service he was working under the control and supervision of the junior- Telecom ;Officer of the management at Exchange No. IV/54-55 and thus before his termi- nation fie had conialeted 533 days of work. Accor- ding to the workman his removal from service can be termed as retrenchment Within the meaning of Section 2(thri) of the indusitial Disputes Act, 1947 and since the management failed to Pay retrenchment compensation or give due notice to the workman, the conditions of Section 25F of the Act have not been fulfilled. It is also stated that the Workniart had completed 249 days of work within 12 plinths preceding the date of retrenchment arid therefore his termination is void and illegal and accordingly it has been prayed that the termination order beheld to be illegal and he should be treated to hate conti- nued in service and he should be granted relief of full back wages. It has been, stated that at the time of his removal he was getting wages at the rate of Its. 60/- Per day on monthly basis. ,

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the management the allegations made on behalf of the workman have been denied in general and it has been stated that the wiaikinan be put to stria proof of the facts alleged in the written statement. However, it is also denied that the workman had :performed any work of perennial nature under Calcutta telePho-nes. It is however stated that the allegation of his retrench- ment is incorrect andSi-Shy he had left the job of his own and therefOre, the questiOn of considering his case treating his removal as retrenchment does int arise. It is alSO stated that the Workman had never Piit forward his claim before the eninloyer 'Prior to raising the dispute and it has been denied that there has been any paper regarding the service of the work- man in,the custody of the Calcutta Telephones. So, the entire allegations in the written statement of the workman has been totally and generally denied on behalf of the management.

5. On the tither hand; Shri Panehanan BiSWas has hien examined on behalf _of the inanagezinent as MW-1. He was pbsted as LTD, at Bagbazar Exchange in ShbrDiViSiein IV Bean 1986 to 1988 and that the concerned wakinan was working as casual labour" there, but he had volUntarily: left service in Arignst, 1988: He stated that the - did rioUtertriinate his seriiice. HoWeter, this witness has adinitted that the wocicnirin Worked from 21 August, ,1986 to 31st fylV, 1988 continuously. He has alaci produced and proved a cfrcinar Of the antfibrity of 'the Telephones Dent.. Marked Ext. M-1. He has stated 'that no attendance register used to be maintained for casual 'labour in the Othce, aria therefore, there was no question of the workman Signing the register. He has however stated that at the time Of his 'eating Work the workman was getting at the rite Of RS. 14.85 as rennnuneration and not Its. 60/- per day; S elan-tad by (cid:9) wdrkmati. (cid:9) crodd-examination he has stated that he has not produced any paper to show that the iiiirkinati 'had Voliiiitaribi abandoned the service. He also stated that' the War/titian did not inform the authorities that he was leaving the service and he also did not write any letter to the concerned workman enquiring about - Whether he find left the job voluntarily. He has, hciwever, Stated that he was not given any job as he remained absent from 31-07-1988. 'lie has also stated- in his cross-exami- nation that they did not maintain any roll for the Casual labour(' and theY iised to Maintain a Private irate for cakthating the attendance-Of the cawtial lab-Diners for .the puipose of pardparation of their pay entitlement. He however, stated that he has papers to show that at the time of abandonment of Service of the concerned workman, his pay was "Rs. 14.85 per day, but no Stich Paper has been

produchd. So, if his been suggested to thin (cid:9) - the, workman. had not voluntarily abandoned the service, rather he wah reinoVed and terininated. He atrs Inithir sifted-that daSital workman receives 5. Both the parties in ,support of their respective claims have examined one witness_ each. The work- man, Jagannath Pey has examined himself as WW-1 and he has stated ,that he was appoiritcd as a casual Worker on 21-98:1980. and was posted at Exchange No.. 54-55. He also atatedgiathe usehltnitty under- ground cables and d® overhea4 -workstinder the ,JR,P110111193,00liant 4r.C9717--v9ar§ad-Aniit- : tegtlY $1,4 • Vouchers bq-Y.P..11.9t hc°11, MOW* :all& therefore, it has been sh880tOthathad such vouchers been produced it would have revealed that the rem- numeration which the workman Was getting .at the relevant time was at the rate of Rs. 60/- per day.•

• •• (cid:9) :

.

7. So, far as the documents are concerned, the management has produced, only one document, marked•iExt. (cid:9) .which :is a .circular issued, by the Office ,of the Director General, Posts & ;Telegraph on. V70374985. In this circular the .detailed instruc- tions regarding engagement of casual ;labour haye been given and so far as the regular kind of work. is concerned, :it has been stated that for such work tahuatiabaur should not be engaged. It. has -been stated that if any casual mazdoor are being Utilised for maintenance/office work, they.should. be tealliattedttransferrcd. and used in the worIM enume- rated therein i.e. for installation etc It has :also heel stated that every effort should be made to rechece casual niaZdOirrs etiplayed and in no Case. freSh reguitmentiernploynicrat,shOldjbe made:

Aegardmg (cid:9) Ara (cid:9) nt has hen :behalf,. of the :4l1,3"c3.3W,M that • cannot be relied upon as the autherreitioiy of such document is truubtful and how it came to the posses- sion ofthe workman is not known and in this regard an observation of Their Lordships of the Ilorc:ble Supreme Court in the case of Puranjit Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 8c Q's., 1994 Soup. (3) (cid:9) 471 has been placed. In this easc one Assistant Engineer had Bled the case of deciding his seniority and for this purpose he had rofrieci, on. a xerox copy of an office note which was challenged :by the respondent and it was observed by2Their Lord- ships that "although it is not known how he cane in possession of the said notings, it was improper on his part to produce these notings in the ConA pro- ceedings' assuming that Le had come in possession of the same atithorised iy. In this view of the matter, r: io be safe to place reliariee on it does not airpea this document which could be of Some help to the concerned WorkMan (cid:9) fluwever, even if that ,part ofiheevidence c[the workman is ignored, this mach becirines clear, that so far as Ms claim of continuous service from 21st August, 1986 to 31st July, 1988 is concerned, it is achnitted*y MW-1 in his examination in chief. .•

•

8. There is no dispute about this circular and it appears to be apparent that because of the feet that the .er4agement of. such .casual labour for the work which he was doing was prohibited, by the pirrtmo- rate, the junior officers responsible for engagiv such casual labour were embarassed and they did not want to create any record .regarding 'their services. But, the sum and substance of the evidence of the Management is that no positive material has been PrOatirled and no Specifie" plea bas been taken to kentrovert the sMterabrits arid allegations of the work- man regarding .hts claini. It has never -been stated that, the workman concerned had not worked for ..,the.meriod claimed by him or that. he did not .work • fOr a,totalpepiod of 533 days. (cid:9)

C

9. On behalf of the workman copy of an appli- cation filed by the workman concerned before the DivisionaLEngineer has been prodnced and is marked Ext.. W-1. It was filed on 18-06-1991 and it was stated that he had worked as casual labour in the Diyisiottctmcermedifor pore than 240 days, but was not getting any chance to give any service to the treParinient hi-SOS:ter Roll. candidate and, therefore nrirted. that (cid:9) namee • be included iiihe • Mukter Another paper is the prayer of the workman Made before the Regional Labour COminisslOncr (Central) regarding his grievance which is dated 17th February, '1993; in which clear allegation has been made thatinspite of (cid:9) aving worked for more than 240 days continuouSlY, he was removed by. tire Department.A Paper whielt is somewhat disputed has been filed on behalf of the workman it has been ,inarlced ;as-at. AV„--3 which-is the xerox copy of the

10. Now, on the one hand, the workman says that he was unceremoniously removed 'and on the other hand, it has peen stated on behalf of the ma- naleinent that he had left the service voluntarily. So tairras the elaint regarding continued diet:vibe of the workman is Concerned, the management . did not produce any ,document, though admittedly the management was in nosSession of the ACG-17 you- Chers on the basis of whiCh payments 'were Made .10 the Weirkirian. Ori thcsaCcOnnt, the contention- of the learned Advocate for the workman at:Meat0o be correct that ecairse the 'managethent withheld the vital document, adverse inference should be drawnsegarding the rate at which. the' workman was being.phid atithe:tirne of his cessation Of Work,' It is very strange that. the management did not.produee any document at all: and :the Whole contest appars to behalf-hearted: Simply saying that, he had left ..the work voluntarily is not sufftcleut to conclude that the. workman. had left the work. So far as the engagement of :the - causal .lahottrers is 'concerned, neither they are given- any appointment letters, nor any removal or retrenchment letter are aver given • them. Even if a workman fails to. appear -after continuing for quite a long time, it is the obliggion of the.management to send a :notice tp,therwqrkpaan as to: why he is not appeating. That -could ,prove the beimfide of the claim of the managententAnt it has not been Slone in the present case and in am* Unabashed ,manrier, the: management :says ,that ,the workman :had left the service himself, whieh.,:joqs ffide ote regarding the service of this workman.

flat, lniZZI IL LW INDIA :FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGHA 27, 1923 [Pan Ii---Snc. 3 OM

in the case 'under reference that the Appellant was employed and was on duty from December 8, 1973 October 19, 1974 when his service was terminated, he had satisfied both the eligibility qualifications prescribed in Section 25F for claiming retrenchment compensation.

not appear to be probable and believable . In tifis time of hardship and cclossal problem of unemploy- ment a workman is not supposed to give-up his job: Moreover, had he done so, where was the question of making representation to the management vide Ext. W-1 and making allegation before the R.L.C. (C') vide Ext. W-2. Therefore, the plea of the ma- nagement to this effect appears to be a plea which cannot be acceptable to any person of ordinary pru- dence. The corollary is that the workman concerned, as alleged, has been removed from service without resorting to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

13. In the present case also the workman has satisfied the conditions required for application of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but he was removed from service which amounts to termi- nation or retrenchment without following the pro- cedures laid down under Section 25F of the Act. The termination or retrenchment of the workman is thus illegal and void. The workman, in the cir- curintance, shall be deemed to have continued in service.

14. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the ma- nagement of Calcutta Telephones should take the workman concerned in service on muster roll and allot work to him forthwith and should also arrange to make payment of back wages at the rate of Rs. 60 " per day, i.e., the last amount paid to him while in service, from the date of his illegal termination of service.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

Dated, Kolkata, -

The 2nd January, 2002.

ift fqva, 21 A'71-4-4, 2002 I I. It is to be considered that for entitlement of a workman to get relief under Section 25F of the Act it is necessary for him to fulfil the requirement criteria of Section 25B of the Act. According to Section 25B a workman shall be- deemed to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period in un- interrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman. In this case no plea has been taken on behalf of the manage- ment that he had failed to attend the job during the period of his employment for any other reason than mentioned, in the provision of Section 25B. So, it is obvious, that admittedly this workman was in continuous and uninterrupted service from 21st August, 1986 to 31st July, 1988, which has been ad- mitted by MW-I himself and according to the work- man the total period for which he had worked was 533 days which has not been controverted. In such a condition, the removal of the workman from service was clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Vract trn Tit tfEb wrrEnre

tit II:=2-411T-3.(

ANNEXURE

Before Shri S.M. Goel, Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chandigarh.

Case No. ID 132/92

The General Secretary, Salal Project Labour Union, Talwara Colony, Reasi (J&K).

Union

Versus

The General Manager, Salal Hydroelectric Project, Jyotipuram Via Reasi (J &K)—Management

Appearances

For the Union : None

For the management : Shri V.K. Gupta

AWARD

(Passed on 22-11-2001)

The Central Govt. vide notification No. L- 42011/ 37/91-IR(DU) dated 11th of November 1992 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Sala! Hydroelectric Project, Jyotipuram in effecting the change in service condition by way of lowering the pay scale of S/Shri Gurdeep Singh, Ram Singh, Kamal Dev and Joginder Singh, Work Asstts. is justified? If not, what relief the work- men concerned are entitled to?"

2. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the workmen. Despite several notices none has put up appearance on behalf of the wokrmen. It appears that union is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecu- tion. Central Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

-22-11-2001.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer 47-a, 21 Iricit. , 2002

Trr 5 28. — 91NAPTW 'fa- iq dif--R (cid:9) 1947 ( 1947 %-1. 14) T1" UM 17 k wvitut (cid:9) 4,1"ixf tRis-R 499' te.'146kc. th* fcti4 Rh' eic'crwitEr (cid:9) srar- da (cid:9) tichg (cid:9) Th 39% Titwrel 4ititi t 'KM sikilrit4) fait< 4 WM (cid:9) ci) 2Ttlich (cid:9) to a i1 i (cid:9) t/LiTe (tat th241' 9/ 93)

I805

T

(cid:9) 21-1-2002 fi (cid:9) ki Ti (cid:9) Tit i

crff- 42011/41/91-Wt3ATZ (*I)]

rAttr WO, VtiKre' New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002 S. 0. 528.—In pursuance (cid:9) of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central. Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Caurt, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Instt. for Research on Buffaloes and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-1-2002.

[No. L-42011/41/91-IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Before Shri S. M. Goel, Presiding Officer, Cen- tral Govt. Indistrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chandigarh

Case No. I. D. 9/93

Surta and 104 Others C/o President, District Agriculture Workers Union, Gali No. 5, H. No. 123, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar-125001 (cid:9) Petitioners

Vs.

Director, Central Institute for Research on

Buffaloes, Hissar. (cid:9) Respondent.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : D. R. Sharma with Radhey

Kishan Bhyan.

For the Management : R. K. Sharma

AWARD

(Passed on 18th ,October, 2001) The Central Govt., Ministry of Labour, vide Notification No. 42011/41/91-IR (DU) dated 28th December, 1992 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication ;

"Whether the actions of the management of Central Instt. for Research on Buffaloes in not regularising the services of 105 we rkers (as per the list enclosed) are justified ? If not; what relief the workman concerned are entitled to ?"1866 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF Npits FFJ-411,.Wskt.1( .,10„ X1924 WHA 21, 1923 [P 'E.9" ?Pin 2. President of the Vnion Shri Radliey Kish an appeared and made a statement that the Union does not want to pursue with the present reference as they want to avail another remedy and the reference may be treated as withdrawn. In view of the above, the reference is returned as withdrawn. Central Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

18-10-2001 (cid:9) S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer fgerfl, 2.1 (cid:9) 2002

M-1.3;17. 529: —1414)Poti fc19i4 gAr refiT, 1947 (.1947 TT 14) ef ART 17 (cid:9) ;yip tui (cid:9) 40"ZZI e I (cid:9) k krififf (cid:9) Al (cid:9) to (cid:9) SkErda (cid:9) tict.9 Nam): TO 79* ch4cs-ret aclq; Wtda' 4 19' 0241-TW fawg 4 .-4-41 arc 4141111.6 tdfiigi01 WieFTI (cid:9) ti6TZ (-4-411t 4U11 87/96) *1 AMINW t t tfthzt etmrt ¶1 21-1-2002 (cid:9) strff

Versus

General Manager Saki Hydro Electric Prcjcct Jyotipuram (J &K)

—Management APPEARANCES

For the workman ; None for the workman.

For the management ; Shri V. K. Gupta.

AWARD

(Passed on 11th of December, 200-0 The Central Govt. vide gazette notification No. L-42011/55/954. R. (DU) dated 30-8-96 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :— (cid:9)

1/4 Prt lEtt I

. W42011/55/95-%11t iTT2 (TA))

TffeT 2-14671, ate %dim-4 New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002 S. 0. 529. —In (cid:9) pursuance (cid:9) of Secfion 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1,947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Salal Hydrcelectirc Project and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on, 21-1-2002.

[Na. L-42011/55/95-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXU.BE

Before Shri S. M. Goel, Presiding -Officer, Central Gavt. Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,

Chandigarh.

Case Na. I. D. 87/96

Workers C/o General Secy. Hydro Electric Project workers Karmachari Union

H. No. 658-H, Talwara Colony Teh. Reasi, Udhampur, Jammu & Kashmir-1,82312.

"Whether the action of the management of Salal Hydro-electric Project in denying the accommodation to Sala! Project workcharge Employees Union in contrast to other unions operating in the project tantamounts, to unfair Labour. Practice (cid:9) If not, to what relief the workman are entitled ?"

2. Today the case was fixed, for filing of claim statement. Despite several notices ncne has put up appearance on behalf of the workman nor any claim statement has been'filed for the last five years. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of pro- secution. (cid:9) Central Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

11-12-2Q01

S. M. GOEL, Presiding-Officer ;:rtrq,c4), 21 ,3fricut, 2002

M-T AT . 530:--41141Pich 1-47g TIATPIEPT, 1947 ( 1947 TT 14) T.) AM 17 t Tr9rr (cid:9) 4,g-;T 4t4T niza-42-{ Tftrirril iterktieT writ;

xatti k 1i-44 f (cid:9) 41.1%) witc 99; TTIM12-1 xHgA 4' W-6 92F1111W fivit4 (cid:9) 4,4 Ei AMR %NOM WINM-2131 . 2, 4:Eft t 99TZ (6-44 kittrf dt (cid:9) At2/20 it 2000) it Stet. I Drct t

Ifitemn alit it* (cid:9) -

4pglicant

NeW- built the iNt tindify726

S.O. 530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Net, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government Industrial Trilimial-cum-Labour Conrt, Mumbai No. II as shown in. the.. Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Director, Indian Institute cf Technology; and their workmen, received by the Central GoVerrunent on 21-01:2002.

[No. L-42011/65/1999-1R(D11)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

. (cid:9) .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. It Mini-Mai

PRESENT •

S. N. Sinidatikar, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2/20 of 2:000 Employers in relation to the Management of the Director, Indian Institute of Technology.

The Director, Indian 'Institute of Technotogy, Poway, Miimbai-400076..

AND

Their Worlcmen.

SiSh. Shabhuddin Rant & $hiy Murat Ram. Gareela.Nagar, Old Pine Line, Ora TIT. Mkt. Gate.

Mtifebai-400076.

APPEARANCES:.

For the Emnlover : M/s. Bhaishanker Range & Girdhari- ht AdviscateS.

, Poi the World-nen Ms. Varnianit Deshpatide, AdVocate. Mull-Mai, dated 29th October, 1001

AWAIM

, (cid:9) . (cid:9) ,. (cid:9) .. (cid:9) . (cid:9) .. (cid:9) .

The Government of India. Ministry of I abour by its Order No. L-42011/65/99-likloTT) dtd. 2.7-0t.2000. in .exerelse of the. powers ,conferned. by ClauSe .(c1) Of silb-section (I) and 4i-section 2(A) of Section 10 'of the lindus,trial Disputes Act, 1947 have inferred ihe frillciWing Industrial 12fisffilte for adjudication.

"Whether the editing of the Mailagethent Of Indian histt. of..Technolomt,_ Mumbai in demoting the workman • S/Sii1 Shatiblifidin Rant and Ship Murat Ram from the test Of. Insnector to Watchman Gr. I w.e.f. 22.-3;:94 is -justified? If hot, what,relief the workmen S'/Sh - Shiblniddin taut "and Shiv Murat Ram are entitled to ?"

-,.

Z. Wogunen,S/Shri Stobbudciin Rant and Shiv Murat Rant are .the netirianent ,employees of TIT.. Powat On 28-3-1992 With they (cid:9) were Working-as. Tninectors in the Security Branch. Beth The Utorkihen vide their Statement of Claim (Pxhiiiit-4) contended that on the! Materiul day i e. on 28-1-92 they both were assUulteg by Rakshak. Mr.. Tavade and Mr. Singh. While tkqh9T-,008, their dlitie§,aS jai:meter. However, unfortunately it is -contended by both of then) that the victims were corned .8g.a,s'gailants: aficrthat 'fal§e inquiry was held against them by the inquiry officer Mr. laorikar. It is their - contention That The -tencirt ef the inquiry officer is based and that the fiegiSion ..of thie.Disclidiriary Anthority based on the inquiry i-erhirt demoting them t as- Waterman Grade-T from the post O-fangfiefit/Of tintit 214-94.3s. totally uninstified. It is conten- t% tlil ,-thAt. Ileth; :6070.19-Ylet .1)/id assailed the order of the 14111111118,e,01.0 (cid:9) fg..415etote ,the. Chairman. TIT.. which . 4vakitill heridiria. (cid:9) et both had preferred ILL. 'Pin 1998 in the State Industrial Court against which the management

.

went td High Court, wherein High Canrt directed the work- man to approach the Central Government Industrial Machinery to ventilate their grievance. Thereupon the workman moved the R.L.C.(C) who tiled for conciliation but failed and there upon the order was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. Beth the workmen Contended that, action taken by the manage- Ment demoting them as watchman, Grade-I be held unjustified.

3. Management, I.I.T., Mumbai, filed their Written State- ment (EXhibit-9) contending that the Tribunal has no juris- diction to entertain and adjudicate the reference and that it is not maintainable. It is their contention that the reference was espoused by both the workmen and not the union, there- fore, it is not an industrial dispute, as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act Action of the manage- ment as regards dismissal, retrenchment of the employee that covers and that the dispute as regards other aspects are' to be espoused by the trade unions or by collective body of workmen. However, the instant dispute is an exception to that and therefore this tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this refererien. It in contended that these two workmen since neither discharged, nor dismissed nor retrenched nor otherwise their services were terminated at any point of time by the management the Order passed by it by way of punishment reverting each one of them to the post of watchman Grade4 from the post of Secdrity Inspector, does not fall within the definition of Industrial' Dispute, and also under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is contended the reference be dismissed on that ground.

4. By Way Of IZejoittder (Exhibit-10) both workmen con- tended that the reference still falls within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Iticffittrial Disputes Act and therefore this Tribunal has jurisdiction end consequently reference is maintainable.

5, this tribunal framed issues (Exhibit-14). Since the preliminary issue as regards maintainability and jurisdiction of this reference being on law point both the parties vide pursbis (Exhibit-23) did not lead any oral evidence.

6. On hearing the counsels and perusing the record as a whole I record my findings on the following issues for the reasons mentioned -below :

Findings Issues (cid:9)

I. Whether the reference is (cid:9) No. maintainable ?

2. t 'ithetber this Tribunal has (cid:9) No. jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute ?

3. Whether the action of the (cid:9) Does not management of Indian histt. (cid:9) survive. .of technology, (cid:9) in demoting the- workmen S/Sh. Shalibtiddin Rapt (cid:9) $hiv Murat Ram from the past Of Inspector to Watehmari, Gr. L w.e.f_22-3-94 is legal and justified ?

4 If not legal and iiiitified, What (cid:9) Does not relief the Concerned Worknien survive. are entitled to ?

.REASONS

7. At the threshold the Learned Counsel Shri A. T. Tale- gaukar for the management inviting attention of this tribunal to the record submits that, the cause of the demoting was espoused by the two workmen aid not the union ,which clearly oust the perview of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submits as per Section 2A of the Act cases of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination otherwise of send& of an individual workmen Are covered and if a . workman is reduced in rank pursuant to a domestic inquiry, 'the dispute raised by him does hot become an industrial dispute; However, if the union or hotly of workman. sponsors his cause, it does become an industrial dispute. He therefore Mbirtits. sitthe the.cause demand Was espoused be the Work- maw-this goes not fall with in the score of Industrial Dispute and therefore the 'reference is not maintainable and that this fir IJunal ,has, inn Mrisdietion to ,aditlicate The Saute.-1-10 has relied on 'RajasthanMale toad transport Corporation Anr. Vs. Krishna Kant AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1715. On the¹⁸⁶⁸ (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDL4.: FEBRUARY. 16, 2002/MAQHA 27, 1923 (cid:9) PART II-SEC. 3(ii) other (cid:9) _ _ 'band =Me- Ekarnecl Comiset '-attn-Vandifia-DeshParldfr-²-:- ffir⁴¹ t ⁴). ke,4 tikffitt (cid:9) 21-1-2002 ffi irrtrT WT eft I

for the workman. submits that- (cid:9) the reference is -maintainable. 8. I have gone through the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The expression 'workman' is defined in Clause (s) while expression 'employer' is defined in t_lause (g) of the Industrial- Disputes Act. The expression 'Industrial Disputes' in defined in Section 2(k) to mean any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between em- ployers and workmen or between workmen and workmen_ which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. It is well settled by oatena of Judgments that the dispute between the employer and individual workman does not constitute an industrial dispute unless the cause of the workman is espoused by the body of workman, whether the dispute concerned the body of a workman as a whole or to a section thereof it is an industrial dispute. It is precisely for this reason that Section 2(A) inserted by Amendment Act 35 of 1965 which says :

"Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches: or otherwise terminated the services of an individual workman, no dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such, a discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute not withstanding that no other workman or any union of workman is a party to the dispute." . 79.-40 01 2/ 140/95-ffilt WITT

9. By virtue of this provision the scope of the concept of Industrial Dispute has been widened which now embraces not only Section 2(k) but also Section 2-A. Section 2-A however covers only cases of discharge, dismissal, retrench- ment, or termination otherwise of services of individual work- man and not other matters. This clearly shows the dispute on demotion as watchman, Grade-I from the post of Inspector espoused by both the workman, is not concerning to dismissal. discharge, obviously does not fall within the scope of Industrial dispute. For this the Learned Counsel for the management has rightly relied on the decisions of the Apex Court as above, wherein their Lordships M para. 18 clearly observed-:

gffi'-40012/ 1 5 4/ 9 5-ffilt 9217

"Section 2-A, however, covers only cases of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment 'or termination otherwise of services of an individual workmad and not other matters which means that to give an example—if a worknian is reduced in rank purspant to a domestic inquiry, the dispute raised by him does not become an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2-A. (However, if the union or body of workmen espouses his cause, it does become an industrial dispute). We have given only one instance; there may be many disputes which would not fall within Section 2(k) or Section 2-A. It is obvious that in al/ such cases, the remedy is only in a Civil Court or by way of arbitration according to law, if the parties so choose. The machinery provided by the Industrial Disputes Act for resolution of disputes (in short, Sections 10 or 12) does not apply to such a dispute." In view of the said, decision the reference can safely be said to be not maintainable. Issues Nos. I /4 2 are therefore answered in the negative and the other issues do not survive and hence the following order is passed :

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of as not maintainable.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer 29-10-2001

91 fGrc11, 21 Arfq , 2002

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002 S.O. 531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes:Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 147-171/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of Mangalore Telecom Dint. and their workman, which was received by the Cential Government on 21-1-2002.

[No. L-40012/153/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/140/95-1RODUL, No. L-40012/139/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/151/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/155/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/162/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012 /146/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012 /141/95-IR(DW, No. L-40012/148 /95-IR (DU) , No. L-40012/142/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/145/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/152/95-IR(D11), No. L-40012/154/95-1R(DU), No. L-40012/144/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012 /143/95-IR(DH), No. L-40012/149/95-IR(DU), No L-40012/150/95-IR(DU), No. L-40012/159/95-IR(DU),1869 binr11-- (cid:9) (a)] ¹.¹⁷H.¹¹r⁷JiTri . Tr-fa- ¹⁶, ^{200211117 27},¹⁹²³ No. L-40012;154;95-IR(DU), No. L-40012,156195-IR(DU), No. L-40012161195-1R(DU), ; No. L-40012,15795-1R(DU), No. L-40012/160/95-1R(DU)l

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated, 27th December, 2001

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B. Corn., LLB., Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore.

COMMON AWARD

C. R. No. 147/97

I PARTY

Shri K. Bhaskara Amin, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

I. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the` Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-40012/153/95-1R(DIJ), dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the follow- ing schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Man- galore Telecom District in terminating the services of hri Bhaskara Amin is proper, legal and justified? If nbt, to what relief the workman is entitled to'"

C. R. No. 148197

I PARTY

Shri Jayararn, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom istrict, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

362 GI/2002-31

1. the Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-40012/140/95=1R(DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the follow- ing schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Jayaram is proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 2"

C. R. No. 150/97

.I PARTY (cid:9) •

Shri K. Shankar Naik, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General. Manager„ Mangalore Telecom District,

-Old Kend Road,

Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by dai;:ge (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-40012/139/95-1R(110 dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri K. Shankar Naik is pro- per, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" C. R. No. 151/97

I PARTY

Shri Eknath Jogi, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road. Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-40012/151/95-1R (DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Eknath Jogi is proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C. R. No. 152/97

I PARTY

Shri Kumara Shettigar, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

H PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute vide Order No. L-400121155195-1R (DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Kumara Shettigar is pro- per, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C. R. No. 153/97

I PARTY

Shri P. Chanjoji, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar. Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar. Ashoknagrr Post. Mangalore 575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District. Old Kend Road. Mangalore 575001.

1. The Centre l Government by exercising the powers conferred by chose (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Indutrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-400121162195-IR (DU) dated 26th July 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action, of the management of Mang ilore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Chandjoji is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C. R. No. 154/97

I PARTY

Shri B. Shivanna, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar. Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore 575006.

II PARTY

The Genet al Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore 575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers confered by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vid.: Order No.L-40012/146 /95-1R(DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Shivanna is proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C. R. No. 156/97

I PARTY

Shri K. Raghu. C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Caned" Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post. Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager. Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d). of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-400121141195-IR (DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri K. Raghu is proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"1871 [wnrIl—iT 3 (51)] 9T -C1' VAcrd th744.1 1 6, 2 0 0 2[117W 27, 1 9 23 (cid:9) C. R. No. 157197

I PARTY

Shri B. Vittala, C/o Shri K. Nagesh 'Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by execising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-40012/148/95-IR(DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri B. Vittala is proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the •workman is entitled to ?"

C. R.No. 158/97

I PARTY

Shri Shankar Handa, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar. Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kent) Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the 1.1dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-40012/142/95-IR(DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Shankar Handa is proper, legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C. R. No. 159/97

I PARTY (cid:9) •

Shri K. Jaya, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad,

_ (cid:9) - - (cid:9) - Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vine Order No. L-40012/145/95-IR(DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule

SCHEDULE

"Whether , the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri K. Jaya is, proper, legat and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to 2"

C. R. No. 160/97

I PARTY

Shri P. V. Skaniya, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kened Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-40012/152/95-IR(DU) dated 26th July, 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri P. V. Skaniya is proper legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to 2"

C. R. No. 161797

I PARTY

Shri Naveen Kumar, C/o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar. Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post. Mangalore-575006. b¹.¹⁴¹¹'1872 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY '16, 2002/MAGI-IA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART 11.—SEc. 3001 II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-400 I21154195- 1R(DU) Dated 26th July 1996 for adjudication on the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management (cid:9) of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Naveen Kumar is proper, legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to T'

C.R. No. 162197

I Party

Shri Nagaraja Sherigar, Clo Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad_ Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, • Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-400121144195- JR(DU) Dated 26th July 1996 for -adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management (cid:9) of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Nagaraja Sherigar, is proper, legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" C.R. No. 163P7

I PARTY

Shri B. Jayanarayana, Cho Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post,

Mangalore-575 006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom Distric Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-400121143195-. 1R(DU) Dated 26th July 19% for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management (cid:9) of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri B. Jayanarayana is pro- per, legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C.R. No. 164197

I PARTY

Shri Laxman Poojari, C10 Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-400121149195- 112(DU) Dated 26th July 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management (cid:9) of Managalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Laxman Poojari (cid:9) is proper, legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" C.R. No. 165197

1 PARTY

Shri K. Santosh, Clo Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006.

IT PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575,001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers- conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute vide order No. L400121150195- _ IR (DU) Dated 26th July 1996 foe adjudication on the following schedule:

LAVE (cid:9) 3 OW

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Managalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri. K. Santosh is proper, legal and justified ? If riot, to what relict the workman is entitled to ?"

C.R. No. 166197

I PARTY

Shri K. Gopalakrishna, Clo, Sind K. Nagesh Kutnar, Sri Ganesh F'rasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Managalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute vide order No. L-400121159195- 1R(DU) Dated: 26th July 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Managalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Gopalakrishna is proper legal and justified ? If not to what • relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C.R. No..,167197

I PARTY

Shri K. Udaya Kumar, Clo Shri K.Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006. (cid:9) 4.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Managorle Tlecom District Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of thrfA-c- lion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-400121154195- IR(DU) Dated 26th July 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management (cid:9) of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri K. Udaya Kumar is proper, legal and justified ? If not. to what relief the workman is entitled. to ?"

1$73

ITR7TI 'Tq4V th-Citi 16, 2002111T4 27,1923

C.R. No. 168197

I PARTY

Shri B. Rajaram, 1 C10 Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District) Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A- cf the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute vide order No. L-40012115'6195- IR(EYU) Dated 26th July 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri B. Rajaram is proper, legal and justified ? If not to whact relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C.R.. No. 169197

I PARTY

Shri Henry D'Souza, C,o Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-400121161195- 1R(DU) Dated 26th July 1996 fOr adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the manageenint of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri Henry D'Souza is proper, legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

C.R. No. 170197

I PARTY

Shri K. Magesh Kumar, Co. Slid K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh P'rasad,1874 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGNA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART ii--SEC. 3(H)] Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (2A) of the Sec- tion 10 of the National Disputes Act, 1947 has re- ferred this dispute vide order No. L-4000121157195- IR(DU) Dated 26th July 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri K. Magesh Kumar is proper, legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to 2" C.R. No. 171197

I PARTY

Shri K. R. Ramesh, Cjo Shri K. Nagesh Kumar, Sri Ganesh Prasad, Malemar, Ashoknagar Post, Mangalore-575 006.

II PARTY

The General Manager, Mangalore Telecom District, Old Kend Road, Mangalore-575001.

I. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (2A) of the Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-400121160195- IR(DU) dated 26th July 1996 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management (cid:9) of Mangalore Telecom District in terminating the services of Shri K. R. Ramesh is proper, legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to 2"

2. These 23 cases on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties are clubbed and heard together.

3. The dispute are similar and the management is similar therefore. these 23 cases were clubbed and as requested by the parties evidence was recorded (cid:9) in CR. 147 97 and it was submitted that the said evi- dence be read as evidence in other similar (cid:9) cases. Therefore, all these cases are disposed off by com- mon award with a diriction to keep a copy of the award in CR. Nos. 147197 and in other cases i.e. CP., No. 148197 to 171'97:

4. I have carefully_ perused the records. (cid:9) Claim Statement filed by the workmen in all these cases is similar except some dates. Therefore, in order to dispose off these cases the cast of the workmen in brief can be narrated as follows

5. The case of the first party workmen in CR. No. 147197 and 148197 is that they were recruited (cid:9) as Casual Labourer on 1-12-1985 by the department. Names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Mangalore. Both these workmen have worked till 1-8-1987 without any break.

6. It is their further case that they were terminated w.e.f. 1-8-87. The termination is illegal. (cid:9) These two workmen have worked for more than 240 days as stated in the Claim Statement. They have prayed to pass award in their favcur.

7. In CR No. 150197 the workman was recruited as Casual Mazdoor on 1-12-1985. He worked ;or • more" than (cid:9) 240 days. Ile (cid:9) was terminated on 1-8-1987.

8. In CR. No. 151197 !ha workman was recruited as Casual Mazdoor in 1987 and he worked for more than, 240 days. He was terminated but date is not given.

9. In CR. No. 152197 the workman was recruited as Casual Mazdoor on 1-12-1985 and worked up to 1-8-87. It is his further case that he was terminated in August 1987. Other things are similar.

- 10. In CR. 153197 the workman was recruited as Casual Mazdoor on 1-4-1986 and he was worked till 1-8-87 and he-was terminated in August 1987. Other contentions are similar.

11. In CR. No. 154197 the workman was recruited as Casual Mazdoor on 1-12-1985 and he worked upto 1-8-87 and he was terminated 4n August 1987. Other contentions are similar.

12. In CR. Nos. 156197 to 167197 the workmen were recruited as Casual Mazdoor on 1-12-1985 and worked up to 1-8-87 and they were. terminated in August 1987. Other contentions are similar - but dates are not given. In para 9 of the Claim State- ment it is stated that the termination is illegal because - the workmen have worked fur more than 240 days and the total days on which they worked are 545 days.

13. In CR. No_ 168197 to 171197 the workmen were recruited as Casual Mazdoor on 1-12-1985 and worked up to 1-8-1987. Other contentions are similar.

14. It is the further case of the workmen that some of the Casual labourers placed similarly were regu- larised and giien work. These workmen have pray- ed to pass award in their favour.

15. Second Party appeared and filed Counter State- ment in all these cases. In CR. No. 147197 the con- tion of the management in i brieg is as follows :

16. It is true that the workman was engaged on 1-12-1986 and he Worked up to 31-7-87 till he was terminated on 1-8-87. The workman was terminat- ed as per orders of the Department, of Telceommimi- cation as stated in para 3 of the (cid:9) Counter; .• Nut 1111--ut3 3 (ii)] (cid:9)

ITR6 WI Zr g-a th-Ter 16, 2 0 0 2/1iTri 2 7,1 9 23 (cid:9) 1875 The management has denied all the allega- tions made by the workman and said that the termi- nation is not illegal.

17. In CR. No. 148197 the management has denied the ease of the workman. It is said that no appoint- ment order was given. The workman was taken as Casual Labour on Muster roll and therefore the question of termination does not arise at all. there are no records to support his appointment. • 18. In CR. No. (cid:9) 150,97 the (cid:9) contention of the management is that the ki.laran was engaged (cid:9) in 1986. He worked up to 31-7-87 and as per (cid:9) the orders of the Director of Telecommunication work was stopped in respect of casual labourers who ap- pointed after 30-3-1985.

19. In CR. No. 151197 the workman was engaged by the AE cables,-Mangalore from 1-12-1985 and was worked up to 1-8-87. All other allegations are similar.

20. In CR. No. 152197 was engaged by the Sub Divisional Officer of Telegraphs in November, 1986 and the workman worked up to 4-7-87 and work was stopped from 5-7-1987 as per the orders of the Higher Authority and: it is said that the workman has not worked continuously for more than 240 days. Other allegations are similar.

21. In CR. No. 153197 the workman was engaged by AE Cables, Mangalore on 1-4-1986 and worked up to 31-7-1987. He was terminated on 1-8-87. Other allegations are similar.

22. In CR. No. 154197 the workman was engaged un. 1-12-1985 and worked up to 31-7-1987. (cid:9) He was terminated on 1-8-1987. All other allegations are similar,.

23. In CR No. 1561 97 the workman was engaged during December, 1984 and between July, 1985 to January, 1986. and from Petruary, 1987 to March, 1987 and the contention is that the petitioner left the work in April, 1987. Other allegations (cid:9) are similar.

24. In CR. No. (cid:9) 157197 it is only said that the workman was engaged in the department for com- munication work and he was not recruited as Casual Mazdoor. Other things are denied.

25. In CR. No. 158197 the workman was engaged in June, 1985. He worked till 30-7-1987 and ter- minated on 31-7-1987. Other allegations are simi- lar. .

26. In CR. No. 159197 the workman was engaged on 1-4-84 and he worked till November, 1986 and thereafter the workman biniseif left the (cid:9) work on

-

27. In CR. No. 160197 the workman was engaged in June, '1986 and worked up to 30-7-1987: He was terminated on ³¹-⁷-¹⁹⁸⁷, An other allegations • are similar,

28. In CR. No. 16197 the workman was engaged on 2-8-86 and he worked up lo 31-7-1987 and there- after he was not given work from 1-8-87. (cid:9) Other allegations are similar.

29. In CR. No. 162,97 the workman was engaged in May, 1985 and he worked up to 30-7-1987 and stopped work from 31-7-87. Other allegations are similar.

30. In CR. No. 163.97 the workman,was engaged in September 1985 i.e. 10-9-1985 and he worked up to 31-8-1987 and he was not given work from 1-9-1987. Other allegations are similar.

31. In CR No. 164/97 the. workman was engaged on 12-2-1986. He worked up to 31-7-1987 and he was not given work from 1-8-1987. Other allegations are similar.

32. In CR. No. 165197 the workman was engaged on 12-2-1986. He Worked up to 31-7-1987 and he was not given work on 1-8-87. Other allegations are similar.

33. In CR. No. 1166197 the workman was engaged on 8-11-1985. (cid:9) He worked up to 31-7-1987 and thereafter he was not given work from 1-8-1987. Other 'things are similar.

34. In CR. No. 167197 it is said that the workman was engaged in the year 1985 and worked up to 31-7-1987 and he was not given work from 1-8-87. Other allegations are similar.

35. In CR. No. 168197 the workman was engaged from July 1981 and Worked up to October 1982 and later the workman left the work by himself. Other contentions are similar. (cid:9) It is also said that the workman has raised this dispute after 15 years.

36. In CR, No. 169197 the workman was engaged in October 1985 and worked up to March 1987 and the workman left the work on his own accord and the dispute is raised after 11. years.

37. In CR. No. 170197 the workman was engaged on 1-12-1985 and worked up to 31-7-1987 and he was not -given work from 1-8-1987. Other allega- tions are similar.

38. In CR. No. 171197 the case of the management is that the workman has not worked in the department of telecommunication as per office records. Therefore the case itself is not maintainable.

39. It is seen from the records that as stated earlier the evidences is recorded in CR. No. 147197.

40.. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the workmen Shri B. Shivanna gave evidence as WW1. Against this management examined Sfiri Laxmi ;Naravan Bhat as MWI. His evidence is that he is working in the Department since 36 years and he is aware of the facts of the case. Ile further said that the first party workmen were working as Mazdoor in the department. He has stated that 14 nersons i.e. in Case No. 151/97. (cid:9) 153/97, 152/97. 160/97. 161 1 97, 162197, 163197, 1641 97. 1651 97, 166197 and 170197 are shown hut only 1 I; workman are in this case and others left the work. He further says that in remaining cases workmen have not worked for1876 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGHA V, 1923 [PART (cid:9) 3(iin - (cid:9) - 240 days at all. It is his further evidence that they worked for cable and line maintenance work. On 30-3-1985 DOT Wrote letter not to take fresh re- cruitment as per Ex. M2 and Ex. M3. There was a complete ban for recruitment. Ex. M4 and Ex. M5 are letters. He says in the cross examination that be has not seen letter Ex. WI. He further says that it is not attested and he is unable to explain anything. He says he is not aware of Ex, W2.

41. Against this one of the workmen Shri B. Shivanna gave evidence on behalf of these workmen. His evidence is that all workmen are similarly placed except the date of appointment and their termination. They were all sponsored by Employment Exchange. He worked continuously for 532 days without any break. He was not cross examined by the mane re- ment, as it remained absent.

42. I have carefully perused the documents and 1 have heard written arguments. Ex. Ml is the letter of the department of telecommunication in respect of casual labourers engagement. (cid:9) It only shows that fresh recruitment and employment of casual labour for any type of work should be stopped in the depart- ment. This letter seems to be dated 30-3-1985. Ex. M2 is another letter seems to be given on 1-6-1987. Again directions were given to stop fresh recruitment. It is said that no fresh casual labourers were recruit- ed. Ex. M3 is another letter of the department dated 7-7-1988. (cid:9) It also prohibits fresh employment of casual labourers. Ex. M4 is another letter seems to he given on 1-12-89 regarding casual labourers grant of temporary status and regularizational scheme.

43. Ex. M5 is the annexure of casual labourers. The provisions in the scfieme are that vacancies in - the Gr. D cadres in various offices of the Department of Telecommunications would be exclusively filled by regularization and no outsiders would be appoin- ted to the cadre except in case of appointments on compassionate grounds till the absorption of all exist- ing casual labourers on fulfilling the eligibility condi- tions including the educational qualifications prescri- bed in the relevant Recruitment Rules. However, Regular Group D staff rendered surplus for any reasons will have prior claim for absorption against the existing/future vacancies. In the case of illeterate casual labourers, the regularization will be considered only against these posts in respect of which illiteracy will not an impediment in the performance of duties. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they had worked continuously as casual labour for the purposes of the age limits prescribed for appointment to the Group D cadre, if required. Outside Recruitment for filling up the vacancies in Gr. D will be permitted only under the conditions when eligible casual labourers are not available. It also said that the temporary status (cid:9) should be (cid:9) conferred on all the casual labourers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year.: out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observine five day week) and they will (cid:9) be designated as Temporary Mazdoor.

44. I have carefully 'perused Ex. W1 and Ex. W2 dated 22-3-1994. (cid:9) According to (cid:9) this (cid:9) Ex. WI temporary status to casual mazdoors was extended to those casual mazcloor who were engaged (cid:9) between 31-3-1985 to 22-6-1988 and who were still continu- ing and they considered for regularization by con- ferring temporary status front the date of issue of DOT, ND instructions dated 17-12-1993. (cid:9) Ex. W2 is the minutes of special meeting.

45. Before I proceed to consider the case of these workmen, it will be convenient if, I carefully (cid:9) go through the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeals No. 7505199, C1W WA No. 7506, 7507, 7508, 7509, 7510, 7511, 7512, 7513, 7514. 8011 and W.A. 8012199.

46. I have carefully perused the judgment in the above writ appeals. In the above cases the work- men concerned have been engaged on daily wages only for the purpose of (cid:9) completion of the project undertaken by the Telecom Department for laying Co-axial cables in the Belgaum District and (cid:9) that project has been completed in 1986-87 itself. The management in order to take the benefit of judgment in these above referred appeals has to clearly esta- blish that these workmen in CR. Nos. 147197, 1481 97, 150197 to 154197, 156197 and 157197 to 1711 97 were engaged for a (cid:9) particular project and that project has been completed and therefore, the ques- tion of regularising them does not arise.

47. I have carefully perused the counter filed by the management in all these cases. The department in all these cases, in. the counter, have not stated that these workmen were engaged for any (cid:9) particular project and that project is completed.

48. Again MW1, the Sub Divisional Engineer has not stated in his evidence that these workmen were engaged for any particular project and that project is completed. On the .other hand his evidence (cid:9) is that these workmen have worked for cable and line maintenance work. This gives an indication that these workmen were engaged for continuous main- tenance work. I have strictly scrutinized the mate- rial in these cases.

49. In view of the finding of the High Court of Karnataka in the above referred appeals. I am of the opinion that there is not an iota of material in these cases to say that these workmen were engaged for a particular project and that particular project is completed and therefore I am of the opinion that the facts of these cases are quite different from the facts of the above referred appeals. The manage- ment cannot take. any benefit of judgement in the above writ appeals.

50t According to some of the documents of the department, the casual worker who has worked con- tinuously for more than 240 days has to be given temporary status and has to be regularised.

51. In these cases the learned counsel for the first party workmen (cid:9) himself has (cid:9) submitted that only workmen in CR. Nos. 147:97. 148197, 150j97, 1511 97, 152'97, 157197, 159197, 167197 and 169197 have produced some documents viz. registers of attendance and extracts and these 9 workmen have worked for more than 244 days and award be passed in their favour, [WTI TT--4a 3 (ii)) (cid:9) - (cid:9) TIRWair tiAtiqf :',571t 16, ^{20 0 2}ITITEF ²⁷,¹⁹²³ (cid:9) 1877

and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-1-2002.

[No. L-400121109194-IROM

KULDIP RAI VERIC/IA-, Desk Officer 52. With this fair submission, I am of the opinion that the workmen in CR. No. 141j97, 148197, 1501 97, 151197, 152(97; 157197, 159197, 167197 (cid:9) and 169;97 have to be regularised by giving temporary status by the department on their fulfilling (cid:9) the necessary conditions required.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH 53. So far as workmen in remaining CR. Nos. 153197, 154197,156(97, 158197, 160197 to 166197, 168'97, 170197, 171197, the learned counsel for the first nasty himself has not filed any documents and has submitted tha these workmen have not worked for more than 240 days continuously and they are not -entitled for regularization.

Case No. I.D. 68 of 1995

Sh. Man Mohan,

Sh. B. R. Prabhakar,

54. I have given my best consideration to the matcr1'.1 before me. I have carefully read (cid:9) the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the above referred appeals and I am of the opinion that The management has miserably failed to establish that These Workmen sere' engaged'rof a pattleular project and that project is completed. In view of these facts I proceed to pass the following order. :

Distt: President, Lok Mazdoor Sangh, 63-C, Kailash Nagar. Model Town, Amabala City (Haryana)-133001.

ORDER

• Petitioner.

Vs.

General Manager, Telecommunication, Ambala Cantt-133001. (cid:9) .. Respondent

APPEARANCES :

The reference is partly allowed and the department is directed to regularize the workmen in CR. Nos. 147j97, 148197, 150197; 151197, 152197, 157197, 159(97, 167197 and 169197 by giving temporary status on fulfilling all the conditions required. No other benefits are given to these work- men. Further the References of workmen in CR. Noc. 153197, 154197, 156197, 158197, 160197 to 1661 97, 168197, 170197, 171197 are rejected.

For the Workman.-None.

(Dic'ated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 27th December, 2001.)

For the Management.-Shri a C.

Babbar.

Dated : 27-12-2001.

V. N. KULKARNI; Presiding Officer.

AWARD

21 4.07e-, 2002

(Passed on 19th October, 2001)

The Central. Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-40012'109194-I.R.(D.U.) dated 4th August, 1995 has referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

Tic. 53: .--9;11110-0en 10004 3;11919T0T, 1947 ( 1947 WT 14) WI tITZT 17 'k 49:1:R7 4, kcal- frt-C7 zc titus fan k 44a44 (cid:9) tic14 (cid:9) IA (cid:9) Thu; llutictaii * 41-9-, 4444 4 infqbe. q1c.11144, icu4- 4 ;•itzt 0 4:1112 xtl (cid:9) alFiv, ufacheq, 44141 chdre (4a4 Tina 68/95) W1111 `AchlPs119. WC* t, q't tar, ti tem (cid:9) r 21-1-2002 4-1 sucer TT 91-

(4. lff9t40012/109/04-9tt TZ (2)..0.,: )]

tAtct TIZT 141r,

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002

"Wheher the action of the management of General Manager Telecommuni- catiton, Ambala Cantt. is terminat- ing the service of Shri Man Mohan Ex-temporary status rnazdoor w.e.f. 5-12-92 is just, fair and legal? If not what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?"

2. None has' put appearance on beltalf of the workman despite notices. (cid:9) It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, since the workman is not interested to nnrsue, with the reference, same is returned to the Central Govt. for want of orosecutilart Central Govt. be informed. (cid:9) -

S.O. 532.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute- Act, 1947' (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award - (Ref. No. 68195) of the Cen- tral Government Industrial • Tribunal Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial.Dispute-between the employers - relatiorcto the,management of Djo Telecom

362 GT/2002-321g78 (cid:9) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 16, 2002/MAGNA 27, 1923 (cid:9) [PART (cid:9) 3(ii)j Chandigarh.

10-10-2001.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer frc.ft, ai (cid:9) , 2002

533:--effifITT fi (cid:9) /444i, 1947 ( 1947 Ti 14) Tr aRT 17 t 9717111- k, 40-4tet Tff it, 7.,T (cid:9) t fatirrif (cid:9) srAtEra'a (cid:9) Tf-4-4 9;67 (cid:9) 419-, xr-'4a (cid:9) fem . (cid:9) err,(cid:9)gr foimc 4 +,-Ozt ti ,(911.z. (cid:9) qtjtayea, 9•Jrihiq.

.(nik4 qtrrir 238/2000) Ti 91.m (cid:9) Du Ts:731, 7't 4,414 97-hit T.)" 21-1-2002 1t SIT71q'T I W7-40012/ 1 03/2000-11ES.siik

T97-43n. (cid:9) xfirwrer New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002 S.O. 533.1In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central -Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. 23817000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunall Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in. relation to the ITIPTT..?etment of DH, Telecom and their workman. which was received lve the C.entral Government on 71.1_7pro (cid:9) H

[No. L-1-00121103.12000-1R(DU)l REPRESENTATIVES

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.—Deepali -Puri.

AWARD -

(Passed on 17th October, 2001) The Central Govt Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-400121103120001IR(DU) dated 31-5-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication (cid:9) - "Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom, floshiarour in ordering disengage, mentltermination of services of Sh. Balwinder Singh a workman engen, ed through Contractor Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 9-3-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from_ which date?"

2. Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement. Despite may - onnorrumties. na claim statement has been filed. it appears that workman' is not interested to pursue wth the present reference. In view of the above, ghee the workman is not interested to pursue-- with tha present reference. the same is return.- ad to the Central Govt. for want of Prosecu- tion Central Govt. be informed.

ch9nrilnarh

KULDIP RAI VE'RMA, Desk Officer 1 7-10-2001

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT., INDUS- TRIAL TRTRUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 23812000

Shri Bal.-winder Singh, C10 Sit N. K. :feet, President, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road, Blietirda (Ph )-151001. (cid:9) Petitioner.

Vs.

The General Manager, Deptt. of Telecom, Hoshiyarpur-152001. (cid:9) • • Respondent.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer f73, 21 vilei 4.1, 2002

TT.rr. 534: - -erdifITT fay vMf4, 1947 (1947 TT 14) TY am 17 t (cid:9) 0,u! *, tce.7 417 57, (cid:9)(1,;w1-7 tam V,[7:CicA (cid:9) #97-U fkathrt:f en: is blur 11—I33 a OA (cid:9) -1111-tn W1- 71wid- :sh—t-111..t 16, 20p2/rm1`727,1923 1879 '2

1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Ref. No. 23712000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal' Labour Court Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dlo Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-1-2002.

[No. L-40012110212000-IR(DU)1 KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT., INDUS- TRIAL TRTBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 23712000

Shri Jarnail Singh, Cio Sh. N. K. Jeet, President, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh, Bassi Road, Bhatinda Pb.-151001,

..- Petitioner.

Vs.

The General Manager, Deptt, of Telecom, Hoshiyarpur7152001. (cid:9) Respolideni.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the WOrkman.—None.

For the Management.-:-:—Deepitii Puri.

AWARD

(Passed on 17th October, 2001) The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-400121102120001ID (DU) dated 31,5-2000 has referred the 'following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication "Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom, Hoshiarpur in ordering disengage-- mentltermination cif services of Sh. Jarnail Singh a workman engaged through Contractor Sit. Ashok Kumar -Sharma w.e.f. 1-3-99 - is legal- and . justified? - If not to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

-2. Today the case was fixed for filing of claim statement. Despite many opportunities, no claim._ statement has been filed. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above, since the workman is not Interested to pursue with the present reference, the same is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. (cid:9) Central Govt. he informed.

Chandigarh

17-10-2001

S, M. GOEL, Presiding Officer fff ern-, 21 jWit-, 2002

TT Art. S (cid:9) qttlfnli if, 1947 ( 1 9 4 7 WT 1 4 ) ft Bill 17. (cid:9) 7t9711T ii, %-ralq wtot,R s14, falifir (cid:9)

fRInctim't TrIt-⁴⁷(¹¹ (cid:9) 4l (cid:9) a, q-9:44. (cid:9) filicra• *figlifileti facia ;wt, (cid:9) qt- (cid:9) slay Rio q3krart t, Tr-fi %at (cid:9) 2 1- 1- 2 0 0 2 Ti, X19- pT gl-T I [wit TeT-4 0 0 1 2/9 Oh 5s /41-V VIT (tIZO

1-9ttTTaauF,iwEr wfirwrtt New Delhi, the 21st January, 2002 S.O. 535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Die Post and their workman. which was received by the Central Government on 21-1-2002. (cid:9) -

[No. L-40012/90/95-IR(DU)I KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2EFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMIL NADU CHENNAI Wednesday.. the 19th day of December, 2001 PRESENT :

Thin, S. R. Singharavelu, B.Sc. R.L.,

Industrial Tribunal. (cid:9) .

Industrial Dispute No: 50 of 1996 (In the matter of dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 between the Workman and the Management of the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Kovilpatti Divn. Kovilpatti-627701.)

BETWEEN

Sri M. Thangaraj, S/o Madasamy, Karadikulam B.O.. Kalugumalai-627752.

AND

The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Kovilpatti Divn.. Kovilpatti-627701.

REFERENCE:

Order No. L-40012/90/95-IR(DU) dated 27-6-96, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi.

This dispute coming on for final hearing on Friday, the 14th day of December, 2001, upon perusing the reference, Cairn and Counter Statements and all other material papers on record and upon heating the arguments of Smt. S. Jothi- vani and V. Kasthuri, advocates appearing for the workman and of Thirumathi C. K. Vishnupriya, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the Management, and this dispute having stood over till this day for considera- tion, this Tribunal made the following :

AWARD

The Government of India has referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Kovilpatti Division in dismissing the services of Sh. M. Thangaraj is justified ?, If not, to what the con- cerned workman is entitled to 2"

2. The main averments found in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner are as follows :

The petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Karadikulam P.O. in the year 1980. The petitioner was issued charged Memo dated 24-12-1990 alleging the following charges against the petitioner. (i) That the petitioner did not bring into accounts, Rs. 315 being the value and commission of money order booked on 8-8-90. (ii) The petitioner did not bring to accounts Rs. 54 being the value and commission of M.O. dated 29-8-1990. (iii) that the peti- tioner had shown as effected payment of one money order for Rs. 150 but did not hand over- the value of the M.O. to the payee. The enquiry officers conducted the enquiries in an perfunctory manner which is of violation of the principles of natural justice. Based on the enquiry officer report the res- pondent herein imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. In view of the non supplies of the documents cited in the Annexure III in the petitioner has been denied a reasonable opportunity to place his defence. Moreover the charge Where framed based on documents collected behind the back of the petitioner. The enquiry is illegal since the enciaairy officer being the subordinate to the respondent. The evidence recorded in the fact find enquiry in the absence of the. Government servant concerned should- not be brought therefore the ordained procedure preacribed in the rules have been; violated. The imposition of ' punishment of dismissal from service, the highest punishment is disproportionate and compared to the gravity of the charges. It is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to pass an award to direct the respondent to reinstate thenetitioner as Extra-departmental branch Post Master. Karadikulam with all attendant service and monetary benefits.

3. The main averments found in the Counter statement of the respondent are as follows

The inquiry was commenced on 22-2-91 and in that sitting, the petitioner and his nominated defence assistant Sri C. Rama- chandran Retd., Postmaster, Aruppu,kdttai had inspected all the documents listed- in Annexure III of the charge sheet and xerox copy Of the necessary documents -were also given on the same day. Totally 10 sittings were held in the case. 12 (twelve) state witnesses were examined and 19 documents were filled by the prosecution side in the presence of the petitioner and his defence assistant Sri C. Ramachandran. Retired nostmaster, Aruppukottai. One defence witness was produced and he was examined the petitioner was also examined as defence witness as per- his request. The final sitting was held on 11-10-91. The presenting officer had sub- mnted his brief on 18-10-91. The defence brief on Presenting officers Brief was received -on 25-41-91 by Inquiry authority. The Inquiry authority submitted his report on 4-12-91. The TO renort was sent to the petitioner on 4-12-91 and the petitioner submitted his reply on the Inquiry officers report on 16-12-91 to the SSPOs Kovipatti Dn. The petitioners was dismissed from service vide Memo No. F1/3 /90-91 dated 3-1-92. The petitioner went on appeal to the DT'S. Madura' vide his appeal dated 4-4-92 and the same was rejected. There is no bar to appoint the subordinates to- function as -Inquiry officer and Presenting officer as Tocuiry is a fact finding one only. Hence the allegation of the petitioner that the Inquiry officer and Presenting officer were subordinates of the Disc. Authority does not hold any water. Copy of the day today proceedings along with the copy of the deposition of the witnesses were also provided to them then and there and every opportunity was given to the petitioner as detailed in the rules and regulations of the Department. Hence the allegations that the Inquiry as conducted in a perfunctory manner is not correct. On receipt of Charge sheet he submitted his repre- sentation on 12-1-91. Hence the question of non supply of documents along with the charge sheet is not correct. The second pArt of the allegations that the statements collected not in his presence ought not had been relied for issuing charge sheet is not correct in as much as every opportunity was given to cross-examine the State witnesses to the petitioner. The statements were obtained daring the preliminary.inquiry by the ASPOs. Kovilpatti West Sub Divn. according to Rules only. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to present himself and his defence Assistant during the fact finding enquiry by BD in which the deposition of those public were recorded and I0 submitted his report based only on this fact finding inquiry. No such rules is now in force contem- plating that the statements has to be recorded in the presencr-- of the charged official. It can also be recorded without his knowledge. They were shown to the petitioner then during the preliminary enquiry and in the oral inquiry and he was permitted to cross-examine the state witnesses with the assis- tance of his Defence- Assistant: Hence the allegations of the petitioner are not correct. The petitioner has cheated three of the publics in the capacity as EDBPM Karadikulam and destroyed thd. image of the Department in the eyes of the Rural publics. Hence awarding the punishment by the Disc. authority/Appellite Authority is proporationate to the crime commited by the petitioner. Actions were taken only in accordance with the rules and regulations prevailed then and the petitioner claim that he should be reinstated into service with all attendant benefits are not possible as per the rules of the Department. It is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the above petition.

4. On behalf of petitiortr, Exs. WI to W11 were marked by consent. On behalf of respondent, Exs. "41 to M28 were marked by consent. No witnesses were examined for both -issa sides. (cid:9)

5. The point for consideration is whether the action of the Sr. Sundt. of Post offices, Kovilpatti Division is dismissing the services - of Sh. M. Thangaraj is justified? If not to what relief thee concerned workman is entitled- to ?

6. THE POINT : The petitioner Thirn M. Thangaraj was first appointed in the year 1980 as an Extra-departmental branch Post Master (EDBPM) at Karadikulam B.O. under the Superintendence of Kovilpatti office.- A Charge memo was issued to him through Ex. WI dated 24-12-90 for the following charges :

0) That the petitioner did not bring into accounts, Rs. 315 being the value and commission of money order booked on 8-8-90.

(ii) The petitioner did not bring to accounts Rs. 54 being the value and commission of M.O. dated 29-8-90; and

(iii) that the petitioner had shown as effected payment of _ one money: order for Rs. 150 but did not hand over the value of the M.O. to the payee.

There was a letter for enquiry marked as Ex. W2 dated 31-1-91. The defence statement dated 11-10-91 of the peti- tioner was marked as Ex. W3. The brief of the Presenting Officer and the reply for the same by the petitioner were yes- nectively marked as Ex. W4 and W5. The defence put in by the petitioner-workman was that he had brought into account the amounts mentioned in the - Charge Memo on 18-9-90, that is immediately following the day on which he was entrusted- with the amount after office hours on 17-9-90.

7. Regarding the above charges, there was an enquiry, anit the dairy adjudication of the inquiry proceedings were marked as fixs. M5 to M14. The report -of the enquiry officer was ono st on the side of the management as Ex. V117; --rid the, same was marked on the workman side as Ex. W6. The ex: planation thereto by the petitioner was marked as Ex. W7. Es. M19 is the Order of termination, An appeal preferred by[RIR IT—Piu 3 (ii)] (cid:9) 27 1881 'nfrct TT (14174 CiTio 16 2002/ -- Y.D. 50/96

the petitioner through Ex. W8 and the same was dismissed through Ex. W9 on 16-4-93.

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner/Workmen None

For Respondent/Management : None

Documents marked

For Petitioner/Workmen: (cid:9) •

Ex. WI - 24-12-90: Charge-Memo.

Ex. W2 30-1-91 : Letter for enquiry.

Ex. W3 11-10-91 : Defence Statement.

Ex. W4 18-10-91 : Brief submitted by the Presenting

officer.

Ex. W5 25-11-321 Defence brief submitted by the

petitioner.

Ex. W6 4-12-91.: Enquiry officer's Report.

Ex. W7 (cid:9) : Explanation on I.O's report.

Ex. W8 4-4-92: Appeal submitted by the petitioner.

Ex. W9 16-4-93 : Appellate order.

..

Ex W10 (cid:9) : Petition Under Sec. 2-A of T.D. Act.

Ex. WII (cid:9) : Reply filed by respondent.

For Respondent/Management :

Ex. Ml 24-12-90 : Memo of charges

Ex. M2 25-1-91 : Appointment order of Enquiry officer.

Ex. M3 7-8-91 : Appointment (cid:9) order (cid:9) of (cid:9) Enquiry 8. So far as Payment of Money Order of Rs. 150 to one Valliyammal, the management had examined the said lady as MW6. During the enquiry, Valliyamrnal's Money order was exhibited as Document No. 2 and it bear No. 1738 dt. 11-9-90 of Red Fields for Rs. 150. Her earlier statement before the ASP Kovilpatti was marked as Ex. P3 in the domestic enquiry. The witnesses had corroborated the con- tents of both these documents. The petitioner had mentioned in Ex. P8 as if he had paid it to the payee even on 17-9-90; but whereas Valliyammal said that she did. not receive. What ,the learned counsel for the petitioner argued was that the Left Thumb impression of Valliyammal in her statement has not been sent for analysis. The petitioner had not even asked . for the same during the time of enquiry: In that' event the management was not necessitated to send it for analysis because even according to the management. her statement was given before the ASP, Kovilpatti -Sub Division and that statement formed part of the Records in the regular course of - business of the management. What all the petitioner in kis defence brief had stated was that the statements were -untrue and were only a make believe affair. There is no enmity .121- etween him and the deponent or the officer before whom was deposed. Therefore, to inculcate rnalafides on a narti- - ettfar document which was produced from the routine course - of business of the management and was corroborated by the payee Mrs. Valliyammal who was also examined as a witness in the course of enquiry, is unacceptable, unless there is any inconsistency or contradiction in the tourse of that evidence. But no such inconsistency was pointed out. Tn the absence Of any such contradiction mere attribution of motive cannot by itself go, to- support the case of the petitioner. Therefore the- Charge in that connection is found proved.

officer-TI.

Ex. M4 25-1-91 Appointment order of Presenting