REGN. NO. D. L.—33001/99
The Gazette of India
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 9] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923
Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a
separate compilation
PART II —Section 3—Sub- section (ii)
Statu tory Ordres and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(other than the Ministry of Defence)
529 Gl/2002—1
(2129)
2130 THE G U E T TE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 1 1. 1923 TPART Tl_Spr M^the temple of Lord Jagannath, Puri ccmnrtted
in the night of 10/1 lth Ncvimbcr. 2001.
[No. 228/77/2001-A VD. Il]
SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRJEVANCES AND PENSION
(Department of Personnel & Training)
New Delhi, the 15th Februory, 2002
S. O. 686.—Tn exercise of the powers
oonferred by sub-section (1) of secticn 5 read
with section 6 of the Delhi Spécial Police
Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the
State Government cf Orissa Home Department
vide Notification No. 455/C dated 28th January
2002, hereby extends the powers and jun'sdiction
of the members of Demi Spécial Police Establish-
ment to fie whole of the State of Orissa for
investigation of offences pun'shable under sec-
tim 457 and 380 of the Indian Pénal Code, 1860
(Act No. 45 of 1860) and attempts, abetraents
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFA1RS and conspiracy m relation to or in connection
(C. P. V. Division) with one or more of the offence mentioned above
New Delhi, the I4th February, 2002 and any other oftenee and ofifences" committed
in the course of the same transaction or arising
S. O. 687.—In purvuance of the clause (a) out cf the same facts registered ai puri Town
of the Section 2 of the Diplomatie and ccnsular Pohce Station dw N.>. 244,2001 dated Illh
Officcrs (Oaths and fées) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), Novamber. 2001 relating to the theft of idols of
the Central Government hereby authorises Shri Madan Mjhan land Amaba^ya Narayan from
M. S, Nair, U. D. C. in the High Commission of 2 B' India, Gabjrone to pcrform the duties of Assis-
tant Consular Officer with effect from 14-02-2002.
[No. T. 43 30'1/2002]
Y. C. NARANG. Dy. Sccy. ( a n s)
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER APFATRS, FOOD
AND PUBLTC DISTRIBUTION
(Departmcnt of Food and Public Distribution)
New Dolhi, the 5th Fibruary, 2002
S.O. 688.—In pursuance of sub-rulc (4)- of
ru'e 10 of the Officiai La iguage (use for officiai pur-
posc of the Unbn) Rules, 1976 the Central Gov^rn-
mïnt h^reby notifies the following offices of Frod
Corporation of It'dix & ils subordinate dépôts un ht
tlu administrative control of the Ministry of Con-
sira T AT'.", Food & Pr.bl c Distribution (Dc^tt
of Fjod & Public Distribution), where of more
than 80% of Stai bavo acqui-cd the working k'iow-
ledg^ of Hindi :
1. Food Corporation of India,
District Office,
Dharamshala (H.P )
2. Food C >rpor
Food Storage D^pot,
Nagrot'i Bagw.i (H.P)
3. Food Corporation of India,
Food Storago Depot,
Sultanour, Chamba, (H.P.)2132 THE GAZETTE OF ÎNDrA : MARCH 2, 2002/tîtALGtJNA 11, 1923 [PART îï—SBC. 3(îi)] 4. Food Corporation of India,
Food Storage, Depot, Una
(H.P.)
Food Corporation of India,
5.
Food Storage Depot,
Ranital (H.P.)
[No. E-l 1011/1/2001 -Hindi]
RAJNI RAZDAN, Jt. Secy.
M1NISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Télécommunications)
Officiai tangua ge Section
New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002
S. O. 689.—In pursuance of rule 10 (4)
of the Officiai Language (use for officiai purpose
of the Union), rules, 1976 the Central Government
hereby notifies the following offices under the
administrative control of Ministry of Commu-
nications andjlnformation Technology, Department
of Télécommunications where of more than 80 %
staff hâve acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
Chief General Manager Telecom, BSNL Eastern
Uttar Pradesh Circle, Lucknow
1. Sub Divisional Officer Telegraph, Fatehpur
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Bindki
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Khaga
4. Sub Divisional Officer Group Exchange
(Rural) Fatehpur
5. Telegraph Office, Fatehpur
[No.E. 11016/l/99-(O.L.)]
KAILASH DUTTA, Dy. Director (OX.)
2133529 GI/2002—22134 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2135 2136 THE GAZETTE OF INDÎA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2137 2138 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA- MARCH2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002
s.o.690—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam to Koyali in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the augmentation of Viramgam - Koyali Section of Salaya-Mathura Pipeline System;
2139And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the tand under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notifications as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Compétent Authority, Shri R.M. Pandya Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B, No. 4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad. Guiarat-382150.
Taluka : ANKLAV
SCHEDULE
District : ANANO
State : GUJARAT
Area
Sub-Division No.
Hectare
Are Sq. Mtr.
3
Survey No. 2
223
Name of the Village 1 ASODAR
222
108
106
109
114
115
117
119
118
131
79
2
79
1
80
81
77
76
2
76
1
75
74
37
41
36
4
0
5 6 03 35 0
20 61 0
13 85 0
0
0
01 96 04 99 14 97 0
08 57 0
18 96 0
12 10 0
01 73 0
05 95 0
06 92 0
0
03 26 06 25 0
00 20 0
0
10" 43 11 98 0
0
05 76 07 44 0
00 81 0
08 57 0
09 18 0
02 982140 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3 I 4 | I 5 | 1 1 I 2 I 35 0 13 6 64 12 31 34
33 17
9/A ] 9/B f 9/C J
10
8
1406
2 1407
1345
1344
1338
1339
1336
1335
1333
1217
1216
1207
1206
1205
1204
1203
1198
1199
1200
1201
1192
1191
999
1000
1001
1002
956
1006
955
1105
1104
1106
1103
1102
2 1100
1/P 1093
1093
2/P 1 1094
0 0
14 05
28 0
05
0
05
72 99 0
13
64 0
12
25 0
48 0
08 17
28 0
09
79 0
00
43 0
19
25 0
05
0
16
35 60
52 00 04
0 0 0
92 49 13 00
0 0
19
20 73 00
86
15 07 07
85 73 44 23 02
0 0 0 0 0
0
66 35 11 00
0
13 09
0
20 06
0
88 17.
0
03
0
48 62 0 0 0 0
61 05 88 03 00 15 03 03 15
58 13
0 0
01 03
41 03
0 0
70 06
0
20 00
0
07 04
0
02
0
96 80 08
0
24 02
0
05
69 87 19
0 02141 3 1 I 6 2 1091 1090 1089 1088 1087 1086 1085 1081 1078
5 09 03 02 04 04 00 14 22 20
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 25 71 82 05 44 09 19 89
08
0
60 BHETASI TALPAD
2
J 3
0 0 0 0
08 20 10 10
20 81 20 91
1 1 J 2
0
15
34
0
10
27
J 2+3 S 1 2 3 • 4 • 5 6 7
0 0
13 07
42 49
0
11
96
0
28
62
2
1 1 J 2 l 1 J 2 ] 1 J 3
0
08
64
j 2/A
0
09
°4
0
10
30
1 1 ; 2 i 1 J 2
163 163 163 161 162 160 158 158 144 144 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 151 150 150 149 149 94 94 94 96 96 90 90 98 98 89
0
04
21 BHETASI BA BHAG
0 0
17 21
61 07
^ 1
86 96 96 96 96
_ _ 96
2P 3 4 5
529 GI/2002—3 ^= = =^= S^ 2 ^ ^ ^ J ^ ^ M A ^ C H 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [P A RT , , _S E C. 3 ( i i )]2 ! 1 1 4 I 6 y
96 96 96 96 96
96
3 6 7 8 9 10 11 11P
j
96 97
98
1 2
98 99/P 99/P
} }
365
0
18
0
06
55 89 0
14
15
AMBALI
364
1
363 362 362
2
362
3
362
4
j
374
354
1
i
354
2
355
353
1
353
2
353
3
350
1
J i
349 349
2+3
j
3 1
349 338 338
338 338 j
335
2/1 2/2 3 1 2
335
}
279
278
278
1 2
278
3 4
278
278
5
278
6
280
1 2
246 245 245 }
0
19
01
0
20 01
0 0
16
15 87 30 0
77 0
21
23 15
11
79 o •
00
58 0
12
15
08 72 0 u
94 0
26
10
13
0
34
29
0
48
00
0
14
09
21
0 0
18 54
02
02143 1 I 5 17 6 75 I 4 0 3 1/1 ' 1/2 2 3
61 57 99 84
18 18 11 08
0 0 0 0
1+2 3 4
28 15
08 69
0 0
19
0
16
20
20
0
15 00 14
0 0 0
32 59 60
05 05
92 40
0 0
2 228 228 228 228 229 230 129 128 "1 128 128 J 131 1 136 ] 2 136 j 1 138 138 j 2 1 140 "ï 140 I 2 3 140 | 140 J 4 1 146 ] 146 £ 2 1 147 147 2 147 3 4 147 148 149 149 149 149 83
17
0
45 AMROL
2 1
06 21 18 14 00
0 0 0 0 0
60 69 90 81 20
> 2
t 3
4
92 99 20 14 87
15 13 00 14 05
0 0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4
85 85 84 83 82 82 82 82 75 74 " 69 73 , 72 72 72 72
2144 T HE G A Z E T TE OF INDIA : M A R CH 2 , 2 0 0 2 / P H A L G U NA 11,1 ()23 fP\R' H- S '. 'M :)] 1 s i 295 54
18 15
0 0
\ 1
I 2
18 79
30 44
0 0
1+2+3 4 5 6
8 9 10 11 12
45
15
0
\ l
82 01 26 95
20 18 27 07
0 0 0 0
1
20 24 ] 24 j 26 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 > 543 543 387 385 357 358
[No. R-250 11.'3/2002—OR-IJ S S. KEMWAL. Under Sec> .
2145 2146 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SFC. 3(ii)] 2147 2148 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH2.2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 |PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 28th February. 2002
s.o.691.— Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam to Koyali in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline shouid be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for impiementing the augmentation of Viramgam - KoyaSi Section of Saiaya-Mathura Pipeline System;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
2149Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notifications as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Compétent Authority, Shri R.M. Pandya Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B. No. 4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt Ahmedabad, Gujarat- 382150.
Taluka : PETLAD
SCHEDULE District : ANAND State : GUJARAT
Sub-Division No.
3
Survey No. 2 955
Name of the Village 1 BAMROLI
942
943
944
945
941
2
1
941
857
858
855
862
863
864
865
851
850
849
848
833
834
835
832
788
207
Area
Are
Sq. Mtr.
Hectare
4
6
5 I
03
0
03 0
02
51
04
48 0
05
0
81
02
0
26
04
0
05 0
03
85 0
07
74 0
08
56 0
16
30 0
11
27 0
00
20 0
13
97 0
03
63 0
00
20
13
0
82
07
0
07 0
00
59
23
0
15 0
02
86 0
00
20 0
15
51
09
0
53 SANJAYA
208
209
214
215
529 GI/2002—A
0
05
06 0
27
63
00
0
20 0
02
71 0
05
652150 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 I 2
5 I 08 07 03 03 13
6 47 56 58 28 71 65 11 22 91 47 89 36 55 50 57 82 92 58 85 60 65 20 92 37 97 20 00 60 86 21 47 15 20 38 57 20 96 10 57 24 20 76 29 68 12 30 09 24 92 34
00 03 08 12 00 00 05 17 05 02 10 09 14 00 02 08 00 07 09 01 00 10 02 01 04 04 05 00 11 13 00 00 02 09 00 00 03 11 00 17 11 18 12 08 00
3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
216 217 308 299 300 301 297 296 291 295 282 292 281 280 365 377 378 380 383 381 382 676A 675A 402 402A 403 403A 661 407 409 410 412 411 414 415 420 421 496 495 498A 498 506 507 508 505 504 510 512 543 5442151 I 6 I 2 01 1 PADGOL 309 311 313 316 385 386 400 401 402 405 404 408 410 409 411
3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09 08 18 00 02 07 01 01 04 00 12 15 01 00
37 73 37 57 67 16 56 42 18 27 88 48 07 14 20 RAVALI
549 548 545 552 551 554 555 561 562 556 517 497 498 499 438 436 435 399 431 403 405 408 406 407 344 343 342
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 12 00 00 21 11 07 27 01 07 18 07 16 12 19 16 04 12 05 30 02 25 00 34 18 14 00
10 24 82 20 80 07 26 79 93 14 91 29 12 30 78 29 22 54 39 70 37 73 98 23 28 51 20 GUNTELI
65 73 85 84
0 0 0 0
07 01 09 10
37 86 15 94 .—. _ _2152 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] 3 4 I 1 2 | 81 0 6 44 14 5 18 05 82 0 67 00 113 01 42 0 ' 0 112 111
116 117
125 126 128
129
136 135 154 152
206
205
163
165
454 09
13 0
08
0 0
08 04
0 0
63 62 56 16 92 19 00
81 38 13 11
14
17
0 0 0 0 0
69 75 83 02
0
78 0
82 12 10
0
70 0
20 28 00
0
75 37
0
MORAO
467
475 498
497
536
533 573
572
584
586 587
624 647 646 645 648
640
347 51
0
13 09 48 08 08
0 0
15 0
01 22 14
84 49 77 0 0 0 0
40 11 26 07
90 0
12
0
54 71 0
13 20
0
16
27 27 11
01
0 0
59
07
0
13
0
59 97
14
0
13
18
0
BORIYA
348 351
09 06 23
37 53 07 0 0 0
[No. R-25OI l'3 2002—OR-I] S S. KEMWAL.UnderSecy.
2153 2154 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH2.2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2155 2156 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2157529 GI/2002—52158 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New DèUiL thé 28th Febmary, 2002
S. 0.692.— Whereas, it appears to the Centra! Government that it is necessary in the publie interëst that for the transportaîion of crude oi! from Viramgàm to Koyali in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline shouid be laid by the indian Oil Corporation Limited for impiemènting the augmentation of Viramgam - Koyaii Section of Salaya-Mathura Pipeline System; And, whereas, it appears to the Centrai Government that for the purpose of iaying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the îand undér which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and whicf. is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right Of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Contrai Government hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein; Any person interestod in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notifications as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the ripht of user therein or Iaying of the pipeline under the land to Compétent Authority, Shri R.M. Pandyâ Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B. No. 4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt Ahmedabad, Gujarat- 382150.
State : GUJARAT
Taiuka : ANAND
SCHEDULE
District : ANAND
Sub-Division No.
3 Name of the Village 1 VALASAN
Survey No. 2 350
358
359 360
361
348
374 375
376 377
304 306
305
279 275
276 272
Area
Are Sq. Mtr.
5 | 6 25 44 Hectare 4 0
00 20 0
13 36 0
02 20 07 49 0 0
14 18
23 47 03 87 0 0 0
11 85 0
11 90 0
09 64 00 24 0 0
16 33 0
22 49 22 85 0 0
01 54
14 38 0 02159 3 2 5 15 0 e 73 1 KARAMSAO 06
67
0
13
53
0
1621 ] 1621 J 1296 ] "1296 J 1271 "^ 1271
1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4
1271 1271
1271
1271 1271
01
71
0
> 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
72
34
1272
1272 1272
,1271 1271 J 1295 1295 J 2 1 1272 2+3+6A 4/1 l 4/2
1272
1272
1272 1272 j
5 68 7A 7B
1/1
1273 1276 1277
23 58 14 53
0 0 0 0
00 00 20 12
1278 1278
1278
05
0
m
1279 ^ 1279 1279
1 2 3
V 4
1279 1279 ^ 5A
1279 1279
5B+5C
6A
6B+6C
1279 j
33
0
1280
1280 1251
02 40
0 0
1240 1240
} ï } l
02
0
36
1/1 1/2
> 2 3 4
0
1242 1242 1242 1242 1242 1238
00
20
1238
- 1\{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} •-) ↩
l 1 ï 22160 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 5 1 I I 27 I 4 | 0 I 6 | 48 0
08
86
0
19
12
0
06
23
3 1 2/A 2/B 1/1 1/2 2 1 2 1 2
1 J 1 J } }
2 1237 1237 1237 1236 1236 1236 1234 1234 955 955 954
0
05
26 SANDESAR
00 08 06 07 09 01 03 00 05 11 00 08 05 08 07 04 01 17 08 08 01 11 15 00 08 03 21 04 00 15 02 09 00 11 06 25
91 53 90 94 60 24 37 20 81 31 20 46 53 45 03 06 97 73 71 56 94 56 73 33 29 20 58 24 20 41 99 73 20 67 45 80
1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1459 1460 1458 1461 1457 1463 1480 1476 1477 1478 1473 1492 1493 1505 1504 1548 1557 1558 1559 1560 1562 1561 1637 1636 1648 1649 1653 1652 1654 1655 1656
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02161 3 1 I I 6 09 5 39 I 4 | 0
GANA
02 10
05 89
0 0
1 2 3 4 1+2+3 1 2+3
] [ J }
01 08
78 28
0 0
1+2 3 4 5
LfJ
06 06
0 0
83 45
1+3 2
i
01 04
0 0
78 49
15
62
0
06
94
0
0
10
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 1 2 1 2
08 01
0 0
06 62
11
0
91
11
0
32
2 241 241 241 241 242 239 239 238 237 237 237 237 235 233 233 232 248 248 248 248 248 248 249 249 228 228 226 226 227 220 220 220 221 221 212 212
1 2 3 1 2 1 2+3
t } } } l J } }
0
16 MEGHVA GANA
51
•
1/A 1/B 2 3 4
05 12
90 28
1
0 0
}
00
20
0
2 1/P 1/P 1 2/1
183 183 183 183 183 184 185 185 189 189 189 1892162 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3 5 1 ! 2 I 4 I 6 189 2/1/P 189 189 2/2 3 4
189 189 J
5 1
188
0
18
23
2
}
1/A
188 187
0
08
39
1/B 2/P
187 187
2/P 3
187 187
J
3/P
187
*\
1+2
0
194
25
78
3
194
194
4
194
5
>>
6 7
194 194
8/A
194
8/B
194 J
1
0
17
196
71
1
196
3
196
y
4
196
5
6
196 196
7 1
196 206
0
34
23 206
2 3
206
4
206
5/1
5/2
2P6 206
5/3
206
6
206
7
206
206
8
J
206
9
1/A
0
209
94
29
1/B
209
\
2
209 J
18 02
210 222
0 0
211
0 0
04 23
0^
221 220
37 10 86 28 75
_ 09
[No. R-25011/7/2002—OR-I] S. S. KEMWAL, Under Secy.
2163 2164 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2165529 GI/2002—62166 THE GAZETTE: OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2167 2168 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PARI II—SK\3(H)] 2169
New Delhi, thc 28th February. 2002
s.o.693.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Viramgam to Koyali in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the augmentation of Viramgam - Koyali Section of Salaya-Mathura Pipeline System;
And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
2170 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11.1923 TPART II—SFP VÏMNow, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in the Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person fnterested In tha land descrlbed In the sald Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notifications as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Compétent Authority, Shri R.M. Pandya Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B. No. 4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt Ahmedabad, Gujarat- 382150.
Taluka : BORSAD
SCHEDULE District : ANAND
State : GUJARAT
Area
Sub-Division No.
Are Sq. Mtr.
Hectare
4
5 | 6
3
Survey No. 2
0
. 18 48
1
Name of the Village 1 NAPA TALAPAD
2
200 1 200 l 200 J
3
0
17 99 190
12 81
0
192
1
192
2
192
3
192
4
192
5
192
6
06 97 189 ~\
0
1
189 I
1/2
189 |
1/3
189 J
2
14 72
0
188
0
03 57 172
18 24
0
174 "1
1
174 >
2
174 J
3
07 64 176 1
0
1
176 J
2
06 12
0
175
0
01 47 177 1
1
177 J
2
12 78
0
1
158 "l 158 J
22171 3 I 4 I l 6 1 I I 20 46
0 0
5 00 12
14
02
0
01
84
0
42
0
65
11
0
08
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
} } } } }
0 0 0
05 17 14
48 29 83
1
0
08
91
2 1 2
} }
17 09 23
0 0 0
55 67 15
2 152 153 153 154 154 155 155 139 139 140 140 129 128 127 127 125 125 124 121 119 119
1 2
74
07
0
1
118 118
2
} }
82
09
720
NAPA VANTO
32 15 06 00 05
1
37 96 53 90 37
0 0 0 0 0 0
2
10 10
81 93
0 0
17
23
0
1 2 1 2
} } }
32 18 03 09 09 16
33 50 17 84 18 20
0 0 0 0 0 • 0
97
00
0
721 318 317 315 316 316 314 313 313 312 312 279 278 205 206 207 208 208 209 209
1 2 1 2
} }2172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3 1 I 2 I 5 I 11 00 20
6 83 20 46
I 4 | 0 0 0
87
08
0
13
29
0
1 2
} } }
01 00 18 05 10
11 20 17 34 86
0 0 0 0 0
14
40
0
1 2 1 2
} }
03 81 85
19 19 09
0 0 0
201
200
211/P
211/P
266/p
266/p
259
259
258
260
256
257
254
254
235
235
236
237
238/p
238/p
}
NAMAN
84 58 06 20 72 03
00 04 02 02 01 23
0 0 0 0 0 0
}
42 80 89 75 90 82 71 88 67 62
15 06 10 01 00 11 12 01 21 02
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
230 229 228 227 226 220 220/A 221 172 176 175 177 181 182 184 185 186
14
0
DAHEMI
83 20 78 33 26 27
12 21 02 06 17
0 0 0 0 0
153 154 155 157 158 1592173 3 | i 1 I 5 12 04 07 12 04 07 03 07
6 74 06 62 50 95 40 39 86
2 179 178 181 177 185 186 184 187 192 189 190 348 344 337 336 334 470 461 469 464 465 466 569 568 566 565 564 562 561 559 648
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09 05 06 15 14 03 16 17 08 02 17 08 05 04 06 28 02 13 18 05 18 01 15
20 44 96 49 17 09 09 41 95 05 74 10 71 80 14 59 23 56 22 46 96 81 86
69
1
KASUMBAD
12
0
16
1
2/A 2/B/P 2/A/B
J
0 0 0
00 12 16
54 78 98
1 2
69 69 69 71 70 75 75 77
79
0 0
06 10
13 32
79
1 2
} }
529 GI/2002—7 2 1 74 TJIE GAZETTE OFINDIA:MARCH2,2002/PHALGUNA11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]•6 3 i 2. 16 0 16 38
14
0
82 82 82 82 82 82 113 98 114 1 114 114 J 112 1 112 J 115 111 111 111
31
03
0
77
04
4
5
1
I- 2
3
1
0
\ 3
4
5
6
] 1
- 2 3 4 6 6 99' 44 06 27 00 01 0 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 10 78 01 19 0 0 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 111 111 121 121 121 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 124 125 18 83 74 23 13 22 0 0 0 02 26 07 07 0 0 146 "" 146 146 146 146 146 147 148 148 148 148 2 3 J 3/A ↩
1 I
I
S 4 0
I 6 82
5 os
00
60
0
2 144 144 144 144 J 143 ^ 143 143 143 143 143 143 143 . 168
0
21
95
0 .
10
09
0
19
50
0
00
51
3 1+2 3 4 5 1+2+3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 1/1 1/2 2 3+4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4
L 168 J 169 169 169 169 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 170 170 170 170 * 176 287
0 0
14 16
54 35
204 \
HARAKHAPURA
1
0
25
01
2
r
0 0
16 OC
*A 24
0
10
90
0
18
18
•
0
01
61
204 203 205 \ 205 198 198 198 198 197 197 197 181 181 181
1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 32176 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, J 923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] I 4 | I 6 1 I 2 I 37 0 5 05 01
0
19
10
0
22
03
06
0
179 "] 179 l 179 j 179 J 180 1 180 > 180 J 126 126 126 126 126 126 127 *) 127 y
43
01
0
27
0
31
3 1 2 3/A 3/B 1 2/1 2/2 1/P 1/P 2/2 3 4/1 4/2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3
127 J 128 1 128 J 147 î 147 Y 147 J 143 142
76 04 02
22 06 16
0 0 0
151 1
1 2/1 2/2
12 17 18
67 88 53
0 0 0
1
2 3
151 f 151 J 152 153 154 1 154 |- 154 J
[No. R-25011/7/2002—OR-I]
S. S. K.EMWAL, Under Secy.
2177MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the Ist February, 2002
S.0.694.—In pursuance of the proviso to sub rule (1) of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules. 1963 framed under section 17 of the Petroleum and Minerai Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Compétent Authority, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh in consultation with the Gas Authority of India Limited with whom the right of user in land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vest as the case may be, hereby déclares the date of termination of opérations of laying natural gas pipeline from Southern Magnésium Chemicals Limited Tap-Off Pangidi to Triveni Glass Works Limited, Kondagudem as mentioned in column 8 of the Schcdule annexed as follows, namely —
SCHEDULE
District Tehsil Village Notification U/S Notification U/S Date of
3(1) 6(1) Termination of Opération
Date of S.O No. Date of S.O. No Publication and Date Publication and Date of Gazette of Gazette
West Godavan Devarapalli Konda Gudem 21-08-99 SONo. 2-2-2000 S.O. No. 8-02-2000
Gaz.No34 2358 Gaz. No. 91(E)
17-8-99 70 l-2-'00
[FileNo. L-14014/8/99-GP]
SWAM1 SINGH, Director2178 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUN 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11 February, 2002
S.O. 695.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. and date as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government acquired the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to thèse notifications;
And whereas in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government vested the right of user in the said land, free from ail encumbrances, in the Gas authority of India Limited;
And whereas, the Compétent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transport of natural gas from Nandigama EPS to Andhra Fuels Limited in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been laid in the said lands, so the opération may be lerminated in respect of the lands, the description of which in brief is specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 4 of the Petroleum Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963 the Central Government hereby déclares that the dates mentioned in column 7 of the Schedule as the date of termination of opération.
SCHEDULE
State—Andhra Pradesh
Notification U/S
Village
Tehsil
District
Notification U/S
3(1)
6(1)
Date of Termination of Opération
S.O. No. and Date
Date of Publication of Gazette
Date of S.O. No. Publication and Date of Gazette
28-10-99 Konkepudi
Pedana
Krishna
26-06-99 S.O.No.
Gaz.No.26 1829
07-09-99 Gaz. No. 547
S.O. No. 728(E) 07-09-99
17-8-99
[File No. L-14014/6/99-G.P.]
S.B. MANDAL, Under Secy.
2179 2180 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2181529 GI/2002—82182 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2183 2184 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2185 2186 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2187 2188 THE GAZETTE OF INI)] A : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2189 529 GI/2002—92190 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA I L 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] 2191 2192 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2193 2194 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II- Srj. i(ii)| 2195 New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002
S.O. 696.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Natural Gas through Hazira-Uran pipeline project in District Thane of Maharashtra State, a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposée! to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification:
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec- tion (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisi- tion of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Gov- ernment hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;
Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Au- thority, Gas Authority of India Limited, MMRDA Building, 3rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra.
SCHEDULE
Tehsil
Village Survey No.
District
Area to be acquired for ROU in hectare
4
1
2
3
5 6
Talasari
Thane
Bormal
5.77
0
113 19
19.45
78.31
0 0
26.62
101 30
20.4f
0 0
28 23
2PùO
0
2.68
0
24.14
27 24
0
0 60.40
110
56
0 4.36
85.04
108
0
57
5.73
0
58
0 0.19
107
22.44
0
0 47.69
60
109
0 15.98
61
0 6.65
Total
4 54.45
Anwir
39.32
112
0
64.28
173
0
27.74
110
0
0.74
101 . 0
Total
32.08
1
Savroli
123
65.49
0
Total
65.49
0
Sutrakar
39.75
316
0
362
35.74
0
22.31
443
02196 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 6 5 Contd.410
Thane
Sutrakar—
0 43.80 Talasari
Thane
360
0 51.97
154
0 44.56
145
0 1.64
359
1 46.70
143
0 11.81
399
0 16.06
129
0 23.36
358
0 19.20
127
0 20.96
128
0 2.87
358
0 28.93
406
0 4 86
203
0 18.55
358
0 26.99
200
0 9.29
199
0 30.51
218
0 2.02
26.97 41 83
198 197
0 0
222
0 3.83
404
0 0.07
224
0 47.54
403
0 23.83
2177
225
0
372
74.86
0
226
0 9.25
295
0 9.45
373
0 23.91
16.34
0
296
0 31.93
373
43.34
0
300
0 26.11
373
46.32
0
310
32.74
0
312
57.60
1
376
10 94
0
313
0 4.80
379
0 0.63
318
0 61.65
319
1 19.46
382
14 37.05
Total
73.62
0
122
Patilpada
22.68
0
118
1 37.69
126
0 4.01
120
1.89
0
127
44.09
0
130
49.68
0
101
18.84
0
131
67.70
1
135
21.50
0
133
41.70
5
Total
41.56
0
Thaker Pada 109
4156
0
Total
VadvaJi
Talasari
80
0 4.26
0 15.26
81
Total
0 19 52 Kurze
325
0 15 06
0 11 24
348
397
0 40.81
0
246
36 65
0
398
38 78
245
4.21
244
44.69
0 0
1
328
6 95
7 33
233
0
239
41 38
0
238
36.00
0
237
24.04
0
54.40
329
0
—
6 62
0
404
21.70
0
89 86
Total
4
23.80 Kochai
37
0
17.22 Ambeshet
67
0
1
40
9.10 Masangaon
15.70
65
0
62
0.47
0
2 58
63
0
22.40
16
0
50.29
31
0
18.74
26
0
22 72
16
0
5 43
27
0
66 07
31
0
23.98
52
—
30.48
0
6.15
56
0
16
1 4 63
100
0 0.82
65.70
32
0
1 40
109
0
651
29
0
52
0 19 40
59 47
0
24
9.52
5
0
35 04
0
136
0 0.75
8
45 48
9
0
0 4 95
14
31.75
0
13
9.74
0
10
—
29.25
0
73.84
7
Total
51.6
0 Dapchari
435
Dahanu
0 0.3
486
0.4
0
487
74.7
0
486
12.0
0
2292197 f. 4 5 1 1 4 s 6 0 Dapehiiri ennui '4X5 Dahanu i | . , l , .c 1 l.ii: .:;[! llaladpada-- 0 riiimo •conKl.5 ' 0.3 0 26 38.0 55 0 {{^{{FOOTNOTE (1}}}}
4V)
78 7
0 •)•>, 1
1\\
{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1}}}}
N4
215
(I
439
0
45
1.5
0
44
.1 3 •
f> 0
4 6
0
19.4
18
0
"" "i i
{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1}}}} i '• "
i h 'i
4 40
??1
.'.'. 1
11 27 X
,'2-t
0
0
22
X0 0
0
19
U 1
17
•U 7 l'otill
3 1
0 5
0
If. 6
Ainhoh
38,9
M
12 0
0
110
0 0 1
2,1S
0 0 5
139
0 V)
?,U
4 1 .2
0
443
0
101
7 6
0 48.1
ttida
0 45.9
175
0 9. 8
173
0 15.6
174
0 94 3
4-46
0 48
247
0 0 8
528
0
2.9
248
0
44d
1.3
1 12.2
445
0 0 9
288
0 14.8
28')
0
290
31 1
0
-
33.6
0 28.6
295
0 }9 9
457
0 0 1
2Mh
0
297
14.9
1 95.5
456
0 0.9
460
0 20.1
.M) 5
0 2.9
460
0
4 56
6 8
y 97.8
Total
a 67
0 0.1
1 lalaclpad
1 h ;i ne
Dahanti
0
66
2.3
0 15.6
68
0 41 1
67
0
6')
0.1
0 19 1
70
0 39 9
77
0
63
0 1
0 9 1
62
0
78
2 0
0
79
7 2
0
80
1.9
0 7 8
8!
0 66 5
59
529 GI/2002—10
0
171
(i X
[1 11 1
lf.7
o
I6X
10 7
i
i 71
7, 1
(i 6 9
170
6 i
17!
0
0
176
SX.5
190
0 19,8
0 17 S
178
66 3
190
0
0 1 1
184
0 if. 0
I X'
| 9 (i
0 1 (.
0
194
IX 1
0 44 3
193
0
192/A
38.3
23 4
0
193
0 ^ 4
Nala
0 48 1
15
0
10
18.1
15
0 36.5
0
10
1 1
S
0 64 7
1 '•
(y 0 4
1 1
0 1 7
1 s
60 2
0
12
4,0
0
34 3
15
0
0
19
78.4
0 9.4
Pada
22
17 0
0
0
23
12.1
0
25
78.2
27
0 5.0
28
0 66.5
0
27
12.0
98.9
28
0
30
0 0,1
31
0 4,1
29
0 6,9
0
33
2.4
37
0 0.4
34
0 174
37
1 40.92198 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ] 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dahanu Khaniv Dahanu Amboh—contd. 3 8 0 87 27 0 21 1 Thane 3 Thane 12 11.9 Total Nala 0 Dhanivari 159
3 94.4
0
202
1 6
0
196
1.4
1
186
34.4
1
Total
31 8
Dewoor 6 5
0 20.8
67
0 1 5
125
0 60.2
0
109
34 0
0
125
25 4
84
0 22.1
125
0 40 6
Nala
0 3.3
8'5
0 30 4
86
9.7 37
0
66
54 6
0
60
0 69.6
71
92
0
59
0 22.6
23
50 7
0
25
22.1
0
64
60.6
0
66
1 7 1
39
0 4.3
83
0 67.2
38
38
0
81/2
65.4
0
58
23.1
166
0 65 8
92
0 12 6
166
0 11 2
0
Nala
5.9
168
0 9.3
Total
3 43 1 Dahanu
Fhane
Oservira 62
0 7.0
0
73
15 7
62
0 96 6
63
0 8.2
62
0 12 2
111
0 1 3
110
0 24 3
0
112
21 6
0
115
60.2
113
0 0.2
114
0 1.9
0
115
34 6
62
0 24 4
116
0 4 4
121
0 36.9
62
" 0 5 3
43
0 5 5
0
42
18.8
62
0 54.8
0
47
0 1
0
44
0.3
0
62
7 4
79
0 13.0
0
81
10 1
0
71
0 5
1
79
21.9
0
54
20
0
53
76.4
0
4
12.3
0
53
99
0
68
19 5
0
53
0 64 3
Total
85 1
6
Waghadi 365
0 25 5
14 4
364
0
1 1
369
0
370
22 1
0
351
30 6
0
349
62
0
348
174
0'
347
0 35
349
0 03
164
346
0
345
170
0
331
104
0
•332
19 0
0
314
14 8
0
176
311
0
312
13 8
0
306
13 8
0
28 2
285
0
296
27 7
0
295
77
0
297
0 1
0
164
291
0
72
289
0
294
0 0.6
290
30.9
0
221
18.0
0
7 5
4.5
0
217
10.8
76
0 9 1
79
0 8.2
2
78
21 9
77
0 9 3
Total
5 40.2
0
218
20.5
0
0.2
216
0
0.8
213
0
7.3
215
0
26.4
206
02199 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 6 5 0 9.2
Thane
Waghadi—contd 205
Thane
Dahanu
0 63
Road
27.2
0
40
0 8.2
45
2 1
0
17
0 3.8
38
11.9
0
46
0 8.7
19
0 2.9
37
0 24.6
34
0 38.8
47
52
54.6
0
6 45.0
Total
0 27.9
Weti
293
Vikramgarh
0 12 8
249
0 19.7
250
0 9.7
251
0 21 5
253
0 5.6
17W
0 21.1
254
23 4
0
256
0 41
Road
0 0.6
147
0 146
146
0 30 1
152
0 0 1
540
0 6.4
156
0 30.4
155
0 12.2
157
0 19.5
131
0
133 •
13.4
0 62
129
0 37.2
123
0
31W
145
0
104
66
0 40 4
105
0 11
102
42W
0 2.5
19 1
0
100
0 8.8
98
Thane
79
0 55.2
179
81
0
0 2.4
77
0 25.4
82
0 50.7
60
22
50
0
7.4
0
58
0 9.9
16.5
51 57
0
0 23.4
56
0 37.4
53
6 67.8
Total
Vikramgarh
0 24.4
Murbad
83
Thane
0.1
84
0
0 8.1
77
Vikramgarh Murbad—contd. 82
0
0
312
45.7 3.4
314
8.6
0
86
0 25.9
80
0 7.4
87
0 2.6
88
0 28.6
89
0 1.8
90
0 81
65
0 22.2
64
0.4
0
62
1
0
48
0 27.6
.63
0 36.9
62
0 14.9
61
0 8.1
62
0 1.4
60
0 1.1
58
0 59.1
164
0 10.9
167
0 5.1
169
0.4
0
168
0 53.7
198
0 2.6
197
0 52.1
196
0 27 6
195
0 31.9
223
0 4.7
224
0 99
225
0 14
24
64
0
272
0 73
278
0 99 5
269
0 25 6
270
0 24
240
0 31.3
239
0 133
241
0 29 1
Total
8 44.4 Vikramgarh Pimpalshet Nala
0 6.3 Bdk.
58A
0
5
61
0 21.5
62
0 3.7
63
0 5.5
64
0 36.4
65
0 5.1
0
66
23 1
68
0
6
71
0 38
43
0 32.8
44
0 6.8
45
0 0.1
43
0 25.4
Nala
0 2.8
0
48
31.9 1 • • . i- 1 ,1 li ! " i ,\ ,• vlï i : . .in ( p | ' l ! \. I ; I . , N !A i l . i Q r,
U ' V H I II Su M \ \ )}6 1 -1 4 (" 2 ' . ! - i , ! i i i ' < i rh 49 l'impaUlicl {{^{{FOOTNOTE (1}}}} }} 2 1 liane Apli Bilk, 0 Vikumgarh 10 7 liJk-t'onld 107 0 21 4 0 Cl'MUl 3"?? Nala 68 51
0 2 6
0
108
31 3
106
0 6
0
Nala
0 22 3
25
0 32
106
0 24
{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1)}}}}
26
22 4
il
6.8
!
8 7
il
'Kl
! 3
>
11
24 1
{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1}}}}
U)
17 1
{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1}}}}
•16
67
0 37 !
1 17
0 H 7
66
0 66 5
0
Koaii
47
0
76
14 8
0 24 4
77
0
7 6
78
0
S 7
1 î 6
1 X
0
x.-> 79
0
:()
XI
0
{1
85
36 2
'.02
:••
" X4 3
0-i
{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1}}}} 59 1
{{^{{FOOTNOTE (1}}}} 4 1
0 4 4
162 Inx
0 29 9
10')
63
0 122
7 1 8
- '! ; i!
0 (15
16?
76
1 31 8
(1 77
70 3
121
124
78
13 47
73
22.72
80
8.07 Thane
68
92.55
67
5 20
69
54 43
65
23.21
60
63 93 Thanc
61
1.51
59
58.88
58
52 72
0 79
54
0
0
67
187
189
10
Total
Vikramgarh Chinehghar 88
0 22 2
91
0 74,5
03
89
0
97
0
Total
Vikramgarh Kur/.c
204
0 7 3
64 2
203
0
202
0 34.5
206
0 32.6
20 5
0 48 1
68.37
48
59 53
14 2
o •
24 8
0
16 67
47
60 64
42
33 09
11.81
41
89.21
40
1 15 25
82 93
39
38
61.35
37
23 01
1 otal
4 15 57
61 9
54
0
198
14 7
0
197
35 5
0
196
57 3
0
218
0 12 6
12 7
219
0
224
18
0
0
222
7 2
37 4
221
0
239
0 21 3
240
0 73 5
242
1 23 1 ,,
56
83 1
299
0 3 1
6 8
0 22 7
0 • 36 5
87
0
40 5
0
29 9
0
298
295
0 5 4
294
21.4
0
! 7
0
36 y;
52.9
0
9 4
0
300
59 3
0
0 33 7
301
60 2
0
307
0 72 4
34
16 2
0
- '1 .17 9 ...lai ! ' •î-i' i 8(14 4d X S 6 2D9 2 0/ W Vikranigarli Apii Udk iian^ ^ 7 y 2Q7 *. a 3?. 3X ↩
3032201 5 1 3 4 4 5 6 1 6 2 3 2 Ambivali-conl 306 :d 90 0 51.3 0 Vikramgarh Kurze-contd 76 Thane '1 hane Vikramgarh 09 7.4 83 305 0 0 5,7
310
0
()
311
64
12,9 Thane
312
0
314
0 7,7
315
0 14,3
314
0 19,3
316
0 5.3
0
280
71.2
87 6
277
0
0 49 2
449
450/2
0 18 1
0 24.1
450/3
450/5
0 23.1
450/4
0 9.2
475
0 46.3
476
0 87.5
498
0 26 6
499
94
0
491
0 4.6
500
15.3
1
0 0
520
0 4.7
501
520
0 59
1
531
0
519
0 8.7
511
76.1
0
531
0 26 2
534
0 31 7
535
0 32.6
537
0
River
0
Total
17
54
0
Vikramgarh Ambivali
Thane
52/A
0
9.5 37.2 22 77.9 0.3
55
0 5.1
52/A
0
0
50
41 9 5.7
48
0 33.6
0
49
3
47
0 44.3
46
0 8.9
Thane
0
69
68
0
62.8 15.8 28.8
66
0
Road
0 4.5
66P
0
75
3 9 24.8
0
76
0 20.1
0
Nala
77
0
8.2 27.4
78
0 8.6
80
0
79
0
0.8 22.6
Nala
0 7,8
9
5
Total
Suponde
216
0 Waciu
36,5
217
25.4
0
215
4.9
0
181
8.5
0
182
0 31.5
180
0 38.0
0 24
I69A
179
40 5
0
169U
0 14,8
106
0 24,6
178
0 20 5
195
0 14.6
177
19.0
0
196
0 0.2
175B
0 15.1
42.7
1450
0
176
0 1.5
I45A
7.4
0
198
30.8
0
141
0 0.1
142
0 6.7
0
143
0.4
65
0 27.2
66
0 16.1
67
0 10.0
68A
0 0.9
141
0 2.9
69
0 0.1
0
68B
53.4
72A
0 21.4
71
17.8
0
75B
0 37.8
78
0 20.0
79
23.8
80
0 0 21.5
81
0 9.6
78
0 1.5
Total
6 50.1 Wada
196
0 Kalamkhand
0.3
195
0 34 6
231
0 72 9
195
0 48
230
0 3.1
232
0 16.6
198
4.3
0
233
0 36.8
236
0 107
193
0 182
238
0 72 3
197
43.2
0
192
0 13.32202 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 3 4 6 1 5 5 2 3 4 2 6 Wada Kalatnkhand-contd Thane 191 24 9 0 Thane Wada Bhopivali-contd 199 0 3.8 190 16.6 0 0 0.1 200 188
0 167
187
126
0
186
0 7.7
177
108
0
178
21.0
0
179
0 16.7
175
17.9
0
161
18.9
0
151
13 1
0
Road
5.5
0
156
6.8
0
155
32.7
0
154
20.0
0
153
32 9
0
148
27.4
0
147
12
0
Total
34 8
6
24
2 3 Wada
Kanchad
0 Thane
25
36.5
0
26
21.8
0
27
0 19 8
7.6
28
0
2.9
0 9.2
30
0 8.6
9.4
31
0
32
0 8 0 Thane
3 3
0 18 5
Total
1 41 7
6 8
Vavheghar 3 7
0 Wada
1 liane
Total
0 6 8
62
0 23.0 Wada
Mande
1 liane
61
0 17.1
0 35 4
55
54
0 13 4
5 3
0 62 5
40.0
0
51
0 9 3
50
Thane
47
0 61 1
46
0 19 4
16 8
0
45
44
0 18 7
16.7
Toi al
3
0 2.4
191
Bhopivali
Wada
T liane
11.4
192
0
193
0 35 3
194
26 9
0
2.7
195
0
0.5
187
0
189
0 0.7
29 8
0
186
10 5
185
0
0.0
184
0
164
0 9.2
165
0 12.8
0
166
0,6
176
0 5.5
0
168
13.2
169
0 0.1
117
0 20.3
0
170
4.0
171
0 2.9
173-B
0 3.9
160-A
0 24.5
160-B
0 4.4
159
0 8.9
0
115-A
6.8
124
0 22.3
0 11.4
123
122
0 1.1
121
0 16.8
120
0 0.2
0 0.1
119
115-B
0 73
0 23 3
118
116
0 19.6
Total
3 43.5 Vikramgarl î Kharivali
259
0 88.0
317
0 22.6
0 13.5
229
0 Q.8
318
268
0
324
0
0
73.8 0.2 37.7
202
208
0 39.0
257
1.5
, o
15.9
67
0
0 9.0
326
66
0 50.7
Total
3 52.7 Vikramgarl î Ambiste
0 40 0
139
Khurd
140
0 82.8
129
0 23.4
49.4
0
113
119
0 0.1
131
0.7
0
0
111
10.9
22.6
107
0
0 09
106
06
0
105
101
0 %2
100
0 1".7
$.0
40
0
6.4
99
0
6.6
98
0
9.8
52
02203 4 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 5
Wada
Thane
Thane
Wada
0 16.4
1.2 Khaniwali-contd
Ambiste
53
Budruk
72
0 6.1
0
61
11.3
62
0 5.5
84
0 7.7
59
0 7.7
31
0 8.6
14
0 3.6
15
0 13.4
14
2.4
0
88
0 2.5
13
7.8
0
Total
3 73.3
0
450
10.6
449
0 10.9
0
450
34.0
444
0 0.2
0 24.1
447
0 34
446
455
0 6.2
0
456
4.8
458
0 7.9
12.1
459
0
437
0 4.9
469
0 7.5
437
0 1.2
459
0 30.9
471
0 32 3
0
329
34.5
0 4.4
328
324
0 2.1
326
0 12.2
241
0 26.7
242
0 7.0
235/A
0 17.3
235/B
0 31.7
200
0 11.0
199
0 12 6
201
0 3.7
202
0 1.2
197
0 39.8
192
0 22.6
194
0 15.3
193
0 5.1
195
0 15 8
189A
0 7.4
0 0.1
188
187
42.5
0
Total
3.7
Khanivali
17.8
213
5.0 0
213
167
0
214
6.0
0
214
22 2
0
213
0 57.8
218
1.8
0
209
20.1
212
213
9.7
194
32.9
197
2.0
193
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8
193
9.9
0
192
3.3
197
1.0
0 0
187
4.8
133
3.2
0 0
8.4
164
162
1.6
11.2
166
163
0 0 0 0 13.8
134
8.3
160
10.7
135
36.8
115
11.8
120
9.2
115
0 0 0 0 0 0 19.2
110
25.5
111
1.4
109
7.4
3.1
0 0 0 0
108
109
0.9
Total
80.5 Billoshi
364
10.2
0 3 0
298
3.2
363
0 0 4.3
362
0.1
365B
13.9
362
21.0
366
2.0
299
3.4
10.4
300
361
10.6
301
24.4
293
13.5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
292
4.8
289
26.7
271
30.1
45.4
0 0 0 0
274
272
0.1
273
11.8
236
5.1
237
1.9
239
3.9
0 0 0 0 0
240
2.7
11.4
238
226
0.4
0 0 0 0
225A
28.3
0.4
224
225C
8.2
204
10.4
0 0 02204 ^ 1MK GAZETTEOF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PARTII- Sic. 3(u>] 1 3 4 5 6 1 5 6 2 3 4 Thune Wada
0
Billoshi-contd 203
0.4 Thane
Wada
0 0.0
205
206
0 1.3
0
207
85
124
0 22.9
0 18.5
0
12;
6 3
0 24.4
121
i l ')
0 5 5
IIS
0 13 6
0
107
10 0
1)
116
129
1)
10K
0 5
l'I
l(l')
0 7
')
114
0"
122
115
0
5.s
i)
11?
46A
0 0 7
4(iB
0 1.5
18.4
1!!
0
48
45.5
0
0
y>
0.3
0
29A
15.3
0 23.3
37
0
36
17.7
0 1 3
15
29/A
1 46 8
29C
10.4
0
0 1.6
25
0
24
22 0
24/A
0 20 4
84
0
Nala
6 86 6
l'oial
1
Bhudhaviili
41.7
(>8
0 26.0
7!
0 24,0
72
0 11.6
73
X4
0 6.7
0 21.9
85
86
0 35 4
109
0 78 1
0
108
12.6
112
9.4
0
0 6.8
m
0 33
109
111
6.8
0
8.1
110
0
0
1 11
4.6
0
109
3.3
0
135
21.1
137
0 8.4
139
0 44
133
0 2.8
0
138
9.0
4.1
141
0
Bhudhavidi-contd 142
0 354
148
0 0.1
149
0 94
150
0 29.5
160
0 19 2
152
0 0 5
153
0 2.5
161
0 0 6
154
0 0 9
0
155
1 1
159
0 15 6
158
0 15 4
179
0 4 0
0
190
1 3
194
0 27
196
0 82
0
195
8 1
1)
1%
72
199
0 il 9
Total
23.5 Bilavli
485/C
0 1 1
458
0 6.1
457
0 28
456
0 2.1
454
0 1 9
0
146/"
22 0
247
0 0.1
0
243
1.8
0
244
2 7
0 12 9
245
0
246-1'
0 5
0
246-"
1.3
231
0 10 3
230
0 2 6
228
0 5 0
229
0 1 4
0
227
127
0
212
12 7
219
39 4
0
217
16 1
0
0
216
15 1
219
0 2.5
0
201
1.6
1
Total
74 8
l
0
Dongastc
l.l
66/1
0 18.0
0
66/4
2 1
0
66/10
7 9
0
66/12
10 3
0
66/15
3 0
0
66/16
11 6
65
0 14 1
66/19
0 0.2
68
0 19.1
67/2
0 732205 2 6 2 1 3 4 5 1 . 6 3 4 5 Dongaste-eont
Wada
0 18.8
Wada Thane
d68/2
Thane
0 16.2
68/3
0 14.3
71/2
0 23.0
71/3
0 3.8
71/4
71/1
0 0.9
0 3.0
73/3
0 0.1
70/7
0 33.1
73/5
0 1.3
75/3
0 2.6
Road
0 0.8
1-1
0 15.1
1-2
0 4.3
1-5
0 16.2
1-4
0 0.3
1-7
0 4.9
1-8
8.4
0
1-9
1.2
0
5-7
0 1.2
1-10
0 12.0
5-12
0 21.3
2-2
0 5.9
2-4
0 7.7
2-5
0 0.5
2-6
0 12.9
2-9
0 11.3
2-10
0 12.2
25/27
5.7
0
25/26
6.4
0
25-3
0 8.3
25-5
0 10.6
24-1
0 1.0
25-6
20.4
0
24-5
0 18.1
24-7
0 13.9
30-1
0 3.0
30-3
0 14.5
29-2
0 0.5
30-4
1.9
0
30-5
4.4
0
30-6
0 11.9
29-3
31-1
0 22.1
4.2
0
Ga ivthan
0 13.8
31-2
9.3
34/1
0
0 4.7
34/3
6.3
0
34/2
0 17.6
34.9
0 0.7
33/2
0 13.3
33/3
0
34/1
0.2
0 9.3
30-12
71.1
5
Total
Chinchghar-
0 31.2
207
0 0.6
198
0 126
199A
0 1.3
205
0.1
204
o'
2.7
0
201
0 87 3
203
0 2.1
206
0.9
0
181
0 10.3
186
0 3.0
178
1 52.1
Total
Musarne
0 0.9
201
0 167
202
0 15.7
201
0 5.2
203
0 22.3
212
211
0 7.3
25.3
0
213
0 0.6
210
0 28.9
229
0 7.4
218
0 11.3
228
0 3.1
227
0 0.5
245
0 14.2
226
0 2.8
225
0 9.7
224
12.2
0
249
36.1
262
7.9
0 0 0 8.3
260 259
0
317
13.7
7.3
318
317
1.3
0 0
15.0
0
319
0 3.6
332
0 18.3
331
0 40.5
337
0
385
1.3
384-
0 5.9
0
382
15.0
0 8.2
396
0 8.2
387
0 0.5
400
398
0 10.0
0 10.0
181/A
S81/B
0 3.0
0
380A
32.1
0 7.7
379
0
Road
4.0
0 10.7
347
335
22.3
0 0 3.4
356
354
0 4.2
0
353
13.6 529 GI/2002—112206 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 3 4 5 6 2 352 Thane Wada Musarne-contd 0 37.1 Thane Bhiwandi Khanvali 62 0 31 30 22.2 367B 0 65 0 0 80 467
21 0
0
469/B
0 68
469A
0 122
41 5
473
0
472
177
0
481
0 148
482
0 123
41 6
480
0
23 7
Total
7
Met
1 19
51.7
0
120
0 7
0
118
2 5
0
0.3
117
0
Road • o 7.4
128
2 9
0
127
0 89 2
157
0 28.8
154
0 1.3
14 6
0
153
22 2
152
0
0 18.1
149
164
0 4
0
26 6
165
0
171
0 8.3
41 8
0
173
0 0 1
172
174
0 29.7
178
0 3.6
0 9 2
175
17 3
176
0
River
0 26.2
4
Total
3.0
Dighasi
0 74 10 Thane
Bhiwandi
179
0 37 06
46
0
173
0 25
0
77
29 47
78
0 27.39
0 13 49
39 79
0 19 55
0 94 62
84 5
0 75 15
0 72 71
3
0 1 97
158
134
0 41 54
0 43.92
133
0 36.96
117
0 0 96
132
0
128
20 00
0 10.59
118
0
Dighasi
124
25 00 Bhiwandi
63
0 57 90
60
0 45 20
59
0 3 30
58
0 18 30
57
0 83 70
0
55
35 70
49
0 43 30
56
0 9 60
48
0 7 50
45
0 57 11
46
0 25.60
44
0 8 80
4
Total
28.11
2
Godravali
0 1.14
21
0 99 80
22
0 3 60
24
0 32 30
20
0 53 20
18
0 16 50
19
0 11 00
2
Total
17.54 Jambivali
49
0 30.50
49
0 29.80
51
0 8 74
50
0 31.70
49
0 17 70
50
0 32 60
49
0 11 60
0
61/2
55 60
61/3/1
0 21 30
61/1
0 5 60
61/3/2
0 13 10
61/4
0 0 40
61/5
0 50 80
68
0 2120
44/9
0 20 30
45/1/1
0 22.90
44/1/1
0 6 80
77/1/1
0 72.20
38/1
0 2.27
38/2
0 23.00
38/6
0 0.30
38/7
0 11.40
38/8
0 0.20
(8/10/1
0 17"40
48/6/1
0 0.04
48/8
0 67 40
Nala
0 11.50
5
Total
86.35
Thane
0 0 06
166
Thane
0 11 07
183
2 49
190
0
Total
6 38 35 Bhiwandi •Kirvali-durav li 136
0 0 50
144
0 39 30
0 22 50
137
0
139
33 502207 -> 1 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Thane Kirvali-duravh 126 0 15.90 Bhiwandi Thane Bhiwandi Lap-Budruk 137 0 21.50 121 0 17.60 133 0 34.85 111
7 10
0
128
0 10.00
121
17 60
0
126
0 42.15
24
0 31 5
127
0 12.98
22
0 8 80
21
0 31 10
26
0 30.40
13
34.1
0
115
0 6.20
15
58 20
0
14
0 31 30
20
16.10
0
6
31 10
0
40.50
93
0
94
0 45 40
64
5.80
0
90
0 10 10
89
0 38.10
87
17 20
0
123
0 53.54
121
0 36 77
97
0 45.85
114
0 2 29
111
0 19.43
103
0 44 97
99
0 6.86
100
0 13.80
107
0 30.65
110
0 3.18
160
7.41
0
106
0 14.79
105
0 88.29
161
0 2.98
Total
68.45
10 Kaling-Budruk
85
0 4 70
0 17.40
83
80
2 50
0
81
0 9.80
110
47.04
0
109
15.14
0
111
3 14
0
108
0 43.48
24.30
Total
06
38
0 4 60 1 liane
Bhiwsndi Lap-Budruk
8 40
40
0
24 71
41
0
4.50
0
85
8 40
0
42
45 76
35
0
34
0 20 16
0 12 30
33
183
0 0.23
24 50
0
32
44.56
31
0
106
0.81
0
112
0 8.25
113
0 1 82
116
0 0.81
115A
67.04
0
115A
42 19
0
114
0 9 76
1 19/1/1
0 3 12
19/2/1
0 30 13
22
11.91
0
23
0 1.11
21
0 98.30
Total
84.05
20.33
30
0
22 78
29
0
40 48
20
0 .
22 78
19
0
14
13 25
0
3 Dalepada
52
0 22 99
59
0 1.95
1
57
8.42
62
0 47.53
Total
5 80.89
0 0.06
15
Thane
0 35 43
16
65.31
10
0
8 25
0
180
11 32
0
7
32.72
0
148
8.19
8
0-
0 29
6
0
10.38
167
0
3.13
0
141
42 17
0
139
10 48
0
140
16.02
0
142
14.67
0
138
37
Bhiwandi Chinchavah
0 52 13
40
0 41.53
39
0.98
0
43
0 35 92
45
0 39.24*
46
0 0.29
4
0 12.76
5
0 6 98
6
0 2.10
7
0 137
8
0 9.98
9
0 20.65
10
0 23.472208 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 Thane Bhiwandi
22
29.50
0
Chinchavali
Thane
19
20.61
18
30.27
23.93
0 0 2
Total
Devali
33.16
0
4 5
18.04
6
0
10
23.38
0
11
0 22.86
17.27
19
0
55.05
22
0
0.80
0
62
51.99
62/2
0
34.69
62/3/1
0
11.72
25/1
0
25/2
0 5.85
26
0 11.45
60
59
0 32.86
19.12
Total
3
36/2/1
0 24.40
Borivali
33.20
36/2/2
0
0 10.50
36
0 54.00
37/6
37/7
0 89.20
0 60.40
37/8
0 23,90
37/9
37/10
34.00
0
37/11
0 2.00
Thane
37/12
0 22 40
37/14
12.60
0
0 18.80
37/15
37/16
13.40
0
38/9
0 13.40
38/10
0 2.00
13.70
0
48
0 49.90
47
0 51.30
36 50
50
0
18.40
51
0
53
0 88.50
52
0 17.80
Total
6 90 30
0 11.9
Road
Padghe
25
0 14.5
167
0 51.5
River
0 35.0
0
38
47.0
Total
1 59.9 Thane
Anhe
Bhivandi
20
0 79 5 Thane
0 6.0
5 4
0 30
0 18.0
0
3 50
31.5
61
0 28.5 Anhe-contd. 56
0 Bhivandi
7.5
0
55
13.5
54
0 7.5
47
0 18.0
46
0 19.5
48
0 4.5
0 69.8
0 28.5
0 21.0
0
53 27 35 34
3.0
0 16.5
0 13.5
33 71
0 34.5
31
0
70
1.5
Total
4 25.3
64
Vandre
0 24.3
27
0 2.6
29
0 6.1
0
28
36.0
0
33
16.0
26
0 15.5
1
Total
0.4
0 Sor
40
22.2
41
0 23.0
39
0 8.2
37
0 55.5
1
58
7.0
40.1
River
0
Total
2 55 3
53
2 Kalyan
Khadavali
13
Total
2 13 Nadgam
186
0 55.5
167
45.0
0
166
0 34.5
164
0 12.0
163
0 48.0
1
Total
95.0
6
Raye
60
0
7
0 24.0
8 . 0 24.5
Khadi
0 2.3
2
0 100
10
0 5.0
9
0 40 5
Railway
0 12.0
15
0 23 0
16
2.6
0
17
0 13.5
Total
1 63.3 Kalyan
1
Chinchvah
0 37.2
2
0 46 9
3
0 9.4
7
0 314
9
0 23 2
11
0 77.22209 1 3 4 5 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kalyan 19 19.7 Thane Kalyan Thane Chinchavali 0 Ghotsai-contd 25 0 165 18 0 1 19.2 36 618 17
0 41.0
18.8
28
0
26.4
15
0
0 6.8
16
Total
3 57.2
116
0 30.2 Utane
34.1
112
0
120
0 27.2
110
0 69.3
97
0 15.1
89.1
102
0
0
98
5.5
74
0 64.7
76
0 19.6
77
0 21.7
79
0 97 2
57
0 16.5
0
55
10.8
0
53
58.9
54
0 9.0
Total
5 68.9
27
0 81.0 Rundhe
28
0 4.5
30
0 23
0
88
180
84
0 60 0
21
0 39.0
22
0 16.5
0
20
2.3
88
0 49.5
0
River
49.5
Total
3 22.5
0
239
21.0 Titvala
0
246
32.0
247
0 67.5
1
Total
20.5
124
0 30 Mahaskal
0
125
31.5
0 40 0
123
0
122
22.5
0
118
19.5
0 32.3
117
0
114
27.0
0 60.0
113
0
95
28.3
0 3.8
106
1
108
38.0
4 5.8
Total
0
34
72.0 Ghotsai
0 105
31
0
32
2.3
0 2.3
30
0 45 0
33
37
0 38 0
20
0 180
42
0 19 1
41
0 96 3
50
0 3.0
49
0 2.3
51
0 168
53
0 7.2
57
0 120
56
0 34 5
55
0 12.0
69
0 24 0
70
0 4.9
85
0 26 5
11 9
86
0
0 13 0
87
84
0 6.3
95
0 81.5
0 22 5
167
94
19 9
0
3
0 45
84.4
Total
7
Ravte
68
0 0.6
67
25.5
0
44
0 57 5
0 50.0
58
57
0 63.5
6.0
47
0
48
0 23 9
0 11 5
49
65 4
52
0
51
0 15 5
23 6-
81
0
22
0
91
92
0 23
48 5
96
0
94
0 165
30 0
98
0
41 5
121
0
0 0.1
120
02
119
0
28.5
122
0
19.4
0
123
35 5
132
0
1 43 0
131
0 30
135
713 5
Total
0 22 5 Vaholi
70
63 5
0
68
7.5
74
0
0 13.5
75
77.0
0
138
28 5
0
612210 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] -> 5 6 1 3 4 4 5 2 6 1 3 20 8
Thane
0
49
Thanc
Kalvan
Voholi
58 8
0
60
138
0
59
0 31 5
58
75 6
0
136
0 212
54
5.0
0
55
39 0
0
56
4 78.0
Total
0
Apti
72
20 3
0 44 3
71
0
70
11.3
0 37 5
69
0
77
113
0 68
76
67
0 36 0
0 15.0
79
210
0
65
41
0 1.5
0
40
57 5
42
0 38
0 39.0
38
0
34
86 5
24 0
80
0
4
Total
15.5
Vasant
River
0 60.0
114
0
Sheloli
41.3
118
0 0 5
0 18.8
115
116
0 37 5
0
Khadi
22 5
44
0 14 6
45 4
43
0 '
0
45
2.0
0
59
27.0
58
0 39.0
0 1 5
53
57
0 7.5
55
0 28 5
54
0 23 5
52
0 165
51
0 40.5
50
0 37 5
Total
4 64 0
Ambivah
24
0 75 Kalyan
Amvivalh-con td 25
0 22 5
26
0 13.5
21
0 37 5
34
0 46 5
38
0 5 3
33
0 5 3
39
0 6 8
41
0 7 3
40
0 65.3
Total
2 17 3 Jambul Mohih 55
0 43.5
57
0 58.5
Road
0 4.5
0 25 5
58
53
85 2
0
0 15 0
51
50
0 2 5
37
48 5
0
1
38
28 0
4
Total
11 2 Ulhasnagar
132
Chilkhloh
0 21 0
34 5
131
0
128
0 86 5
126
0 2.3
127
0 15 0
129
0 73.5
Road
0 7.5
143
0 4.5
112
0 6.2
111
0 4 9
5
0 40.5
2
0 0.5
.3
0 24.0
4
0 16.5
13
0 43 5
12
0 22.2
15
0 15 0
25
0 39 0
28
0 18 8
24
0 4 5
29
0 18.8
58
0 44.5
5 7
0 30.5
5 6
0 55.5
55
0 57.0
Total
6 86 82211 4 2 6 1 5 6 1 3 5 3 4 2 1 155
Thane Thane
Ulasnagar Jambivali-cond 28
17
1 155
0
21
165
0 6.8
25
0 30 0
23
0
40
75 0
0 48 0
43
1
42
20.0
0
38
69.5
0 88.0
37
6
Total
84 8
1
Kakaley
25 0
Pond
0
20
10 5
0
21
36 0
0 35.3
22
0
26
2.3
1
Total
9 1
11
Thane
Bohonoli
0 59.25 Ulhasnagar
0 6 75
10
0
Total
66
0
Shirawali
28
15
0 46.5
31
20
0 21
29
15
0
0 29.5
36
0
Shirawali
52
30
0
53
105
0
51
22 5
0 48 9
49
0 1 5
48
41
0 29.5
2 69 9
Total
0
Ambhe
28
6.6
0
27
46
0
26
33 5
4.9
25
0
34
0 33.5
0
23
3.8
21
0 26.5
16
0 21.9
17
0 27.6
19
0 107
12
0 5.3
2
0 143
0
3
31.6 Ulhasnagar
4
Ambhe-contd
0 26 0
1
0 8.7
G P L.
185
0
71
0 38.5
80
0 140
78
0 11.2
75
0 71 6
13.2
Total
4 Kharad
22
0 37 5
23
0 3 0.
24
0 21.0
25
0 39.0
0 28 5
26
27
0 93.5
2
Total
22 5 Kushiwali
82
1 12
Total
0 1.01 Sakharoli
19
0 55.5
0 79.5
18
0 50 3
15
14
0 105
10
0 41.3
36
0 6.0
1
39
5.0
37
0 12.0
38
0 15.8
43
0 24.0
45
0 45 0
47
37 5
0
4
Total
82 3 Vadi
27
0 9.0
0
192
80
191
0 33.0
22 4
190
0
188
0 22.2
187
4.1
0
186
0 53.3
211
0 55
210
0 21.0
185
0 23
Road
0 6.0
144
0 113
Total
1 98 0
[File No. 14014/24/01/-G.P] S B MANDAL, Under Secy.
2212 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2213529 GI/2002—122214 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002
S.0.697.—Whereas ît appears to the Central Government that rt is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Natural Gas through Hazira-Uran pipeline projecl in District Raighad of Maharashtra state, a pipeline should be laid by the Gas Authority of lndia Limited;
22151 And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of kying the said pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under whjch the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is descnbed in the Schedule annexed to this notification;
Raighad Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec- tion ( 1 ) ol section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisi- tion of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Gov- ernment hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein,
6 2
3 4
5 Panvel
16.5 0.5 Nitale—contd. 6 5
0 0
48.0
8
0
60.0
10
0
47.5
Raighad
Total
6 Panvel
29.0 Vavanje 30
1
57 0
14
0
53.0
44
0
7.5
0
35
46.5
Total
Raighad Any person, interested in the land descnbed in the said Schedule may, vvithin twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Au- thority, Gas Authority of India Limited, MMRDA Building, 3rd floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra.
SCHEDULE
Village
District
Tehsil
Area to be Acquired
Survey No.
in
for ROU hectare
Chorme
26
0 2.3 Raighad Panvel
Road
0 3.0
28
0 70 0
0
25
7.5
24.0
29
0
30
0 25.5
31
0 6.0
32
0 61.5
0 21.0
33
44
0 30
41
0 66.0
2
34.5 Panvel
Mahodar 174
0
10.5
163
0
19 5
131
0
16.5
164
0
55 0
160
0
10.5
144
0
6.0
145
0
60.5
Govt. Land
0
10.5
0
132
54 4
133
0
0 1.3
126
0 6.0
127
10.5
0
125
22.5
0
124
21.0
0
48
19.5
0
49
39.0
67
0
16.5
1
65
33. tJ"
0
76
47.1
Total
0 18.0
42
Raighad
0 21.0
43
13
0 24.0
68
0 24.0
36
0 25.5
48
0 3.0
49
0 21.0
5
12.0 Panvel
0 Chindran Road
3.0
0
25
60.3
0
26
34.5
0
28
41.3
0
29
11.3
30
0
40.5
0
31
2.5
Total
Vadi
0 45
Raighad
50
0 15.0
53
0 10.5
52
0 9.0
43
0 24.0
2
26.3 Panvel
Mahalungi 80
0
57.8
0
60
76
0
Road
0
16.0 4.5 22.5
62
0
Total
4 89.3
Nitale
132
0 19.5 Raighad Panvel
129
0 43.5
133
0 10.5
127
0 25.5
37.5
8
0
31.5
53
0
5.3
22
0
1.5
23
0
19.5
126
0 25.0
135
0 42.8
136
0 96.0
94
0 18.0
92
0 6.8
91
0 26.5
89
0 23.0
138
1 55.5
88
0 19.5
86
0 10.5
38
0
0
25
24
0
15.0 4.5 6.0
26
0
1Q.5
27
0
19.5
29
0
10.5
Govt.
0
30
0 34.5
31
0 13.5
87.0
14
0
23.3
4
Total
2216 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALQUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 1 4 5 5 6 2 3 6Raighad
Khanav
Panvel
95
l 51.5
Raighad Panvel
93
0 32 5
92
0 22.5
0
91
43.6
90
0 3.8
0 21.1
36.8
Nere—C'ontd. Road
0 4.5
96
0 28.5
98
0 37.5
C.T.
0 3.0
50
0 45.0
49
0 13.5
Total
4 97.5
0 0 4.5
4.5
96 87 83 78 77
0 0
79
0
4.5 10.5
75
Vihighar
20
0 60.0
3"
0 9.0
36
43.5
0
3/7
0 12.0
13.5
0
72
0 42.0-
67
0 67.5
0 16.5
69
0
65
16.5
64
0 22.5
56
1 9.5
62
0 4.5
51
0 5.3
58
0 7.5
0
57
1.5
6.0
0 24.0
9.0
0
0 24.0
0 1.5
0 12.0
0 24.0
33 U 55 57 60 151 63
0 9.0
65
0 9.0
64
3.0
0
69
0 5.3
70
0 10.5
C.T.
0
54
7.5
0
55
0 19.5
6
71
0 3.8
69
3.0
0
68
10.5
0
75.4
Total
17
0 28.5
Vakadi
72
49.5
Total
22.5
16
0 13.5
15
0 51.0
150
0 34.5
149
0 33.0
0
153
1.5
148
19.5
0
25.5
139
0
14.3
10
0
138
0 15.8
13.5
15
0
134
0 23.8
135
0 4.5
3.0
Road
0
5.4
127
0
0
130
15.0
0 3.0
120
0 89.0
131
0 19.5
River
4
0 3
Moho
14
0 16.5
139
0 18.8
15
45.0
0
16
25.5
0
136
75.0
0
18
9.5
0
19
22.5
0
25
0 33.8
C.T.
0 9.0
42
10.5
0
40
19.5
0
39
0 22.5
59
21.0
0
7.5
Road
0
61
0 14 3
66
11.3
0
13.7
Total
0 15.0
River
Nere
1 34.3
153
0 4.5
143
0 13.5
180
0 9.8
161
86.5
0
163
0 33.0
18
0 18.0
99
0 39.0
104
64
18.0
0
0 12.0
75
76
0 25.5
19.6
77
0
22.5
86
0
81
7.5
0
22.5
85
0
82
39.0
0
84.5
63
0
13.0
Total
12.0
0
98
62217 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 3 4. 5 6 0
Riaghad Raighad Panvel
Chikhale 33
72.0
Panvel
25
0 21.0
26
0 64,5
0
23
27.0
46
0 38.3
0
47
25.5
0
48
22.5
0
50 ,
31.5
0
49
8.3
0 21.0
53
Dervali—Contd. 51
0 1.5
43
0 3.0
42
0 4.5
40
0 6.0
33
0 21.0
35
0 34.5
0 3.0
Road
0 10.5
34
32
3.8
0
Khadi
0 13.0
Total
13.0
0
54
30.0
0
55
33.8
9.1
0
62
0
51
16.5
0
61
29.3
0
60
25.5
0
C.T.
3.0
74
0 19.5
75
49.6
0
76
0 49.5
Chikhale Khadi
0 15.0
9.0
91
0
92
0 5.3
2
Palaspey Khadi
0 9.0
30
0 43.5
22
0 42.0
18
0 64.5
19
0 4.5
17
12.0
0
15
0 43.5
6
0 6.0
7
0 81.0 Highway
0 6.0
93
0 57.0
0
Khadi
4.5
Total
93
0
3 73.5
49.0
95
0 42.8
107
0 11.0
94
0 21.0
7
[File No. 14014/24/01/G.P.] S.B. MANDAL, Under Secy.
Total
50.1
Kon Canal
0 17.5
20
0 5.4
22
0 3.8
30.6
19
0
18
0 2.2
17
0 57.3
14
0 12.0
0
73
51.5
9
0 31.9
Total
2 12.2
0
Kolkhe 13
1.5
14
0 2.3
0
15
12.0
RLY Land
0 61.5
Road
0 4.5
30
0
Govt. Land
0
0-9 9.0
Khadi
0 12.0
6
0 48.0
9'5
0 12.0
1
Total
63.5
0 27.5
Dervali 55
54
0 31.5
0
Power line
9.0
47
0 33.8
0
52
48
0
3.8 6.82218 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2219 2220 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2221
529 GI/2002—13
2222 THE GAZETTE OF ÏNDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2223 2224 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2225New Delhi, the 13th February, 2002
S.Q. 698.—Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, number S.O. 759(E), dated the 7th August, 2001, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), thè Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of natural gas from Kuthalam to PPN power plant in the State of Tamilnadu by the Gas Authority of India I^mited;
And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were
made available to the public on the 19th day of September, 2001;
And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline hâve been considered and disallowed by the compétent authority; •
And whereas the compétent authority has, under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government has, after constdering the said report, decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby déclares that the right of user iri the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest, on this date of the publica- tion of this déclaration, in the Gas Authority of India Limited, free from ail encumbrances.
SCHEDULE
District
Tehsil
Town/ Village
Survey/ Sub-Division Number
Area to be Acquired for ROU in hectares
1
5
3
4
2
Nagapattinam Mayiladu- 52,Kshetra- 114-2 0.03.0 G.P.
thurai
balapuram 113-1B 0.01.5
113-1C 0.06.5
0.03.0 G.P.
0.00.5 G.P.
0.21.0 G.P.
128 117 1272226 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Nagapattinam Mayiladu-
Nagapattinam
429-1 0 10.0 thurai
0.03.5 0.02.0
429-2
(Contd.)
52, Kshetra- 125 balapuram 126 (Contd.) 129.3
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
0.09.0
Mayiladu- thurai (Contd.)
52, Kshetra- balapuram (Contd.)
0.07.5 0.03.0
190.4
O.P.
0.00.5
429-3 429-4B 0.03 5
i.
G.P.
129-4A
G.P.
439
190.5 190.8 191.3
0.04.0 0.01.0 0.06.0
440-1
0.00.5 0 02.5 0.21.0
440-2 0.16.5
387 0.06.5
38, Kuttalam 488 0.27.0
194.3A 194.1A 196-1A 196-1B
0.03.5 0.10.0 0.02.5 0.07.5
489 0.00.5
196.2 0.05.5
0.27.5
197 0.02.0
69, Thozhutha
Total .- 2-1
langudi 2-2A
215-3 216-1
2-3
0.08.5 0.06.0 0.05 0
216-2
0.00.5 0.13.0 0.13.0
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2B
217 218-2 220-1 220-2
402C
221
0.02.0 0.03.5 0.08.0 0.07.0 0.20.0
4-3
0.01.0 0.03.0 0 10.0 0.08.5 0 09.0 0.03.0
222-1A 0.09.0
Total
0.54.0
222-1B 223-1
G.P.
58, Anaimela-; garam ;
G.P.
0.13.5 0.02.0 0.02.0
001.0 0.02 0 0.02.0
0.06.5 0.02.0
223-2 224-1B1 224-1B2 224-2
0.15.5 0.00.5 0.00.5
224-3 0.06.0 0.19.0
395-23 395-21 395-25 395-26 395-27 395-28 395-29 395-46
0.03.5 0.05.0 0.00.5
225 233-1 0.09.5
395-30
23 3-2 A
232
250
0.06.5 0.01.0 0.16.5 0.09.0 0 09.5
G.P.
255-1 255-5 255-2
255-3 256-1
0.07.0 0.03.5 0.06.0
395-31 395-32 395-33 395-49 395-53 395-54 395-57 395-58
0.04.5 0.08.0 0.02.5 0.01.5 0.03.5 0.03.5 0.13.5 0.02,5 0.05.5
256-2 0.04.0
395-59 0.09.5
395-60
256-3 256-4
0.07.0 0.03.5
0.00.5 0.01.0
244-1
372
G.P.
395-61 393-1 393-8
0.04.5 0 03.0 0.03.0
408
0.03.5 G.P. 0.01.5 0.01.5 0.14.0 0.03.5
371-1 371-3 371-2 371-4
368-1 3 168-2A Î68-2B
0.04.0 0.08.0 0.20.0 0.01.0
379-5
368-3
0.03.5 0.03 5
380-1
369 0.01 0 G.P.
0.09.0 0.05.5 0.02.0
370 371-1
I71-2A Î71-2B
G.P.
380-2A 380-5 430-9A 430-14
0.13.5 0.01.5 0.02.5
I72-1A
0.10.5 0.06.5 0.06.5 0.06.5 0.06.5
431-22227 1 2 4 3 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nagapattinam Mayiladu- 58, Anaimek
0.08.0
Nagapattinam
Mayiladu- 68, Asikadu 30-2B
0.08.5
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
thurai (Contd.)
garam (Contd.)
i- 372-1B 372-1C 372-2
30-4A2 30-4A3 0.05.0
thurai (Contd.)
325
0.03.0 0.59.5
31-7 Total
116
67, Maraiyur
0.04.O G.P. 0.09.0
117-5
0.01.0 G.P.
117-3
119-1
0.03.5 0.02.0 0.13.5 0.01.0 G.P. 0.09.5 0.06.0 0.03.5 0.04.0 0.02.5 0.10.0
118
0.07.5 0.05.5 G.P.
134
0.01.5 0.01.0
0.01.0 G.P. 0.00.5
133-3
0.02.0 G.P.
135
326-1 326-2 327-1A 327-1B 327-2 327-3 327-4A1 327-4A2 327-4B 328-1 328-2A
0.15.5 0.07.5
136-1 136-3
343
0.03.0 G.P.
137-1
0.02.5
137-2
0.00.5 0.08.0
140-1 140-2
0.16.5
139-1
0.01.5 0.01.0
139-2 139-3
345-2 345-3 345-4 344-1 344-2 342-1 342-2
0.03.0 G.P.
141
341
0.01.5 G.P.
230
0.05.5
229-2
0.01.5
229-3
340-2 340-3A 340-3B1
0.03.5
229-4
0.08.0
229-5
0.08.5
229-6
0.02.5
232-2A
0.02.0
0.04.5
232-2B 232-3
232-4 0.05.0 0.06.0
232-5
0.01.5 0.01.5 0.02.5 0.21.0 G.P. 0.00.5 0.01.0 0.02.5 0.02.5 0.05.0 0.03.5 0.06.5 0.31.5 0.00.5 0.05.5 0 05.5 0.04.0 0.04.0 0 04.5 0.05.5 0.10.5 0.07 0 0.07.5 0.08.0 0.07 0
340-3B2 339-1A2 339-1B 339-1C 339-1D 338-2 338-4 338-6B 338-8
0.02.0 G.P.
233-1
0.01.0
233-2
0.06.5
233-3 233-4 0.04.5
0.04.0
234-2 337-4A 337-4B 337-5A 337-5B 337-6
0.04.5 0.07.0
234-3 234-4
0.06.0
235-1B
0.03.0
235-2B 236-1B 0.10.0 336-2A 336-2B 347 348-6 348-7
236-1C 0.15.0 0.01.5 G.P.
224
68, Asikadi
0.07.5
0.03.0
259-1 259-2
0.04.5 0.05.0 0.05.0 0.01.5 0.04 5 0.10.0 0.08.0 0.02.5 G.P. 0.00.5 0.06.0 4.06.0 0.03.0 0.03.0 0.04.5
0 07.0
259-3
259-4 0.08.5 0.05.5
258-1
0.04.5
258-5A 258-3 0.12.0
0.11.0
257A-2
0.07.5 0.03.5 0.09.0 0 01.0 0.00.5 0.03.0
Total j 29-1 29-2A1 29-2A2 29-2B 29-3A1, 29-3A2 29-3B1 28-4B 30-2A '2228 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
64, Agura-
0.03.0
Mayiladu-
12-2
Nagapattinam
Nagapattinam
257A-3
0.08.5
Mayiladu- 67, Maraiyur
0.02.0
G.P.
thurai
kirangudy-contd
13 257A-4 0.02.0
thurai
0.03.0
G.P.
15
G.P.
294-1
0.03.5
0.03.0
17-lA
G.P.
294-2
0.01.0
0.09.0
17-1B
257B
0.01.0
0.01.0 G.P.
25 256-2 0.03.0
0.04.5
32-1A
256-3 0.03.0
0.05.5
32-1B
0.00.5
256-1
32-1C
0.12.5 256-4 0.14.0
0.03.0
0.05.0
33-1
256-5
0.03.0
33-2 0.09.5 255-1
0.07.5
33-3 0.06.5 255-2 274
G.P.
0 01.5
38 0.03.5 G.P. 278-7B 0.04.5
47-1 0.12.0
0.27.0
47-2 0.06.0 279-1 286 0.02.0 G.P.
46 0.12.0
Total 3.49.0
45 0.18.0 66, Kovangud;
0.07.0
y 263-1
40-1 0.01.5 G.P.
0.21.5
263-3
40-2C 0.03.5
0.09.5
263-6B
41-2 0.25.0
0 01.0
263-7
41-1 0.00.5 G.P. 263-8
42-2 0.04.0
0.04 0
0.05.0 263-9 0.010
•18-1A 263-10 0.01.0
218-1B 0.06.0 263-11
218-2 0.13.0
0.03.0
263-12
218-3 0.08.5
0.04.5
263-13 0.01.0
220 0.01 5 G.P. 267-1B 0.00.5
0.02.5
228-3 266-1A 0.02.0
217-6 0.09.5 261-1B
0.11.0
0.15.0
217-7
0.01.0 261-2B
217-8
0.14.0
0.10.0
261-3A
217-10
0.00.5
G.P.
0.04.0 261-3B 0.01.0
216
G.P.
229-2 0.00.5 261-3C1 0.05.5
261-3C2
0.26.0
0.09.5
212
194 0.22.0 258-1A1. 0.12 5
0.19.5 258-1A2 0.12.5
195
112
G.P.
196 0.36.5
0.01.5
113
0.22.0
197
0.19.0
114
0.22.0
0.23.0
198
171
115
G.P.
0.14.0
0.01 5
0.17.5
175
116 0.12.0
174 0.02.0
117 0.18.0
0.31.0
118
173
0.12.0
0.13.5
163
119 0 1 15
0.02.5
164
G.P.
120 0.02.0
4.66.0
Total
109 0 21.5
0.00.5
62, Kodangudi
201
122 0.04.5
)2-lAl 0.17.5
G.P.
123 0.02.0
0.14.5
)2-lBl
2.67.5
Total
)2-lB2 0.03.0
2( 2( 2(
1-1 0.03.0 G.P.
64, Agara-
200-3 0.17.0
G.P.
0.01.5
1-3
kirangudy
0.00.5
203-1
G.P
1-4 0.04.0
199 0.02.5 G.P.
0.18.0
11-4A
I98-1A ]
0.09.0
0.02.5
1 MB2229 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 77-11B , Kodangudi 198-1B 0.09.0
Nagapattinam Mayiuladu- 62, Kodangudi
0.06.0 Nagapattinam Mayiuladu- 62,
78-2 0.00.5 thurai
198-1C 0.08.5
thurai
0.07.5
0.06.0
197-1
78-3
0.03.0
78-4B 0.06.5
197-2A
197-2B 0.03.5
78-5 0.05.5
197-3
70-1 0.08.0
0.03.0
70-2
197-4 0.04.5
0.13.0
70-6
197-5 0.06.5
0.01.5
197-6B 0.05.0
70-7A 0.01.5
192-2 0.23.5
70-7B 0.00.5
191-1
71-10 0.00.5
0.13.0
191-2 0.12.0
69 0.03.5 G.P.
190 0.03.5 G.P.
67-9 0.08.0
124-1 0.07.5
4.49.0
Total
0.05.5
Tharan- 26, Annavasal 243-1 0.12.0
124-2
Nagapattinam
gambadi
0.04.5
243-3A 0.05.5
124-3
124-4 0.04.5
243-3B 0.09.5
0.17.5
243-4
124-6
0.00.5 G.P.
116-1 0.18.0
241-1 0.01.0
116-2A 0.10.0
0.00.5
241-2
0.10.5
116-2B
218-3 0.06.5
116-4 0.00 5
0.07.5
218-4A
115-1 0.07.0
218-4B 0.08.0
0.08.0
115-2
0.01.0 G.P.
218-5
0.16.0
115-3
218-6A 0.16.0
112-1 0.01.0 G.P.
217-10 0.04.5
0.03.0
112-2
217.8 0.05.0
112-3A 0.04.0
217-9A 0.05.5
112-3B 0.01.0
217-9B 0.08.5
0.12.0
112-4
217-7D 0.01.0
0.00.5 G.P.
112-5 '
0.06.0
213-3
0.07.0-
112-6
213-4 0.03.0
0 06.0
111-1
213-2 0.04.0
111-2 0.02.0
213-5 0.08.0
0.01.0
111-3
213-1B o.oo.i
111-4A1 0.05.0
210-6
111-4A2 0.03.0
210-2
0.01.0 G.P. 0.1 S.OJ
111-4B1 0.01.5
210-4 0.10.Q
111-4B2 0.01.5
210-5A 0.06.0
111-5A 0.01.5
210-5B 0.08.0
111-6 0.01.0
211 0.03.0 G.P.
111-7 0.00.5
178-4C 0.12.0
126-2 0.07.0
179-1 Al 0.03.5
127-3 0.01.5
I79-1A2 " 0.14.0
127-4 0.05.0
179-1 A3 0.16.5
127-2C 0.08.5
180-1 0.25.0
127-5 0.04.5 G.P.
181-1 0.13.5
74 0.01.5 G P.
181-2 0.11.0
76/3 0.11.0
183-1 0.22.0
76-6A 0.02.5
91-1 0.03.0 G.P.
77-2B 0.05.0
92-1 ,0.16.0
77-3 0.03 0
92-2 0.09.0
77-4 0.02 0
92-3 0.09.0
77-5 0.03.0
93-1 0.04.0
0.05.5
77-11A
93-2 0.09.5 529 GI/2002—12230 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALQUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nagapattinam Tharan
26, Annavasal 93-6A 0.11.5 G.P. gambadi
93-7B 0.01 0
93-11 0 01.5 G P.
81-1 0.00 5
81-6 0 015
81-7 0 01 5
81-8 0 00 5
81-9 0 06 0
81-10 0 01.0
81-11 0 01.0
81-30 0.00 5
81-31 0.00.5
81-32 0.01 0 Nagapattinam Tharan 26, Annavasal 1 0.03 0 G.P gambadi 220-14C 0.00.5
220-17 0.01.5
220-15 0.02 0
220-16 001.5
220-14A 0 02.0
220-13 0.01 0
220-2A 0.05.0
220-1 0.00.5
220-2B 0.03 5
220-2C 0 04 0
220-3 0.03.0
Total
81-35 0.01 0
81-36 0.00 5
81-41 0.01.0
81-45 0 00.5
81-60 0 00 5
81-61 0 00 5
81-62 0 00 5
81-63 0 00 5
81-66 0.00.5
81-67 0 00 5
81-65 0 02Q
44 0 3 10
76 0 01.0 G P.
23-1 0.42.0
17-1 0.12.0
17-2 0 03.0
17-3 0 00.5
17-4 0 00.5
17-6 0 05 0
17-7 0.11 0
17-8 0.11.0
14 0 38 5
12-1 0.09.0
12-2 0.07.0
12-3 A 0.10 0
12-3B 0.06.0
9-1 0 02.0
9-2 0 07.5
9-3 0.03.0
9-4 0.04.0
9-5 0 04.5
9-6A 0.04 0
9-6B 0 06.0
9-6C 0.04.0
6 0.03.0 G.P.
4-1 0.18 5
5-1 0 14.0
5-2 0.04.5
5-4 0.10.0
5-5 0 03.0
5-6 0 06.0
5-8 0.08.0
6.78.0
27, Memathur 157-1
G.P.
001.5
157-2 0.100
157-3 0.14.0
157-5 0.27 5
155-2 0.00.5
154
G P
0 02.5
143 0 08.0
142/1A 001 5
142/1B 0 23.5
142/2B 0.00 5
142/2C 0.10.5
144/1 0.16.0 GP
0.13 5
203/1
203/3 0 03.0
204/3 0.01.5
204/4 0.03.0
0.00 5
204/5
0.04 0
204/8
204/9 0.03.5
204/10 0.06.0
204/12 0.03.0
204/13 0.03.5
205 0.12.5
207 0.03 0 G.P.
211/1A 0.02.0
211/1B 0.02.5
211/2 0.03.5
0 00 5
211/3
0.03.5
211/4
0 03 0
211-5A
0.05 0
211-6
0.03.0
211-7
0 05.0
211-9
211-10 0.00 5
0.02 0 G.P
212
225/2 0.02.0
0.02.0
225/3
0.01.5
225/4
0 02.0
225/5
0.04.0
225/6
0 02 0
225/9
225/10 001.52231 3 4 5 6
6
1 2
5
3 4
1 2
Nagapattinam Tharan- 27, Memathur 225/12
Nagapattinam Tharan-
0.09.5
0.02.0
28, Keelmathur 142/2D
0.08.5 225/15 0.17.0
gambadi
142/4B gambadi
0.05.0
142/4C
0.00.5
225/17
0.01.0
141/2A 225/18 0.00.5
0.05.0
141/2B
224/2 0.00.5
0.07.0
141/5
0.00.5
224/5
141/8A 0.05.5
0.30.0
224/6
0.02.5
141/8B
0.02.5
224/7
0.03.0
141/8C
0.02.5
224/12
0.00.5
141/11A
224/14 0.05.0
0.00.5
141/11B
0.05.5
224/15
141/12 0.05.5
0.09.0
224/17
140 0.01.0 .P.
G
0.08.0
221/1
84/6 Al 0.01.5
0.10.0
221/2
84/6A2 0.02.0
0.08.5
220/1A
84/6A3 0.01.5 220/1B 0.07.0
84/6A4 0.05.0
0.00.5
220/2A
84/15A 0.02.5
0.01.5
220/2B
84/15C 0.02.5
0.03.5
219/7B
84/10B 0.03.0
0.09.0
219/8
84/1 OC 0.05.0
0.06.0
218/9
84/14 0.04.0
0.01.5
219/12
85/1B 0.06.5
0.04.5
218/8
0.06.5
85/1C
218/9 0.09.0
85/3B 0.07.5
0.01.5 G.P.
238
85/4 0.05.5
0.02.5
237/7
88/5 0.02.5
0.10.5
239/1
88/3C 0.02.0
239/2 0.03 0
88/6B 0.03.5 239/4A 0.15.0
88/7B 0.08.0
Total
3.96.0
88/11 0.02.5 28, Keelmathur 174 0.03.0 G.P
88/12 0.03.0
159/1 0.19.0
88/9 0.16.5
159/2 0.03.5
89/1A 0.14.5 160/1A1 0.01.5
89/1B 0.08.0 160/1A2 0.15.0
89/2 0.05.5 160/1B 0.04.0
90
Q
0.01.0 .P. 160/1C 0.14.0
Total
3.59.5
163/1C 0.07.0
38, Killiyur 208 0.01.0 .P.
G 163/1D2 0.05.5
207 0.16.0 163/1B2 0.06.5
0.08,0
162/1 0.05.0
0.26.5 164/1A 0.00.5
209 :n/2 221/1 0.29.0 164/2A 0.17.5
221/2 0.03.5
n 165/2A 0.13.5
220 0.03.5 G 166/2A 0.13.0
0.18.5
216/1
138/1 0.02.0
217/2 0.17.5
0.09.0
143/1
218 0.190 143/2B 0.06.0
• P.
155/2 0.01.5 G 143/2C 0.08.0
155/4 0.03.0 143/2D 0.11.0
154 0.02.5 .P.
G
0.05.5
143/3B
120 0.22.5
0.07 5
143/3C
121/1 0.00.5 143/6B 0.04.0-
118 0.05.5 G .P. 142/2C 0.03 5
116/1 0.26.02232 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nagapattinam Tharan- 38, Killiyur 117/3 0.00.5
Nagapattinam Thara- 37, Manelmedv 223/3 0.03.0 gambadi
113 0.02.0
gambadi
0.01.0
223/4
0.00.5
115/1
0.00.5
215/1A
114 0.30.0
0.00.5 G.P.
215/2
0.16.0
111/1
0.32.0
212/1
255 0.23.5
0.01.0
212/2
G.P 103 0.20.5
0.07.0
211
101 0.20.5
0.18.5
213
100 0.13.0
0.01.5 G.P.
160
99/1A 0.01.5
0.21.5
161
99/1B 0.05.5
0.12.0
162
99/3A 0.07.5
0.22.0
163
99/3 B 0.01.0
0.01.0
165
G.P. 98/3A 0.06.5
0.13.0
181/1
98/1B 0.07.0
0.00.5
166/2
98/2 0.06.5
0.18.5
167/2
93/7 0 09.0
0.01.0
168/1
93/8 0 07.5
0.32.0
168/2
Cl 07.0
93/9A
0 09.0
169
92/2 0 07.5
0.30.0
170
92/3 0.03.5
0.13.0
105/4
G.P.
67 0.01.5
0 01.0 G.P.
104
0.03.0
63/1
0.00.5
98/1
0.05.0
63/2
0 07.0
98/2A
0.02.0
63/8A
0 03.0
98/3
0.00 5
63/8B
0.06.0
98/2C
G.P.
57 0.01.0
0.01 5
98/6
001.5
52/1
0.04.0
103/2C
52/2 0.01.5
0.03.0
103/6
52/3 0.01.0
0.06.0
101/1
52/4 0.00.5
0 13.5
101/2
0.06.0
51/2B
0 02 5 G.P.
65/1
51/4 0.02.0
0.01.0
60
51/5 0.00.5
0.32.0
61
51/6 0.03.0
0.00.5
62/1
51/7 0.08.5
0 05.0
55/1
51/10 0.03.5
0 05 5
55/2
51/11 0 04.0
0.03.5
100/1
0.02.5
51/12A
0 17.5
100/2
0.01.0
51/12B
0.09.0
47/A
G.P.
0.04.5
50
4.02.S
Total
G.P.
0.03.0
49
0 10 5
31. Tliirukka- 245
Nagapattinam Thara-
0.02.5
44/1
G P.
0.01.5
daiyur 571/3
gambadi
44/4 0.05.0
G.P.
0.06 0
571/4
0 05.5
44/5
G.P.
0 23.5
571/5
0.20.0
43/1
G.P.
0.03.5
571/7
0.01.0
43/2
0 05.0
247
0.01.5 G P.
55
0.03.5
248
4.92.0
Total
0.04.0
249/1
0.03.5
Nagapattinam Thara- 37, Manelmedv 220/4
001.5
249/2
0.22.5
gambadi 224/1
0.04.5
256
0.06.5
224/2
0.25.5
252/1
0.03.5
224/3A
0.28.0
252/2
0 00.5
225/1
0.00.5
252/3A
0.05 0
225/2
0.03.5
252/3B
0.00.5
225/3A2233 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.04.0
31, Thirukka- 436
G,P.
Nagapattinam Thara-
0.05.0
. gambadi daiyur 438/1
440/J 0.20.5
0.15.5
443
491 0.02.0 G.P.
0.32.5
487/6
0.29.5
486/3
0.10.5
485/2
482/1 0.04.5
0.05.0
482/3
0.06.5
482/6
482/7 0.06.0
2.62.5
Total
32, Pillaiperu- 466 0.08.5
Nagapattinam Tharan-
malnallur 467-1 0.01.0
gambadi
0.00.5
467-2
0.02.5 G.P.
465
0.30.0
460/2
0.04.5
461
459/1 0.09.0
459/2 0.03.0
New Delhi, the 13th February, 2002
0.05.5
459/5
0.04.0
459/6
0.11.0
455/4
456/3 0.01.0
0.04.0
456/4
S.O. 699.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest for the transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas through Kandla-Samakhiari pipeline, project in the State of Gujarat, a pipelie should be laid by the Gas Authority of India Limited;
0.00.5
457/3
457/4 0.01.5
457/5 0.17.0
0.34.5
448/2
0.15.0
447/1A
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and whîch is described in the Schedule annexed to the notifica- tion;
0.22.0
442
440/1 0.21.0
440/2 0.05.0
445/2A 0.13.0
260/1 0.21.0
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares it intention to acquired the right of user therein;
0.13.0
260/3
0.00.5
443/2
258/1 0.00.5
y 4Q n
Tntal
[File No. 14014/17/01-G P.]
S.B. MANDAL, Under Secy.
Any person, interested in the land described in the said Sched- ule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India are made avail- able to the gênerai public object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Gas Authority of India Limited, 2nd Floor, Darpan Building, R.C. Dutt Road, Vadodara-390005.
SCHEDULE
District
Tehsil
Town/ Village
Survey/ Number
Areain hectare
Kachchh Bhachau Chandwala
845 0.1800
486 0.2260
Total 0.4060
[F. No L-14014/36/01-G.P. Part-Il]
S.B. MANDAL, Under Secy.
2234 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]MINISTRY OF LABOUR
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002
S.O. 700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govèrnment hereby publishes the Award (Réf. No. 1/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner, Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01-02-2002.
[No. L-12012/129/99-IR(B.-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer2235 2236 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGIÏNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2237 BETWEEN
I Party/Claimant The General Secretary, : Karur Vysya Bank Employées Union, Bangalore.
AND
The Assistant General Manager, : II Party/Management Karur Vysya Bank, Karur.
Appearance:
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002
S.O. 701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Réf. No. I.D. No. 398/2001) of "the Central Government Industrial Tribunal~cum~Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Karur Vysya Bank. Karur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 01-02-2002.
[No. L-12012/88/95-IR(B. I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday. the 28th December, 2001
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 398/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.46/96) fin 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 N. Srinivasan and the Management of Karur Vvsva Bank. Karur. 1
FortheClaimant
: M/s.D. Hariparanthaman,
V. Ajoy Khose and P. Vijendran, Advocates For the Management : M/s. T. S. Gopalan & Co.
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 Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 12012/88/95/ IR(B-l) dated 10-06-1996.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 46/96. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 398/2001 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 before this Tribunal on 20-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side présent with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 24-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional claim statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management alone side this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of Sri N. Srinivasan w.e.f. 26-02-1993 is justified ? If not, to what relief, he is entitled ?"
The Karur Vysya Bank Employées Union through its General Secretary has raised this industrial dispute espousing the cause of the workman Mr. N. Srinivasan by challenging the action of the Respondent/Bank Management in terminating the services of the concerned workman.
2. The facts of this industrial dispute in brief are as follows :—
The concerned workman Mr. N. Srinivasan joined the services of the II Party/Management Karur Vysya Bank 529 GI/2002—152238 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l In the enquiry, four witnesses were examined in support of the charges including an Eye Specialist. The Enquiry Officer gave his report holding that the charges against the Petitioner were proved. The concerned workman was furnished with acopy of the findings of Enquiry Officer and he was asked to make his comments. After considering his représentation, orders were passed on 26-2-93 dismissing the concerned workman from service. The concerned workman preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal dated 26-2-93. In his appeal, the concerned workman pleaded that a pension scheme was likely to be introduced in the bank, that if such a scheme was brought into force, he will be eligible for pension, that when once pension scheme cornes into force, he will be entitled to pension and therefore. his apipeal may be kept in abeyance, till the pension scheme was introduced. On 18-11-93, the Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal.
Ltd. (hereinaftcr refers to as Respcmdent) as a clerk on 11 -1-1961. His performance was not satisfactory even in 1960s. As per the assessment made by the superiors about his work as a Clerk in the bank was that his handwriting was poor and he îs lacking in self-confidence. The same ic.nark had been repeated even in the later confidential reports of his superiors conveyed to the Management. In the year 1980 ît came to the knowledge of the Respondent/ Management that the concerned workman was not able to discharge his normal dutics due to his defective vision. The Branch Manager in his report dated 17-5-80 has stated that the concerned workman was havmg serious defect in his eye and that with his partial cye sight he was not able to do full justice to his dutics. By a letter dated 15-7-90, the concerned workman was asked to go on leave and take treatment. However, he did not take the advice and maintained that he was not experiencing any difficulty in the discharge of his duties. By a letter dated 4-8-90, the concerned workman was infornied that in view of his claim that hc was not having any difficulty in the discharge of his duties. his performance would be watched for some more time and in case, it was felt that his eye sight stood in the way of discharge of his duties, further action would be taken. In fact. being conscious of his poor eye sight and diffidence in discharge of his duties, the concerned workman declined the promotion to higher post though ostensibly for some other reasons. Even, thereafter, his bad handwriting and lack of diligence in the discharge of his work was being tolçrated purely on humanitarian ground. On 12-12-90. the Manager ofTrichy Main Branch, where the concerned workman was working reported that he was not doing any work because of his poor eye sight and he was inefficient The Inspection Department note dated 28-4-90 also recordcd that it was not practically possible to extract any work from the concerned wortcman. that his handwriting was very bad and he was unable to rcad properly due to poor eye sight, that his services could not be utilised in any of the sections except demand drafts payable and inward bills collection and that so many mistakes werc found in lus work. By a letter dated 17-9-91 the concerned workman was asked to appear bclbre one Dr. Narcndran. Eye Spccialist. Karur 1o find ont whether his eye sight was normal to justify his continuance in employment. Instcad of appearing before the E} e Specialist. the concerned workman applied for 10 days ieave. The Respondent bank addressed a letter to the concerned workman sanctioning lcave and advising him to appear before the Eye Specialist on expiry of his leave on 30-9-91. He w as also spccifically told that he would be permitted to join dnty only after producing a fitness certificate and undergoing eye test by the Bank's nominated Eye Specialist The concerned workman failed to appear before the Eve Specialist and hc was continuously applying for leave on some pretext or other. In order to avoid appearance before the Eve Specialist. the concerned workman was continuons!} applying for leave on the ground that hc was ill. Whcn Ihe Respondent had doubts about the genuineness of his sickncss. the concerned workman was asked to producc a médical certificate from the District Médical Officer. Tiruchy. The concerned workman neither produeed the médical ccrlificate from the District Médical Officcr nor did he appear before the Eye SpecialisI Dr Narcndran. A charge sheet dated 29-4-92 was issued to the concerned workman charging with the misconduct of wilful disobedience of lawful and rcasonablc orders of the superiors and lus inability to iischarge his dulies Hc was asked to appear for an enquiry.
3. The Petitioner Union which raised this industrial dispute on behalf of the concerned workman has alleged in the Claim Statement filed that the Management issued a notice dated 17-9-91 calling upon the concerned workman to appear before Dr. Narendran, an Eye Specialist alleging that it was done on account of his poor eye sight and that the concerned workman was not able to discharge the work entrusted to him as a Clerk of the Bank. In the meantime. the concerned workman developed ill health, he had to proceed on médical leave. He submitted leave application on health grounds, enclosing necessary médical certificate seeking 10 days leave from 19-9-91. The leave was duly sanctioned by the Management by its letter dated 23-9-91. Since he did not recover and had to continue his treatment as per the advice of his Doctor, he again applied for extension of médical leave for another ten days from 29-9-91 by his letter dated 28-9-91, enclosing necessary médical certificates. In that letter. the concerned workman has stated that he was also going to take treatment for his eye ailment and requested to consider his case sympathetically. But without any humanity and without any reason. the Management stated in its letter dated 5- î 2-1991 that the concerned workman would be permitted to join duty only after his producing fitness certificate for his médical leave and also after undergoing the eye check up as directedby them. Once the leave has been sanctioned, insisting for fitness certificate as a condition for allowing the concerned workman to join duty is malafide. Similarly when the workman was taking continuous treatment for his health and eye ailment. insisting him to appear before an eye Doctor once and again repeatedly and putting the same as a precondition for allowing him to join duty is malafide. No préjudice would be caused, if the concerned workman appeared before the Doctor after his health has improved and the treatment for eye ailment was over. Hence, directing the workman repeatedly to appear before the eye specialist during the continuance of his treatment and to the détriment of his health and eye is unjust and unreasonable and without humanity. The concerned workman took treatment for his eye ailment with a Homoeopathy Doctor, which is one of the prescribed and approved mode of treatment under the Bipartite Settlement. Further, since the concerned workman was taking treatment under Homoeopathy and also he was tqld that discontinuing the Homoeopathy treatment and switching over to allopathie or other treatment would not only cure his eye ailment but also adversely affect the eye, he was not able to appear before the Eye Doctor as directed by the Management. Further, he was told that the lights and2239 çoncerned workman was dismissed from service without notice by an order dated 26-2-1993. The dismissal order is wholly illégal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and unjust and liable to be set aside. The charge sheet, the enquiry and the dismissal order passed against the çoncerned workman is without jurisdiction and without application of mind. No physical incapability can be termed as a misconduct. It is not enumerated in the Bipartite Settlement with regard to disciplinary proceedings that physical incapability is a misconduct. Therefore. charge sheeting the employée for physical incapability and.imposing the punishment of dismissal for the same is wholly illégal- The çoncerned workman has lost his total vision and he was not incapable of doing no work. The standard of vision required for rcading and writing is not necessary for every work. The vvprkman is having normal vision, though he was not easfly perform the work of a Clerk, to do other works which does not involve reading and writing. When the çoncerned workman joined duty. his eye vision was perfect and normal. Only due to the hazardous involvement of eye strain every day. every minute, he could hâve developed poor eye vision. It is because of the nature of employment/occupation he was made to involve by the Management. Therefore. though the çoncerned workman's eye vision is assumed to be poor for doing the work of a Clerk, the Management should hâve provided alternative employment as prayed by the workman. The action otherwise by the management is without humanity and violative of Article 21 and opposed to the décisions of Courts. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the dismissal is totally excessive and shockingly disproportionate Therefore. it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be plcased to pass an Award holding the dismissal is wholly unjustified and direct the Respondent to reinstate the çoncerned workman with continuity of service, back wages and ail other attendant benefits.
4. The Respondcnt/Bank Management has averred in the Counter Statement that the lack of vision of the Petitioner was affecting the work of the establishment and therefore. the Respondent was justified in insisting on the çoncerned workman to appear before an Eye Specialist for test. When the çoncerned workman was asked to appear before the Eye Specialist nominated by the Respondent/ Bank, it is not open to the çoncerned workman to say that he would not appear before the Doctor nominated by the bank. butthe bank should provide him employment on the basis of a certificate with regard to his eye sight issued by his family Doctor. The çoncerned workman was charge sheeted only for his failure to comply with the order of the Bank in not appearing before the Eye Specialist and not producing a certificate from the District Médical Officer. Trichy. His lack of eye sight is only an additional factor, which is not a misconduct. The çoncerned workman was ordered by the Respondent to appear for eye test eyen before he applied for leave on the ground that he was sick. Moreover, the claim of the çoncerned workman that he was taking treatment continuously for his ill health and his eye ailment, would not absolve him of his obligation to comply with the order of the bank. The bank was under no obligation to accept the médical fitness certificate or the opinion given by Homeopathy Doctor with regard to his eye sight. The dismissal order is being sustained only by référence to the misconduct namely wilful disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the Management. The Management was no"t obliged to consider or give reason for not accepting the médical certificate produced by the solutions used in allopathie for eye check up was not advisable when he was undergoing Homoeopathic treatment. This is also made him not able to appear before the Eye Specialist as directed by the Management. The çoncerned workman categoricàlly explained the above difficulties then and there in reply to the directions by the Management. But in spite of that, the Management had directed the çoncerned workman again and again to appear before the eye specialist which would show the vindictive and unhumanitarian attitude of the Respondent. The çoncerned workman submitted fitness certificate for his health and also the opinion given by the Homoeopathy Doctor with regard to his eye and requested the Management to permit him to join duty in Trichy Main Branch. Butboth the certificates were not acceptedby the Management and the çoncerned workman was not permitted to join duty. The Management did not give any reason why the médical certificates were not acceptable. Further, the Management was not justified in not accepting the médical certificates, in the absence of médical opinion by any Doctor in this regard. Without even seeking any opinion on the certificates produced by the workman from - compétent Doctor, the Management cannot say the jpedleal certificates produced by the workman were not feçejiabie. Therefore, the action of the Management is nJ and malafide and vindictive. The Management has no puwer to put a precondition that the çoncerned workman would be permitted to join duty only if he appears before the Eye Specialist. The Management should hâve allowed the çoncerned workman to join duty when he submitted fitness certificate and without permitting him to join duty a^nd asking him to appear before the eye specialist is illégal. For the charge sheet dated 29-4-1992 issued to the Qoncerned workman, he submitted his explanation dated 6.-5-1992 denying the charges and explaining the facts- Not satisfied with the explanation, the Management ordered for an enquiry by its notice dated 26-5-92. The enquiry conducted against the çoncerned workman is against principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer was a biased person. He simply overruled ail the preliminary objections made by the defence in the enquiry readily accepting every version of the Presenting Officer of the management. The çoncerned workman was not given opportunity to mark his document, particularly the médical certificate. When request was made to bring the Doctor examined on the side of the Management for further examination, it was turned down. The Enquiry Officer acted outside the purview of the enquiry by directing the çoncerned workman to read and write during the enquiry and directing him to appear and check up again and again in spite of spécifie protest by the defençe. It is for the Management to prove the charges and it cannot compel and dictate the çoncerned workman to give évidence in a particular manner to his préjudice. In the enquiry, the Management examined four witnesses including a Doctor and marked 43 documents. Both sides filed written arguments. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated 29-4-92. The findings of the Enquiry Officer is not based on the évidence and materials on record. It is perverse. Based on the perverse findings, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 29.4.92 proposing to dismiss the çoncerned workman without notice, for which the çoncerned workman submitted explanation dated 28-1-1993. He also gave a statement during the personal liearing before the Disciplinary Authority. The workman' s request to post him in any section which does not require perfect eye vision was also inhumanly turned down. The2240 THE GAZETTE OF1NDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] concernée! workman. When the concemed workman was asked to appear before the Eye Specialist and seek his opinion on his eye sight and he was asked to produce a certificate from the District Médical Officer with regard to his ill health, he cannot be heard 1o say that he would produce a certificate which suits his convenience. The concerned workman cannot be considered for performing any other work, when he was being paid salary as applicable to clérical staff. It is not admitted that the job affected his eye vision. When hundreds of employées are working in the Respondent/Bank for long years with no problem to their eye sight, the plea of the Petitioner that the nature of work affected his eye sight is an argument of convenience. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.
7. When the matter was pending before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal Ex. Ml to M55 were marked by the consent of the Petitioner Union. On the side of the Petitioner Union, no document was marked as an exhibit. Neither party to the proceedings has examined any witness on their side. When the matter was posted for arguments of the counsel on either side and the Petitioner's counsel argument was heard in part and was adjourned to the next hearing date for hearing further arguments, as per the orders of the Central Govt, this industrial dispute has been transferred from the file of the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to the file of this Tribunal for adjudication. The additional Claim Statement of the I Party/Union and the additional Counter Statement of the II Party/Management were filed before this Tribunal. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 12-12-2001, the learned counsel for the [I Party/Management had advanced his argument. On the subséquent hearing on 24-12-2001, the learned counsel for the I Party/Union has advanced his arguments.
8. The point for my considération is :—
"Whether the action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. in terrninating the services of Sri N.Srinivasan w.e.f. 26-2-1993 is justified? If notto what relief he is entitled?"
Point: -
5. The Petitioner Union filed an additional Claim Statement stating that a seulement dated 29-10-1993 came into force from 1-11-1993. which provides for pension as second retirement benefit in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. That was given effect from 1-11-93. Further, the employées who hâve already retired on or after 1-1-1986 were also made eligible to get pension in the said Seulement. The Respondent is also a party to the Seulement dated 29-10-93. Therefore, the Seulement is binding on the Respondent and the employées employed by the Respondent are eligible for pension as per Seulement dated 29-10-93. Therefore, if the dismissal order of the concerned workman is set aside, the Hon'ble Tribunal can mould the relief under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and grant relief in terms of the Seulement. The concerned workman may be granted relief of pension and other retirement benefits in terms of the Seulement dated 29-10-1993 with or without back wages and other attendant benefits as he had reached the âge of superannuation. Therefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to take into account the above relevant fact, while exercising the powers under section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and may be pleased to mould and grant appropriate relief in the facts and circumstances of the case.
It is admitted that the concerned workman Mr. N.Srinivasan was working as a Clerk in the Trichy Main Branch of the Respondent/Bank. It is not disputed that on 12-2-1990, the Manager of the Trichy Main Branch has sent a letter dated 12-2-90 to the Chairman of the Central Office of the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. reporting that the clérical staff Mr. N.Srinivasan is unable to do the work efficiently because of his poor eye sight. The same has been informed in the confidential report for the year 1988 and because of the inefficiency of the concerned workman, the bank is suffering a lot every day and is facing so many difficulties because of his pooir efficiency. The same has been informed in détail. It is further alleged in the letter stating that regarding writing of current account day book also, the bank is not satisfied and from the morning to evening, the concerned workman is not able to write one day's current account subsidiary day book. Even if the concerned workman writes the day book, he is unable to total it and so many cuttings, scorings, changing of columns and lot of mistakes in every alternative entry and for that they hâve sent an example by submitting photocopy of two days current account subsidiary day book pages for perusal. It is marked as enclosure to Ex. Ml. Ail thèse things, hâve not been disputed by the I Party/Union. which is espousing the cause of the concerned workman. Ex. M3 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 17-9-91 given to the concerned workman Mr. N. Srinivasan by the Deputy General Manager of the Bank Management. In that it was informed that notice was brought to them on account of his poor eye sight. he was not able to discharge the work entrusted to him as a Clerk of the branch. Therefore, he was instructed to appear befoie Doctor Narendran. Eye Specialist of Ramya Eye Hospital. Karur for eye check- upat6.30PMonFriday the20th September, 1991 without fail and necessary appointaient with the Doctor has been fixed by the Management. In that letter itself, the Manager of the Trichy Main Branch was instructed to relieve the concerned employée on 20th September, 1991 to enable him to appear before Doctor Narendran, Eye Specialist.
6. The Respondent/Management had filed an additional Counter Statement stating that the Seulement dated 29-10-93 gave an option to employée who retired between 1-1-1986 and October, 1993 for pension, in lieu of provident fund. In the additional Claim Statement it is averred that if the dismissal of the workman is set aside, the Hon'ble Tribunal could mould the relief under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act and grant relief in terms of the Seulement i.e. the workman concemed may be granted the relief of pension and other retirement benefits in terms of the Seulement dated 29-10-1993 with or without back wages and other attendant benefits. The justification of the dismissal is the subject matter of adjudication. If the dismissal is set aside. the concerned workman will automatically get the benefits of the Seulement dated 29-10-93. The claim of the concerned workman appears to be that he is prepared to accept a cessation of the employment as on 26-2-93 provided he was given the benefit of pension. The dismissal of the concerned workman was fully justified and merely because he has chosen to contend himself with the relief of pension, the order of dismissal cannot be set aside. Hence. it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to reject the claim of the Petitioner.
2241Karur and to give a letter of introduction to the Doctor duly attesting the signature of Mr. N.Srinivasan. Ex. M4 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 19-9-91 sent by the concerned workman to the Deputy General Manager, Personnel Administration Department of Karur Vysya Bank. In that letter he has stated that due to lus ill health, he had been advised rest and treatment by his family physician for ten days and hence he was proceeding on leave from that date and he has also enclosed a leave application form along with the médical çertificate for sanction. Ex. M5 is the xerox copy of thç letter dated 23-9-91 sent by Deputy General Manager to the concerned workman Mr. N. Srinivasan informing him that the leave applied by him on médical grounds for ten days from 19-09-91 to 28-9-91 has been sanctioned and he has been directed to appear for eye check up before the Doctor Narendran, Eye Specialist, Karur on 30-09-91 at 6.30 P.M after getting necessary identification letter from the Manager, Trichy Main Branch. He further infprmed in that letter that he will be permitted to join duty on 01-10-91 only after producing fitness çertificate for his médical leave and also after undergoing the eye check up as directed. For the letter under Ex. M5, the concerned workman has sent a reply dated 28-9-91 stating that he feels extremely week after taking treatment during the convalescent period and he was advised by the family Doctor to take complète rest for subséquent ten days from 29-9-91. As such, he has sent his leave letter for another ten days of privilège leave with médical çertificate and he is not in a position to meet the Doctor Narendran on 30-9-91. Ex. M8 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 2-12-91 sent by the concerned workman to the Deputy General Manager appealing to reconsider his request of seeking permission to join duty at Trichy Main branch under compassionate ground as per his preyious appeal letter dated 28-9-91 after the leave period is over. Ex. M9 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 5-12-91 sent by the Deputy General Manager to the concerned workman Mr. N. Srinivasan directing him to appear for an eye check up on 13-12-91. In that letter itself, he was cautioned that in spite of that letter, if he fails to appear for eye check up as directed, it will be presumed that he is not having proper vision to discharge the duties as a Clerk in the bank and suitable action will be taken for disobeying the lawful and reasonable orders of the Management. Ex. M 10 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 13-12-91 sent by the concerned workman to the Deputy General Manager as a reply to Ex.M 9 letter. In that reply, he has stated that inview of the high température he is having for the past three days, he is not jn a position to appear before the said Doctor at Karur on 13-12-91and he requested permission to join duty at Trichy Main Branch after the leave period is over. Ex. 11 is the xerox copy of the leave letter dated 7-12-91 sent by the concerned workman to the Management requesting sanction of 15 days médical çertificate on half pay. Ex. M12 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 17-12-91 sent by the Deputy General Manager to the concerned workman Mr. N.Srinivasan, wherein he was informed that he was given one more opportunity to appear before the Eye Specialist at Karur on 24-12-1991 at 6.30 P.M. for eye check up. In that letter itself, he was further informed that he may be permitted to join duty only after hig undergoing eye check up as directed by the Management and that his attitude to conveniently avoid eye check up clearly establishes beyond doubt that he is not having proper vision to discharge his duties as a Clerk in the bank and if he fails to appear for eye check up as directed, appropriate action
will be taken against him. Ex. M. 12 letter was sent by the Deputy General Manager of the Management with référence to the letter of the concerned workman dated 13-12-91 with référence to the letter under Ex. M. 11 taking 15 days médical leave on half pay. The Deputy General Manager has sent a letter dated 17-12-91 to the concerned workman and the Xerox copy of the same is Ex.M13. In that letter, the concerned workman was informed that his request will be considered only when the same is supported by necessary médical çertificate obtajned from thé District Médical Officer, Trichy, otherwise,, he will not be sanctioned any additional sick leave and he will be treated as remaining unauthorisedly absent. Ail thèse things are not disputed. Ail thèse documents hâve been marked by consent of the I Party/Union. From ail thèse things, it is seen that the concerned workman never appeared for the eye test by the eye specialist proposed by the Bank Management, but he was going on seeking permission to join duty at Trichy Main Branch. Ex.M14 to M28 are the Xerox copies of the correspondence bçtween the concerned workman Sri N. Srinivasan and the Bank Management. In ail thèse letters, the Bank Management has directed the concerned workman to get a médical fitness çertificate from the District Médical Officer, whereas, the concerned workman has submitted médical çertificate from a Registered Médical Practitioner as well as Homeopathy Doctor. The Bank Management has issued charge sheet dated 29-4-1992 to the concerned workman Sri N. Srinivasan. The Xerox copy of the sarne is Ex.M29. In the charge sheet, the Petitioner was informed that without appearing for eye check up before Dr. Narendran as required by the Management and also before the District Médical Officer, Trichy on his own and had produced a fitness çertificate from Dr. K. Shanmugasundaram, Srirangam and also a çertificate from Homeopathy Doctor Sri T.M. Parthasarathy, who is not a eye specialist about his vision and they were not accepted bythe Management and hence his conduct amounts to acts of gross misconduct in terms of the service conditions applicable to him i.e. wilful disobedience of the lawful and reasonable orders of the Management and his failure to appear before Dr. Narendran, Eye Specialist for eye check up establishes that he is physically incapable of discharging his duties as expected of him as a Clerk in the bank. In that charge sheet the concerned workman was called upon to submit his written explanation within seven days of the receipt of that mémo. That charge mémo sent by registered post by the Management to the concerned workman was received by him on 5-5-92 and he sent a reply dated 6-5-92 under Xerox copy of Ex.M30 as explanation to the charge mémo. Ex. M31 is the Xerox copy of the letter dated 26-05-92 sent by the Disciplinary Authority to the concerned workman stating that the explanatipn offered by him is not satisfactory and therefore, it was decided to hold a departmental enquiry against the concerned workman on the charges levelled against him. He was directed to appear for the enquiry. Ex.M32 is the Xerox copy of the letter dated 4-6-92 sent by the Enquiry Officer to the concerned workman Sri N. Srinivasan fixing the date of enquiry on 18-6-92 at Trichy Main Branch promises at 10.30 a.m. Accordingly, the domestic enquiry was conducted in which the Petitioner as a charge sheeted employée taken part along with his defence représentative Sri Vyasar Raj. Ex.M46 is the xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings. In the enquiry, three Managers who were working at Trichy Main Branch at différent times hâve deposed as MW1 tp MW3. They hâve stated in their évidence that during their2242 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA.MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] effectively against the charges levelled against him. So, it cannot be said that while conducting the domestic enquiry principles of natural justice hâve been violated by the Enquiry Offîcer and he has given his finding without any basis and it is perverse.
9. The additional Claim Statement has been filed by the I Party/Union stating that the concerned workman may be granted relief of pension and other retirement benefits in terms of Seulement dated 29-10-1993 with or without back wages and other attendant benefits, as he has reached the âge of superannuation and the Tribunal by exercising the powers under section 11A of the Industriel Disputes Act, 1947 mould and grant appropriate relief for the concerned workman. In the additional Counter filed by the Respondent/Management, it is averred that the justification of dismissal is the subject matter of adjudication and if the.dismissal is set aside, the concerned workman will automatically get the benefits of Seulement dated 29.10.1993 and the claim of the Petitioner appears to be that he is prepared to accept the cessation of the employment as on 26-2-93 provided he was given the benefits of pension and that the dismissal of the petitioner was fully justified and merely because he has chosen to contend himself with the relief of pension, the order of dismissal cannot be set aside. Further, the I Party/Union has filed another pétition on 8-5-2001 requesting the Tribunal to permit the Union to amend the prayer in the Claim Statement as requesting the Tribunal to pass an Award holding that the dismissal is wholly unjustified and consequently direct the Respondent/Management to pay the pension and other retirement benefits to the concerned workman Mr. N. Srinivasan from the date of his retirement and to pass other suitable orders. From ail thèse available materials in this case, it is seen that the order passed by the management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. for thç punishment against the concerned workman for the proved charges by dismissing him from the service of the bank without notice is justified.
10. It is stated by the Respondent/Management in their additional Counter Statement itself that if the dismissal is set aside, the concerned workman will automatically get the benefits of the Seulement dated 29-10-1993 and the claim of the Petitioner appears to be that he is prepared to accept the cessation of employment as on 26-2-1993, provided he was given the benefits of pension. On the basis of the available materials in this case, it cannot be said that for the purpose of getting relief claimed by the I Party/ Union in the additional Claim Statement and in the pétition, wherein they want to hâve the amendment of the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement, the action of the Management cannot be held as unjustified. On the other hand, there are sufficient materials available in this case to hold that the action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of Sri N. Srinivasan with effect from 26-2-1993 is justified.
period, the concerned workman Mr. N. Srinivasan was working in the Trichy Branch as a Clerk and hâve stated that the concerned workman was having poor eye sight and hence, he could not discharge his duty as a Clerk in the bank efficjently. The fourth witness MW4 is a Doctor, an Eye Specialist. The Doctor has stated in his évidence that to his knowledge it is not correct to say that dialation of eye and glowing of lights for the propose of examination will affeçt the Homœopathic treatment taken by a person or his vision and he can find out the vision of the patient without dialating his eyes and glowing lights. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Offîcer has submitted his findings. The copy of the finding was furnished to the concerned workman Mr. N. Srinivasan by a covering letter dated 11-1-93 and he was advised to submit his représentation in writing. The xerox copy of that covering letter with the findings of the Enquiry Omcer is Ex.M47. The Enquiry Offîcer has given a finding that for the reasons stated in that report, he find the charge that Sri N. Srinivasan is physically incapable of discharging duties expected of a Clerk in the bank on account of his poor eye sight has been proved and he held the concerned workman guilty of the said charge. From his report, it is seen that 43 exhibits hâve been marked on the side of the Management and four witnesses hâve been examined and on the side of the delinquent employée, no document has been marked and no witness has been examined. A perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings Ex.M46 clearly shows that the concerned workman was given fair and sufflcient opportunity to défend himself in the domestic enquiry and he was duly assisted by the defence représentative Sri Vyasar Raj and ail the management witnesses were cross examined by him in détail. The concerned workman has submitted his reply dated 28-01-93 and the xerox copy of the same is Ex.M48. He has admitted in that reply that his vision is détective. Ex.M49 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 6-2-93 senUisy the Disciplinary Authority to the concerned workman Mr. N. Srinivasan, wherein he was asked to attend the personal hearing with regard to the proposed punishment. The Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal from the service pf the bank without notice. The concerned workman was directed to show cause against the nature of the proposed punishment and to appear before him for a Personal hearing on 13 -2-93. Ex.M50 is the xerox copy of the Disciplinary Authority's proceedings dated 13-2-93. In that enquiry, the concerned workman, the charge sheeted employée attended with his defence représentative and hâve made their représentation. Considering the représentation made on behalf of the concerned workman, the Disciplinary Authority has passed final order dated 26-2-1993 confirming the proposed punishment of dismissal from service of the bank without notice. The xerox copy of that order is Ex.M51. The concerned workman preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority after perusing the appeal, gave a personal hearing to the concerned workman and after that he has passed an order dated 18-11-93. The xerox copy of the proceedings of the Appellate Authority is Ex.M54. The xerox copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18-11-93 is Ex.M55. Ail thèse exhibits hâve been marked with the consent of the I Party/Union. Ail thèse exhibits hâve not been disputée by the I Party/Union as well as the concerned workman. From thèse it is seen a fair and proper domestic enquiry was conducted by the Respondent/Management giving full and reasonable opportunity to the concerned workman, the charge sheeted employée to défend himself
11. The I Party/Union is claiming pension benefits for the concerned workman under the Seulement dated 29-10-93. As per the terms of the Seulement it has given effect from lst November, 1993. In Clause Option clause (iii), it is stated that the 'retired employées who were in service of the bank/mergedbank on or after 3 lst December, 1985 and retired on or after 31 st January, 1986 but before lst November, 1993 provided that such retired employées applied for it on their own on the format prescribed by each bank and refund within a period of six months2243 1 2 3 M7 28-09-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Srinivasan to Deputy General Manager (PAD)
M8 02-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Mr.N.Srinivasn to Deputy General Manager (PAD)
M9 05-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Deputy General Manager to Sri N. Srinivasan
M10 13-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Mr. N. Srinivasan to Deputy General Manager
Mil 07-12-91
reckoned from lst November, 1993, the banks entire contribution of the provident fund including the interest received with further simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of withdrâwal of the provident fund amount, till the date of refund will be available as pension as a second retirai benefit scheme in lieu of contributory provident fond. ' Admittedly, the concerned workman was terminated from service after a due domestic enquiry and on a punishment with effect from 26-2-93. It is found that the action of the Management in imposing the punishment to the concerned workman is justified. Under such circumstances only for giving benefit to the concerned workman under the Seulement dated 29-10-1993 as a pensionery benefits, the action taken by the Management in terminating the services of the concerned workman cannot be held to be unjustified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
Xerox copy of the letter from Mr. N. Srinivasan to Deputy General Manager
M12 17-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Deputy General Manager to Mr. N. Srinivasan
M13 17-12-91
12. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the action of the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of the concerned workman Sri N.Srinivasan w.e.f. 26-2-1993 is justified and the' concerned workman is not entitled to any relief as it is prayed for by the I Party/Union in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
Xerox copy of the letter from Deputy General Manager to Srinivasan
(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.)
M14 30-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from ChiefOfficertoMr. N. Srinivasan K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
M15 24-12-91
Witnesses Examined:
Xerox copy of the letter from Mr. N. Srinivasan to Deputy General Manager
On either side : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED:
M16 07-01-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Chief Officer to Mr. N. Srinivasan For I Party/Claimant : Nil
M17 12-01-92
For II Party/Manaeement:
Xerox copy of the letter fron Mr. N. Srinivasan to Deputy General Manager
Ex. No.
Description
Date
14-01-92
M18
3
1
2
Xerox copy of the letter from Deputy General Manager to Mr. N. Srinivasan Ml 12-02-90
M19 14-12-91
Xerox copy of the letter from Manager, Trichy Main Branch addressed to Chairman along with Enclosure.
Xerox copy of the leave application of Mr. N. Srinivasan along with médical certifïcate from Dr. K.Shanmugasunsaram 28-04-90
M2
M20 01-01-92
Xerox copy of the office note from inspection, audit and Returns départaient to Personnel Administration Department.
Xerox copy of the leave application of Mr. N. Srinivasan along with médical certifïcate from Dr. K. ShanmugâSunsaram 17-09-91
M3
08-01-92
M21
Xerox copy of letter from Personnel Administration Department to Mr. Srinivasan
M4 19-09-91
Xerox copy of the leave application of Mr. N. Srinivasan along with médical certifïcate from Dr. K. ShanmugâSunsaram Xerox copy of the letter from Mr. Srinivasan to Deputy General Manager (PAD)
24-01-92
M22
M5 23-03-91 Xerox copy of the Letter from Deputy General Manager to Mr. Srinivasan
Xerox copy of the leave application of Mr. N. Srinivasan along with médical certifïcate from Dr. K. ShanmugâSunsaram M6 13-09-91
M23 13-02-92 Xerox copy of the leave application of Mr. N. Srinivasan Xerox copy of the letter from Manager. Trichy Main branch to PAD.
2244 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 3 2 1 2 3 M24 25-02-92 M42Xerox copy of the letter from Chief Qfficerto Mr. N. Srinivasan M25 29-02-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Mr. N. Srinivasan to Chief Qfficer.
M26 14-03-92 Xerox copy of the leave application of Mr. N. Srinivasan along with médical certificate from Dr. K. Shanmugasunsaram M27 31-03-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Deputy General Manager to Mr. N. Srinivasan
M28 09-04-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Mr. N. Srinivasan to Deputy General Manager with enclosures M29 29-04-92 Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to Mr. N. Srinivasan M30 06-05-92 Xerox copy of the explanation of Mr. N. Srinivasan to the charge sheet.
M31 26-05-92 Xerox copy of the letter sent to Mr. N. Srinivasan enclosing notice of constitution of enquiry.
M32 04-06-92 Xerox copy of the letter sent to vlr. Srinivasan Informing the fïrst nearing (notice of enquiry) M33 12-05-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Médical Board, Trichy to Mr. N. Srinivasan under copy to Deputy General Manager
M34 20-05-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Médical Board, Trichy to Deputy General Manager
M35
Xerox copy of the inward letter register.
06-12-90 & 07-12-90
M36 01-10-86 & 03-10-86
Xerox copy of the drafts paid with- outadvice register of Trichy main branch
15-06-89
M37
Xerox copy of the drafts paid without advice Register of Trichy main branch.
M38
Xerox copy of the drafts payable Cr.Day book of Trichy main branch.
10-02-86 to 12-02-86 & 13-02-86
M39 21-04-89 02-06-89 & 03-06-89
Xerox copy of the drafts payable Cr.Day book of Trichy main branch.
M40
Xerox copy of the drafts payable Cr.Day book of Trichy main branch.
12-09-89 to 14-09-89 & 29-09-89, 19-10-89 & 20-10-89
M41
Xerox copy of the current account day book of Trichy Main branch 22-10-90 & 22-11-90
Xerox copy of the current account day book of Trichy Main branch 26-03-91 14-05-91 & 15*05-91
M43
Xerox copy of the current account day book of Trichy Main branch 08-06-91, 124)6-91 & 01-07-91
M44 April,90 to Oct.,92
Xerox copy of the job rotation chitta of Trichy main branch.
M45 19-08-92 Xerox copy of the letter from PAD addressed to Dr T. M. Parthasarathy, Regd. Homeopathy Physician, Trichy.
M46
Xerox copy of the enquiry pro- ceedings
29-04-92, 03-08-92, 04-08-92, 12-08-92, 20-08-92 to 22-08-92, 28-08-92
M47 06-01-93 11-01-93
Xerox copy of the report findings of the Enquiry Officer and letter addressed to Mr. N. Srinivasan by Disciplinary Authority forwarding the copy of the report of findings.
M48 28-01-93 Xerox copy of the représentation from Mr. N. Srinivasan M49 06-02-93 Xerox copy of the proposed punishment order and letter communicating the order of Mr. N. Srinivasan
13-02-93
M50
Xerox copy of the proceedings of Proposed punishment hearing. 26-02-93
M51
Xerox copy of the final orders of Disciplinary Authority along with covering letter communicating the order.
M52 20-03-93 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by Mr. N. Srinivasan to the Appellate Authority 17-04-93
M53
Xerox copy of the letter from the Appellate Authority to Mr. N. Srinivasan regarding personal hearing
M54
Xerox copy of the proceedings of appeal hearing
21-04-93 18-05-93
18-11-93
M55
Xerox copy of the orders on appeal passed by the Appellate Authority with the letter communicating the same to Mr. N. Srinivasan2245
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002
S.O. 702.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. ID. No. 133/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01-02- 2002.
[No. L-12012/682/98-IR(B.I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
the branch manager and prpceeded on leave with effect from 3-6-92 and extended his leave with due information to the bank through post. He received a letter from the bank dated 13 -7-92 wherein he was asked to présent before the branch manager alongwith illness certificate of bank doctor. He personally met the A.G.M. and explained his difficulty and requested for transfer to Agra Garirami. He also went to Bateshwar branch alongwith médical certificate but the branch manager did not allow him to join his duties and asked to obtain a spécifie order from the Assistant General Manager Région I Agra. He again met the AGM R-I and requested for spécifie instructions for the branch manager but he asked the workmen to go to the branch manager. He again went to the branch manager but was not allowed to résume his duties. On 20-10-92 he received AGMs letter dated 15-10-92 wherein his services were discontinued and he was treated as vohuntarily retired from the job. The aforesaid action of the AGM is unauthorised, arbitrary and illégal. It has heen alleged that there is no provision of voluntarily retirement in the bipartite seulement and the orders of the AGM Région I Agra is unfair, illégal and unjustified. On the basis of thèse allégations the workman has prayed that the décision of voluntarily retirement of the concerned employée from the banks' service be declared as arbitray, illégal and unjustified and a direction be given to the bank to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity of service.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R.P.PANDEY PRESIDING
OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA
NAGAR, KANPUR.
Industrial Dispute No. 133/99.
In the matter of dispute between
Sri Pooran Singh C/o 2/363-A Namner Agra
AND
The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India Région No. 1 Zonal office, Agra.
AWARD
1. Central Government Ministry of Labour New Delhi vide its notification no. L-12012/682/98 IR (B-l) dated 5-5-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-
(a) Whether the action of the Branch Manager Bateshwar Branch S.B.I. Agra to déclare Sri Pooran Singh s/o Sri, Raghubir Singh Voluntary retired from service w.e.f. 12-10-98 is justified? It not. what relief workman is entitled to?
3. The management of State Bank of India has filed written statement with allégation that when Pooran Singh Joined in Bateshwar Branch of the bank 12 months leave was in débit due to habit of the concerned employée of remaining absent without leave. After joining in Bateshwar Branch he remained absent on 4-3-92, 15-3-92, 23-3-92, 25-3-92 and 27-3-92 and from 28-3-92 to 1-4-92 and from 3-4-92 to 6-4-92. The branch manager vide letter dated 10-4-92 informed the workman that he would not be paid salary for the above days. The workman was further directed not to remain absent from duty failing which action will be taken against him. The concerned workman received the said letter personally. The workman further become absent from duty from 8-5-92. Vide letter- dated 14-5-92 the branch manager advised him to explain as to why he was unauthorisedly absent from duty. Thereafter the concerned workman attended the branch on 2-6-92 and thereafter he again became absent. The manager of the branch vide his letter dated 13-6-92 called upon him to report for duty. Again the branch manager vide notice dated 20-6-92 asked the workman to report for duty within thirty days. Said notice was sent at the correct address of the concerned workman as given by him. In response to the banks letter the workman submitted an application dated 22-6-92 for sanction of leave to htm on the ground of illness of his wife. The branch manager vide his letter dated 13-7-92 advised the workman to contact Dr. Rajiv Sharma Médical Officer of the Bank for médical check up of his wife failing which he would be deemed to be unauthorised absent. Said letter was also sent by registered post. Even after getting that letter the workman did not appear before the médical officer of the bank at Agra for médical check up of his wife. The manager of the bank vide its letter-dated 20-7-92 again asked the concerned workman to join duties but that was of no effect. Vide notice dated 12-9-92 the branch manager asked the concerned workman to report for duty within thirty days failing which he would be deemed to hâve voluntarily 2. The workman filed statement of claim with allégation that he was working as messenger in State Bank of India Bateshwar Branch of the bank. His wife suddenly fell ill hence he was left with no other alternative but to proceed on leave so as to look after herself. He informed
529 GI/2002—162246 THE GAZETTE ( )F INDïA : MARC'H 2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART il—SEC 3(ii)j retirée! froin service This noLice was sent to the workman by ail tbe tbree memis that is by rcgis+cied post/under postal certificate and by ordmary post. That letter was rcccivcd by the concerned workman but he did not join duty within the tune given m the notice hence the Assistant General Manager vide ils registered kiter datcd 15-10-92 informée! the workman that lie shall bc deenicd to hâve voluiilarily retired witli effect ftom 12 -1 < " -•> 2 a.s hc did not join duty in compliance of the notice datrd ' 2 -9-92 Tho workman submitted lus apphcation-dated 16-10-42 to the hranch manager after the final order datcd ! S-10-92 was passed against him. It lias bee.i alleged 'haï the action taken by the managernent is necordmi; te the i;'iov}5i
4. The concerned vvorkinar B led rejouider in which
retired from sen ice of the bank as he did not join duty after ieceiving the notice dated 12-9-92. The oral e\idenc"e of Sri AK. Gosai Deputy Manager State Bank of India Zona! Office Agra supports the aforesaid facts and also the documentary évidence addueed by the management. The notice dated 13-7-92 is on the record which shows 1 hat with référence to the application of the concerned employée datcd 22-6-92 the branch manager asked him to gct ht s wife exammed bv the médical officer ofthe bank at Agra and to producc the certificate failing which he will be deemed to bc absent without authority. There is no évidence on record io show that the concerned workmen ever appeaied beforc the médical officer ofthe bank and got his wife esamnied by the médical officer of the bank and produeed such médical certificate before the branch manager. Even m the statemenl of daim the concerned workman has not pîeaded that he appeared beforc the médical officer ofthe bank with his wife after recei^mg the said letter dated 13-7-92 and got his wife examined by the médical oflicer ofthe bank and obtained certificate. Although he has admitted in paragraph 3 of his daim that he icceived the letter-dated 13-7-92 sent by the branch manager to him.
2247Therefore, where employée claimed that he had sent several communications regarding his illness or to extend his leave or to rejoin duty but there does not appear to be any record with the bank nor the employée is in a position to prodi.ce a îy prqof of his having sent such letters. Nor there is materai on record to show that he had reported for duty within the period indicated in the notice issued in terms of clause XVI of IV Bipartite Settlement, the order striking out the name of the employée from the rolls of the bank is not based of misconduct and cannot be said to be a futility due to the patent violation of the principles of naiural justice since it was not imperative for bank to servj charge sheet to him with an opportunity to file reply.
retirement of an employée even if he was absent from duty for more than 4 months and his absence from duty should be treated as misconduct and he could not be ousted from the service without being given an opportunity of hearing during the course of domestic enquiry. Similar objection has been raised by the concerned workman in his statement of claim as well as in the rejoinder filed by him. But I do not find any force in this contention. It has been pleaded by the management that they took action against the concerned workman under the provisions of 5th Bipartite Settlement and an opportunity was given to the concerned workman to join duty within thirty days from the date of notice dated 12-9-92 and to explain reasons for his absence from duty but he did not join his duties and did not submit any explanation for his absence from duty hence the décision of the bank that the concerned workman shall be deemed to hâve retired for the service of the bank is wholly justified and is covered by the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. The contention of the bank appears to be correct.
10. In a similar case ofPunjab & Sindh Bank versus Sakattar Singh 2001 Lab. I.C. 301 the Hon'ble Suprême Court of India has held as under—
11. The law laid down in the case cited above fùlly appîies to the facts of the présent case and the action taken '" ".; '• '••.'. " •'.: ••' !•• . meernedemployéeaccordingto . /•. • • : - i, . Settlement appears to be justified and lawful. Although in the aforesaid case there is référence of clause 16th of 4th Bipartite Settlement but similar provisions exist in clause 17th of 5th Bipartite Settlement.
12. In cross examination of Sri A.K. Gosai, M. W. 1 it has corne that the provision of voluntarily retirement as contained in 5th Bipartite Settlement has been delected in the 6thBipartite Settlement which came into existence in the year 2000. In my opinion, the présent case is covered by the provision of 5th Bipartite Settlement, which was in force when the action was taken against the concerned employée: hence the delection of such provision subsequently in the year 2000 is of no conséquence.
13. The authorised représentative for workman has argued that the management has not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order. In my opinion, the management has made sufficient compîiance of principles of natural justice by giving notice to the concerned employée to join duty within thirty days and to explain the reasons for his absence but he did not avait that opportunity. Thus, the management has made sufficient compîiance of principles of natural justice and if the concerned employée did not avail that opportunity the bank cannot be blamed for the same.
14. The case of the workman that he was absent from duty due to the illness of his wife is not supported by any reliable évidence. There is no évidence on record to show that he produced any médical certifïcate of the illness of his wife before authorities of the bank. He did not produce any médical certifïcate of illness of is wifa during the relevant period even before this tribunal. I ain, therefore, not prepared to believe the case of the workman that he could not attend his from 3-6-92 to 15-10-92 due to illness of his wife.
15. Inview of above considérations I hold that the action of State Bank of India, Agra to déclare Sri Pooran Singh son of Raghubir Singh voluntarily retired from the service of the bank with effect from 12-10-92 is justified hence the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in pursuance of the référence made to this tribunal
16. The référence is answered accordingly.
R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer A reading of clause XVÎ of IV Bipartite Stlement will make it clear that in the event an employée absents himself from duty for 90 or more consécutive days beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended the management may, at any time thereafter give a notice to the employée at the last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of notice stating inter alia the grounds for the management coming to the conclusion that the employée has no intention of joining duty and furnishing necessary évidence wherever relevant and unless the employée reports for duty within thirty days of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and he has no intention of not joining the duty the employée will be deemed to hâve voluntarily retired from the banks service on the expiry of the time fixed in the said notice. In the event of the employée giving a satisfactory reply he will be permitted to report for duty thereafter within thirty days from the expiry of the aforesaid notice wiithout préjudice to the banks right take any action under the law or rules of service. Under this rule the employée is given an opportunity to rejoin duty within a stipulated time or explain his position to the satisfaction of the management that he has no intention of not joining duty and a presumption will be drawn that the employée does not require the job any more and will stand retired from service. Thus, there is no punishment for misconduct but only to notice Ûie realities of the situation resulting from long absence of an employée from work with no satisfactory explanation thereto. The principles of natural justice cannot be examined in yacuum without référence to the fact situation arising in the case. This rule has been incorporated in an agreement where représentatives of employées unions were party. They also realised the futility of continuing a situation when an employée without appropriate intimation to the management is playing truant.
2248 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]MUMBAI, Dated 5th December, 2001
AWARD
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 S.O. 703 .— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT- 2/17 of 1999) of the Central Government Industrial. Tribunal No.-2 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the fndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Central Railway and their vvorkman. which was received by the Central Government on 04-02-2002.
[No. L-4l()12/76/98-IR(B.I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II,
MUMBAI
PRÉSENT
S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer Référence No. CGIT-2/17 of 1999.
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, S.C. Rly., Hubli Division. Karnataka, Hubli-580 020.
AND
Their Workmen
Shri Ramesh T. Kulkarni, Shindewada. Bhokare Galli. Brahmanpuri. Miraj-416 410. Sangli District. Maharashrta.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. V. Narayanan
Advocate. FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. M.B. Anchan
Advocate. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by itsOrderNo.L-41012/76/98/[R(B-I),dtd. 13-01-1999, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, haive referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication :
"Whether the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway was justified in terminating the services of Shri R.T. Kulkarni, Réservation chart typist of Réservation Office, Miraj Jn.? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. Mr. R.T. Kulkarni contended vide Statement of Claim (Exhibit-5/7) that he was appointed contract typist to prépare the réservation chart at Miraj Station @ Rs. 12/ - per day in the month of Aug^ist, 1989 thereafter the rate of charge was enhanced to Rs. 25/- per day. It is his contention that he worked as a typist on contract basis on daily wages, from 1989 till May' 93. It is contended that on lst May '93 he reported about the non-functioning of the machine and feeling ill of that, the South Central Railway appointed another typist without giving him notice of termination. It is contended that the management railway authority absorbed the earlier persons in the service. They absorbed Ms. M. Saraswati. who was working on the similar terms and conditions like workman as regular employées, however, workman has not been regularised and they terminated his services illegally. Therefore he contended to direct the management to reinstate him with continuity of service and full back wages.
3. Management, South Central Railway resisted the claim of Shri Kulkarni by filing Written Statement (Ex- 14) contending that, Kulkarni was given contract of typing réservation chart in English at Miraj Station in the year 1989. He was never appointed or engaged by the railway on temporary/regular basis but he was given work purely on contract basis. It is contended that there was no full time work at Miraj Station, therefore work of typing réservation chart was given to Kulkarni. On his request in the beginning at the rate of Rs. 12/- per day, later on he abandoned the work from 1-5-93 on his own and therefore, the typing contract was given to some other person. It is contended that since Kulkarni was not engaged by management question of terminating his service by giving notice does not arise. Consequently management prays to dismiss the claim of Kulkarni.
4. By way of Rejoinder (Exhibit-18) Kulkarni contended that he was preparing Réservation chart on railway platform at Mirai from 9.00 a.m. till 9.30 p.m.which was a full time work. It is contended that work of Kulkarni was full time as Miraj station is a junction where many trains arrive and départ. Consequently he reiterated the récitals in the Statement of Claim and denied the contentions in the Written Statement.
5. On the basis of the pleadings my Learned Predecessor framed issues at Exhibit-19. Kulkarni filed his affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-30) and closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-31 A). Onbehalf of the management railway its Divisional Commercial Manager, Mr. Nagarajan filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-3 3) and closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-35).
2249of contract is obvious. Kulkarni was typing the réservation chart on contract basis, thereby he was not appointed as a daily wager.
6. WorkmanfUed his written submissions (Exhibit- 37) and the management at Exhibit-39. On perusing the record as a whole and the written submissions, the record my findings on the following issues for the reasons stated below :
Issues
Findings
Yes.
1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdic- tion to décide the référence ?
2.
Yes.
10. Assuming for a moment, Kularni was appointed on contract daily wages @ Rs. 12/- as deposed by him, his case would fall under section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Their Lordships in Brig. S. Ramchandran Vs. Hyderabad Allwyn Métal Works Ltd., Sanathnagar & Ors. 1996 II LLJ. pg. 741 observed "Appellant was not a regular permanent employée of Respondent No. 1 and it had no right to continue till superannuation." In the case on hand, Kulkarni was on contract basis, therefore question of his terminating does not anses.
Whether the action of the manage- ment in terminating the service of R.K. Kulkarni, Réservation Chart Typist is justified ?
3. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?
Asper order below.
11. Learned Connsel Mr. Anchan by written submissions (Exhibit-37) pointed out that after termination of Mr. Kulkarni one Shivshankar and Ms. Saraswati were absorbed. However, Kulkarni was not absorbed, which shows discrimination.
REASONS
7. The issue so far as jurisdiction is concerned, the management nowhere in their written statement raised that issue nor the Learned Counsel, Mr. Narayanan, by way of written submissions (Exhibit-39). Therefore infact, this issue needs to be deleted. However, this being a law point, if considered, it will hâve to be answered in the affirmative in view of the décisions in Krishna Prasad Gupta Vs. Controller, Printing and Stationery 1996 SCC (L & S)264 and récent décision of His Lordship of Bombay High Court in Writ Pétition No. 1751/99 dt. 11-10-2001 whereby clearly pointed out that the railway is an industry and therefore this tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try the référence. Issue No. 1 is consequently answered in the affirmative.
12. The Divisional Commercial Manager, Mr. Nagrajan admits in his cross-examination, para 5, that one Saraswati was appointed as substitute luggage porter, she was also preparing réservation charts at Kolhapur station. Nothing on record to show that Saraswati was junior to Kulkarni nor anyhing to show that, said Saraswati was preparing charts at Kolhapur station as daily wager. Saraswati cannot be compared with Kulkarni in view of the position. When according to Kulkarni he was typing réservation charts on contract basis, he cannot be said to be a daily wager and when he was not a daily wager, question of régularisation of his services does not airse. From this point of view. I find no substance in the submission of Mr. Anchan. Onthisbackground, provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act in connection with termination, are not applicable to Kulkarni and consequently question of notice and retrenchment compensation, also goes away.
13. It is therefore clear from the évidence as a whole that Kulkarni was doing work of typing on contract basis and since according to the management, he stopped coming for typing work, this work was given to another contracter. Therefore question of termination of service of Kulkarni as stated above does not arise, therefore management's action is justified. Consequently Kulkarni is not entitled to any relief. Issue Nos. 2 & 3 are answered accordingly and hence the order :—
ORDER
The action of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway in terminating the services of Shri R.T. Kulkarni, Réservation Chart typist of Réservation officer, Miraj Jn. is légal, proper and justified.
Shri R.T. Kulkarni, is not entitled to any reliefs.
S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer 8. So-fer the crucial point as regards the termination of service of Mr. Kulkarni is concerned, according to him he was appointed in 1989 as réservation clerk and that his work of typing of réservation chart was full time job and that in the year 1993 his services hâve been terminated without any notice. Management denied the same contending that Kulkarni was not at ail engaged in railway department, however, he was given typing work on contract basis. Therefore, no relationship of employer and employée exists and hence consequently the question of terminating him does not arise. As seen from the cross- examïnation of Kulkarni he is Arts graduate, dairy he used to type 48 réservation charts. He admits, at no time he was regular typist. According to him, the work of typing which he was doing was .given to another contracter Shivshankarm in May '93. In his application (Exhibit-5) in the opening lines, he averred that he was typist on contract basis from 1989 to 1993. In cross-examination, para 11, he admits he was getting Rs. 12 Per day. Admittedly he had given application (Exhibit-31) to the railway department, which clearly mentions that, work of typing of réservation charts in English and Hindi @ Rs. 12 per chart, was demanded by him. Kulkarni has not filed any record to show that he was engaged as a réservation clerk on daily basis by railway âuthority.
9. From the admissions of Mr. Kulkarni is para 11 it is seen, eleven trains hait at Miraj railway station in a day. There was no post of typist there. When eleven trains pass from Miraj station and that no post of typist was there, work to get the réservation charts prepared, on the basis2250 THE GAZETTE OF [NDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SHC. 3(ii)] Mumbai. dated the 6th December, 2001
AWARD—PART—n
New Delhi the 5th February, 2002
By intérim Award dtd. lOth August, 1999 my Learned Predecessor held that the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to entertain and try the référence and that domestic inquiry held against the workman was against the Principles of naturel Justice and that finding of the inquiry officer were perverse. The record shows that management vide application dtd. 15-10-99 (Exhibit-16) prayed the Tribunal, since the inquiry held vitiates management be given opportunity to lead évidence to prove ils action. However that came to be rejected on 17-11-99. The management challenged the intérim Award as well the ordcr dtd. 17-11-99 by Writ Pétition No. 74 of 2000 and that the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay on 11-2-2000 confirming the intérim Award set aside the order dtd. 17/11/99 directing the Tribunal giving opportunity to both the parties to lead évidence to décide the référence on merits.
S.O 704.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industriel Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT/ 2/94/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.-2 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 04-02-02.
[No. L-410ll/13/97/IR(B-I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI
PRESENT
S.N. SAUNDANKAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/94 OF 1997
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
WESTERN RAILWAY, BOMBAY CENTRAL
The Divisional Railway Manager (E), Western Railway Bombay Division. Bombay Central, MUMBAI
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The Divisional Secretary, Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, 32 A, Chhapra Building, lst Floor, R.K. Vaidya Marg, Near Plaza Cinéma. Dadar (W). Mumbai-28.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Ms. Delilah Fernandes
2. Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, vide Statement of Claim (Exhibit-6) contended that the workman who was appointée as a casual labour on 25-1-1985 in the Western Railway was bonafide. His maternai uncle Mr. Mohd. Hafcez Shaikh a railway servant workingin* " " . •' *' • "ïihadarrangea the workm , • "• . • Railway with intention that after getting the job he would marry to his daughter and accordingly he had arranged the certificate for job of workman and got his daughter married to him. It îs their contention that the workman was not aware on the bogus certificate arranged by Mohd. Hafeez Shaikh for getting the job for the workman. Since différence of opinion between the workman and his wife. because of lier bad character marriage ended in divorce and enraged by that it is contended Mohd. Hafeez Shaikh complained to vigilance on production of false birth certificate showing his date ofbirth as 5-6-1963 which workman was not awaie and that lus actual date of birth was 2-10-1959. It is contended that the âge limit for appointaient of Gangman in railway départaient in 1985 was 28 years and since his correct date ofbirth was 2-10-59 he was within the âge Therefore, he had no reason to file a false certificate. It is contended that certificate produeed by the workman on his date ofbirth 2-10-59 issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Allahabad, I I P. was correct and that the certificate of the M.S.I. Collège, Ghorakpur showing his date ofbirth 5-6-1963 was incorrect, and that. that certficate was not produeed by workman. Therefore lie was not responsible for that certificate and that he has not committed any misconduct, however. the management treating that as misconduct, îllcgally terminated lus service. Management opposed the samc by îiling Written Statement (Exhibit-7) contending that the workman deliberately given the wrong date ofbirth at the Unie of recruitment, suppressing the real date of birth which amounts to a major misconduct under the raies and therefore he was chargesheeted on 24-3-92. It is contended that since workman committed misconduct imolving integrity while discharging the duties as such public servant, was rightly terminated. and that the managements action is justified.
Advocate holding for Suresh Kumar.
FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. M.B. Anchan
3. Invievv of the pleadings my Learned Predecessor framed issues at Exhibit-10. My Learned Predecessor by way of intérim Award gave fmdings on Preliminary issues Advocate2251 Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and now the Issues Nos. 4 & 5 are to be decided in this award.
4. In view of the décision in the Writ Pétition referred to above. to prove the action management filed affidavit of Mr Kini. by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-28) and closed évidence vide purshis (Ex-36). In rebuttal. workman Jahid Ali Wajid Ali filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-37) and closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-38).
5. Management. Western Railway filed written submissions (Exhibit-40) vvith copies of rulings (Ex.-41) and the Union at (Exhibit-39). On persuing the record as a whole and the written submissions I record my findings on the following issues, framed at (Exhibit-10) for the reasons stated below :—
and therefore workman is innocent in the épisode. As stated above according to workman he married in 1983, however. got employment in 1985 which shows his uncle had no connection with the service matter, in as much as, he would hâve first arranged service and then got his daughter married to him. The fact that workman speaks contradictory hardly can be believed. Under Section 191 of the Railway Rules, 1959 in the service matter, birth certificate is relevant, in order to prépare the service record. Therefore, management must hâve asked birth certificate and the workman must hâve given the forged certificate. Workman cannot throw his responsibility upon his Ex- father-in-law and in fact, he is a person who is responsible, when admittedly birth certificate dtd. 14-9-75 was forged and that the certificate dtd. 12-7-79 was correct and when it is évident that cetificate dtd. 14-9-75 was filed by the workman, he thereby commits misconduct concerning integrity, certainly unbecoming of Government servant.
Issues
Findings
4. Whether the action of the manage-
Yes.
ment of Western Railway in termina- ting the service of Zahid Ali is légal and justified ?
5. If not. to what relief the workman
Asper order below.
is entitled to ?
REASONS
7. The Leamed Counsel, Mr. Anchan vehemently pointed out that as per the certificate dtd. 12-7-79 issued by, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, the workman's âge on the date of recruitment was 26 years and that as admitted by the management's witness Mr. Kini, âge for gangman recruitment in 1985 was 28 years, there was no reason for workman to produce forged certificate. On thèse aspects it is pointed out, non- production of forged certificate by workman gets supports, and therefore Mr. Anchan pointed out that since forged certificate was not produced by workman no misconduct has been committed by him, and therefore management's action is unjustified.
8. In the case on hand what is material who actually produced the forged certificate, and that workman being the concerned employée is required to produce such certificate therefore question of production of the same by any one else than him cannot and does not arise. When workman goes to the extent saying he is illiterate though he studied up to 1 lth standard, he is not a man, to be believed and on his background, his contention that he had not produced forced certificate but produced by his Ex-father-in-law does not implicit reliance.
9. On going through the record as a whole, it is therefore clearly proved that workman produced forged certificate dtd. 24-9-75, thereby committing act of dishonesty, unbecoming for a government servant, amounts to major misconduct, and that in case of major misconduct, the punishment of dismissal is warranted. The action of the management in terminating the services of the workman for his proved misconduct is therefore légal and justified and consequently he is not entitled to any reliefs. Issues are therefore answered accordingly and hence the order :—
ORDER
"The action of management of DRM, Bombay Division Western Railway, in terminating the services of Shri Zahid Ali is légal and justified, consequently he is not entitled to any reliefs." 6. At the outset it to be noted that the burden to justify the action is on the management, since the domestic inquiry conducted against workman. held to be vitiated Managements witness, Mr. Kini by way of affidavit stated that workman filed false certificate at the time of recruitment showing his date of birth 5-6-63 and later on he produced the certificate showing his date of birth 2-10-59. he cheated the employer. Western Railway, which is a major misconduct. Workman denied on production of certificate showing the date of birth dtd. 5-6-63, dated. 14-9-75 of MSI Collège, Gorakhpur. According to him he was not asked to produce the School Leaving Certificate at the time of his appointment as a casual labour and therefore question of production of the certificate dtd. 14-9-75 by him does not arise and added that when he was asked to prcduce the certificate had produced the school leaving certificate dtd. 12-7-79, issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, U.P., showing date of birth 2-10-59. The crucial point in the matter is •'Whether really certificate dtd. 14-9-75 of MSI Collège, Gorakpur was produced by workman or not. He had stated on oath vide (Exhibit. 8) that he married in 1983 with the daughtcr of Mohd Hafeez Shaikh and that he joined the railway service in 1985. In the first breath vide affidavit (Exhibit-8) he states that he was in the 1 lth standard and in the second breath vide affidavit (Exhibit-37) in cross- examination, para. 6 he states he put thumb mark, he is illiterate. He admits vide (Exhibit-8) English was one of his subjects in school. This shows, he knows English and can read and writc. The Learned Counsel for the union Shri Anchan submits that workman's maternai uncle who had arranged his marriage with his daughter had arranged the fakc certificate, to which this workman was unaware.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer2252 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of Divisional Engineer (Téléphones) Shankarpuram Téléphone Exchange, Bangalore is justified in removing Shri M. Nagendrappa, Ex-Casual Mazdoor from service? If not, what relief he is entilled to?"
2. The First Party was working with the Second Party as a Casual Mazdoor. He was removed from service and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.
3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and
Counter respectively.
4. The case of the First Party in brief is as follows:
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002
5. According to the fïrst party workman he joined the services of the Second Party in the year 1977 and he was discharging his duties sincerely and diligently.
S.O. 705.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 3/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/269/91 -IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
6. In the year 1982, the fïrst party was directed by the Second Party to install phone to the subscriber bearing Phone No. 609138, Guttahalli near Water Tank and as per the direction, the first party installed the phone to the subscriber. After a lapse of one itnonth again the first party was entrusted the work of repairing the phone wire in the same area where the subscriber bearing Phone No.609138 is residing. When the first party was working in that area, the subscriber came to the spot and requested the first party to extend the wire to his phone but first party refused to do so without the permission of the départaient.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT BANGALORE
Dated : the 29thJanuary, 2002
Présent : HON'BLE SHRI V. N. KULKARNI, B. COM, LLB,
7. It is his further case that after few days the subscriber himself offered to first party to get the phone repaired as it was not working properly. Obliging his words the first party took the work of repairing and while doing the repairs work, one day he went to the house to get the phone repaired, while he was repairing the phone the subscriber without the knowledge of the first party went outside and after a few minutes the Second Party entered the house and without questioning anything took the signature on the blank paper from the first party.
Presiding Officer
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE,
C. R. NO. 3/93
8. It is his further case that he is absolutely illiterate and blindly he signed on the blank paper. After 15 days of the said incident the department discontinued his services. When the first party approached the department it was informed that he will be again taken for work but nothing was done.
1PARTY
II PARTY
9. It is his further case thaï he has worked for 8 years and the action of the management is illégal. First party workman for thèse reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.
10. Against this the case of the management in brief
is as follows:
The Divisional Engineer, Téléphones, Shankarpuram Téléphone Exchange, Bull Temple Road, BangaIore-560019 Advocate-V. P. Kulkarni
Sri M. Nagendrappa, S'O Hanumanthappa, No 365, II Cross, III Stage, Muneeshwara Block, Bangalore-560026 Advocate- P. Rajamani
AWARD
1. The Central Government by execising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide orderNo. L- 40012/269/91-IR(DU) dated 17th January 1993 for adjudication on the following schedule :
11. The main contention of the management is that the first party workman has demanded Rs.300/bribe from the Subscriber téléphone bearing No.609138 for providing unauthorized extension to the aforesaid téléphone and therefore his name was removed from the Muster Roll w.e.f. 1.11.1983. The contention of the workman that while Connecting and repairing the wire of another subscriber's phone, the subscriber of Phone No.609138 requested the first party to give an extension to his phone but the first party refused to do the same is not correct.
225312. On the other hand the first party unauthorisedly and without the permission of the départaient went to the Subscriber of téléphone No. 609138 and provided unauthorized extension by collecting illégal gratification of Rs.300/-. Investigation was done and Subscriber along with his wife were examined.
13. It is the further case of the management that the first party posed himself as Suresh and misrepresented the fact to the subscriber and after taking Rs.300/- he has given illégal connection. Détails of this incident are also stated in para 3 of the Counter.
14. The allégations that the officiais of the second party came to the spot and without questioning anything took a signature on the blank paper from the first party is not correct. First party was not a regular employée. The action of the management is correct and his name has been properly removed from the muster roll. Management for thèse reasons has prayed to reject the référence.
15. It is seen from the records that the départaient has examined 3 witnesses, MW1 to MW3. Various documents are marked in the évidence.
16. Against this the workman got examined himself as WW1. MW1 is Mr. Basavalingappa, Sr. Assistant Engineer in Shankarapuram(Outdoor) and he says that the workman was working as Casual Labourer. He has given the duties of casual labourers. According to his évidence lineman will take the instrument to replace the same on complaint. He categorically states that the instrument and material will be not given to the casual labourers. First party was working under one Ramaiah who was a Sub Inspector (Téléphones). First party while working under Ramaiah, provided an unauthorized parallel instrument to one subscriber's Téléphone No. 609138 and the subscriber complaint to Vigilance Officer complaining that first party had taken bribe of Rs.300/- forproviding an unauthorized parallel téléphone instrument. He conducted investigation in his capacity as Assistant Engineer actually as JE. Watchman Mayagayya, Nagendrappa(first party) Kalandarsab, Lineman, Chandran, JE(Stores)Vasudevarao, Chamarajpet Ramu, Lineman (Stores) Bhojappa, S.I. Téléphones, S. Ramu, Lineman were présent and their statements were recorded. He also said that another set of statements hâve been records by the JE in his présence. He further says that first party Nagendrappa has pretended as Suresh before the Subscriber and there was no Mazdoor working as Suresh. He has denied the suggestion that he insisted the first party to sign on blank paper. In my humble opinion the statement of MW1 directly does not connect the workman to prove the allégation that he has taken bribe of Rs.300/- from the subscriber téléphone No. 609138 already referred.
17. In the instant case the department has not examined the subscriber nor his wife and that is really fatal to the department.
18. The learned counsel appearing for the management vehemently argued that in the instant case the first party workman has given statement before MW3, the then Vigilance Officer and therein ail the allégations made by the management are admitted by the workman and Ex.M-10 is signed by the workman.
19. It is not easy to swallow the arguments of the learned counsel for the management as it is. We will hâve 529 GI/2002—17
to strictly scrutinize Ex.M-10 and its effect. After ail Ex. M-10 is so called a statement of the first party workman recorded by the Vigilance Officer during the investigation. Questions and Answers are in English. It is categorically alleged by the workman that he is illiterate. Firstly the investigation conducted to prove that the workman has taken bribe of Rs.300/- is not proper and ail the investigations alleged to hâve been done by the department is without any notice and proper procédure against the workman. It is well settled principle of law that to hold a person as guilty of the allégation, he has to be heard and an opportunity has to be given to say about the allégation.
20. I hâve already stated that in the instant case subscriber himself is not examined. His wife is also not evidenced. Therefore the évidence of MW1 will not help the Second Party.
21. We hâve the évidence of MW2. He is also a Retired Officer of the department. He says that he does not know the first party workman now referred to him. He is aware that the workman was working with the department and he further says that he was working as Divisional Engineer (Téléphones). He is not aware of any investigation made by the department against the first party. Ex.M-18 is the letter written by him. On plain reading of the évidence of MW1 it is abundantly clear that he does not know anything about the incident and the investigation done by the department against the first party workman. According to him he is a Divisional Engineer and a responsible officer. With this évidence of M W2 again the case of the department cannot be believed as it is.
22. MW3 is a Retired Officer who was working as Vigilance Officer in the department. According to him one Shantharaju gave a complaint on the first party. It is former alleged by the management that Nagendrappa, the first party workman posed himself as Suresh. Ail that is not properly proved by the management. MW3 speaks about the complaint of Rs.300/- bribe taken by the workman. He speaks of the investigation done by him. During the course of cross examination MW3 says that he has not taken the statement of Smt. Shantha Raju on 4.10.1983. He says that the complaints were given by Shantharaju and Mrs. Shantharaju in writing . I hâve already said that the reasons for not examining Shri Shantharaju and his wife is not given by the management. The évidence of MW1 to MW3 is not sufficient to prove that the first party workman has taken bribe of Rs.300/- and the management is not justified in removing the name of the workman from muster roll only on that basis that too without the compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act.
23. We hâve the évidence of the workman as WW1. He says that he continuously worked from 7 years. He narrâtes the incident of his going to Subscribers Téléphone No. 609138 and gave connection. He says that he was refused job without any enquiry or notice. He was only informed about the complaint against him. He says that his signature was taken on paper without explaining anything. The first party workman has also stated that false allégations are made against him and he has not taken bribe of Rs.300/- from the subscriber.
24. In my opinion this statement of the workman in the given circumstances seems to be natural than the évidence of MW1 to MW3.
2254 IHE < i.AZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ANNEXURE
25. One more important thing is that in the instant case the department lias not seriously said either in the Counter oc in the évidence that the workman has not wotked continuously from 1977 1o 1983. In other words the workman has proved that he has continuously worked wit'.out any break for a long period and this is not denied by the Second Party.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
RUDRESH KUMAR
26. If once it is held that the workman has worked continuously from 1977 to 1983 without any break, naturalK the manage nient before refusing the work has to give him notice and rold an ci quiry and comply the provisions of Sec, 2.5F ni'the industrie! Disputes Act. In the absence of Ihis the action of the management is not justified and correct.
27. There are some documents to show that continuously the workman approached the department but no work was given to him . In tin.' given circumstances I an: of the opinion that the action of the management is not pn portionate and too harsh and accordinglv 1 proceed to pass the following order:
Presiding Offtcer
I.D.NO.28/2001
L-41012/234/2000/IR(B-I) dated 8-2-2001
Between
Sri Dina Nath Tiwari, Divisional Organization Secretary Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, 1 i 9/74 Naseemabad. Kanpur AND
The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Alahabad
AWARD
ORDER
The référence is parti}1 allowed. The department is direcled to take the first party ibr v'ork as Casual Labourer and he tan also be consider for regularization if he fulfils ail the necessary conditions. No other benetits are awarded.
(Dictated to PA transcriled by lier corrected and signed by me on 29!h January 2002.)
V N. KULKARM, PresidingOfficer Nev Delhi. Un- hih i-ebaiary. 2002
S.O. 700.— !n |r,ii-.u.incc of Section 17 of ihc By order No. L-41012/234/2000/IRfB-I) dated 8-2-2001, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and section 2(A) of I.D. Act,1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Dina Nath Tiwari, Divisional Organization Secretary, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, Kanpur espousing cause of Lakshrniram and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad for adjudication.
The référence under adjudication is as under;
"Whcther the action of the Management of Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad Regarding punishrnent of Shri Lakshmiram, Electric Driver (Goods) vide order dated 26-9-1995 is légal and justified ? If not. what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. It isadmitted case that the workman, Lakshmiram, Electric Driver (Goods) Northern Railway, while driving Electrical Engine No.2370I/LE sitting in wrong cab and over shooting shunting signal No.i5 in "ON' position at Panki causecf derailment at TRAP No. L 61 E at 21.35 hours on 9-9-94. A joint enquiry was held to détermine cause of derailment by senior officiais who drew conclusion as follow :
"Be undersigned after going through the statement of staff concerned, records of ASM and East cabin and the observations ot the site came to the conclusion that Porter Sri Dharam Prakash H.Q., PNK. with Sri Lakshmiram H.Q. CNB did not ensure tlie lowering of shunt signal no.35 resulted in derailment of engine No.23701 on open TrapNo.61 L 60 E hence Porter and Driver both are responsible for above derailment."
2255enquiry was initiated. He was îssued a charge sheet for major penalty on the prescribed Form S.F,-5, which mentioned two distinct failures on his part causing derailment; (i) that while driving engine he did not follow Safety Rules and ignored lower signal No.35 and over shot the same; and (ii) that at the time of driving he was sitting in the wrong cabin facing Delhi while the engine was being driven towards Howrah end. This charge sheet mentioned list of documents and witnesses to be relied during the proposed enquiry. It is not denied that the domestic enquiry was held and the workman alongwith his defence représentative participated in the enquiry and cross examined the witnesses.
5. Management fïled photocopies of the enquiry proceeding file. The workman has admitted genuineness of the documents and so there is no controversy over the facts of the case and available documentary évidence. It is also admitted that enquiry report went against the workman and agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted punishment by withholding annual incréments permanently for a period of four years effective from 1.3.96. His appeal against the punishment was also rejected. Presently. this punishment has been impunged in the présent industrial dispute, which on référence is under adjudication before this Tribunal.
6. Two preliminary issues, as follow, Were framed byorderdated 4.12.2001:
(i) whetherthe domestic enquiry was fair and proper? and (ii) whether findings recorded by the enquiry officer is perverse ?
7. Both the parties were heard on preliminary issues to judge fairness ofthe domestic enquiry andjustness of conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer.
8. The derailment of Engine No.23701 is admitted by the parties. It is also admitted that Dharam Prakash. Porter delivered OPT-79 to the Driver. The said derailment had taken place at 21.35 hours. OPT-79 is "said to hâve been delivered at 21.30 hours and the workman started moving at 21.32 hours.
9. The main submission ofthe A/R ofthe workman, is, that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper due to déniai of proper opportunity to the workman's représentative to cross examine the witnesses effectively and further, to file reply ofthe charge sheet in appropriate manner. It is submitted that the workman claimed photo copies ofthe relevant documents which were to be relied but copies was denied to him.
10. The management réfutes this submission by stating that ail the relevant documents were made available to the workman before or during the enquiry and he cross examined ail the witnesses with the help of defence représentative. The perusal ofthe enquiry records would demonstrate that the cross examination was very thorough and nothing is on record to indicate that the workman was prejudiced due to non availability of some records in time. It is submitted that this plea was coined in this tribunal to suit convenience ofthe workman.
11. The derailment of engine at about 21.35 hours on 9.9.94 is not disputed. It is admitted that at the said time, Dharam Prakash, Porter was deputedto deliver OPT- 79 to the Driver and he delivered the same to him at 21.30 hours. The workman cross examined ail the witesses supporting derailment theory due to non observance of Rules and driving engine sitting in the wrong cabin. Ail the witnesses were cross examined in détail and also the workman was given opportunity to explain his defence and to adduce évidence. There is nothing c i redora tu indicate that the workman was denied proper opportuni'y to cross examine the witnesses or to explain circumstances leading to derai Iment. It does not appear that the workman was prejudiced in any manner, as is évident irom the records. The workman has admitted to hâve made confession before the Sr.DEE/RSO, Ailahabad that engine was being given by from wrong cabin, being it was light engine and the traffic OPT-79 for this loco to rno'e trom line no.4 to go on line no. 11 at the earliest so that 5207 DN which was reportedly arriving should not suffer détention. This admission is noted in mercy appeal ofthe workman dattJ 29.1.1997 addressed to the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ailahabad. It Is notable that the workman did not plead at any point of time that he was denied records or not given opportunity to inspect papers before cross examinaiion or he was prejudiced by not being able to cross examine the witnesses effectively. To the contrary his own admission is to be in the wrong cabin at the time of driving leading to derailment. Thus, plea of the workman that the domestic enquiry denied him opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, is more fanciful than real. The enquiry was fair and proper and is notdefective.
12. Corning to the alleged perversity ofthe findings, it must be boni in mind that the workman was sitting in the cabin facing Delhi side while the engine was being driven towards Hawarh side. Being so positioned, he was not in position to hâve a glance over the signal and because of this lapse engine over shot the signal and derailed. The porter, admittedly shouted but the workman could not hear. This findings is corroborated by circumstantial évidence. OPT-79 was rcceived at 21.30 hours. The workman inoved engine 21.32 hours after receiving OPT-79. He was in the cabin facing Delhi side when received OPT-79. Had he changed the cabin, he must hâve taken about 10 minutes to change cabin by making the switches off and covering distance between two cabins, in this way, he could not hâve started engine at 21.32 hours. This circumstance belies case ofthe workman that he was in the cabin facing Howarah side at 21.35 hours when derailment occurred. This fact is also admitted before the DEE as mentioned in the appeal dated 29.1.1997. Thus, it is clear that the enquiry officer recorded his findings on the basis of available évidence after due évaluations of the facts and circumstances causing derailment. T\ e findings are not perverse.
13. It has been held earlter that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and further the findings do not suffer with vice of perversity. The workman was punished by stoppage of four future incréments. This punishment was inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority on appréciation of facts and circumstances of the case. This court is not inclined to interfère with the punishment.
14. Accordingly, the award is that the action ofthe management in punishment of Sri Lakshmiram, Driver(Goods) was fully justified and légal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Lucknow, 1.2.2002
RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer2256 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] „ 3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that
no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of Ihe award be sent to the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002
New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002 S.O. 707.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No. C GI T/LC(R)303/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court 1230, Wright Town, Jabalpur (M. P.) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disput between the employers in relation to the management oi South Eastern Railway, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
[No. L-41012/100/99-IR(B.I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
S.Ok 708.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No. CGIT/ LC(R)191/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court 1230, Wright Town, Jabalpur (MP) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Eastern Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05-2-2002.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL GUM-LABOUR COURT,
[No. L-41012/88/96-IR (B.I)] 1230 WRIGHT TOWN. JABALPUR (MP).
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer.
PRESIDING OFFICER : K.M. RAI
ANNEXURE
CASENO. CGIT/L.C.(R)(303)OF 1999
Rabi Banerjee Workman
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENI INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, 1230, WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
Vs.
PRESIDING OFFICER: K.M. RAI South Eastern Railway Management Bilaspur.
CASENO. CGIT/L.C/(RL)(191)OF 1997
Shri Gendlal & 7 others ... Workmen AWARD
Vs.
(Passed on 22nd day of January, 2002)
D.R.M, South Eastern Railway,...Management Bilaspur(C.G.)
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 41012/100/99/IR(B-I) dtd. 23.9.1999 for adjudication as under:
(Passed on 22nd day of January, 2002) "Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager. S.E. Railway, Bilaspur in transferring Shri Rabi Banerjee to Rupond is malafied and against the standing rules of the Railway ? If so to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 41012/88/96/IR(B) dtd. 16.7.1997 for adjudicalion as under:
"Whether the demand of South Eastern Railway Men's Union. Br. Bilaspur for regularization of service of S/ Shri Gend Lai, Ajit Kumar Bhemia, Ashok Kumar Deb, Awadhesh Kumar Kashyap, Kusum Balli Ram, Ashok Despenday, Jirakhan and Anil Srivas, employées under 2. The workman remained absent inspite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him daim as referred by the Government of India. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
2257AWARD
Dy. CSTE (Con.) S.E. Railway, Bilaspur in their existing grade & scale by the management ofS.E. Railway, Bilaspur is justified ? If so to whàt relief the workers are entitled to & from which date."
2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not jnterested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Government of India. Hence. no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour. Government of India as per rules.
K.M.RAI, Presiding officer New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002
S.O. 709.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No. CGIT/ LC(R)310/99) of "the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court 1230, Wright Town. Jabalpur (MP) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Eastern Railway. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-2^2002.
[No. L-41011/4/99-IR(B.I)]
AJAY KUM AR, Desk Officer (Passed on 22nd day of January 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L. - 41011/4/99/IR(B-I) dtd. 4.10.1999 for adjudication as under:
" Whether the demand of S.E. Railway Men's Union for absorption of S/Shri Ashish Chakravarty, Dhanshyam Sahu, Bankesh Tiwari and Babu Rao employées of S.E. Railway Consumer Co-operalive Society, Charoda as class IV employées in S.E. Railway on completion of 3 years of service with ttie sociery is justified ? If so, to what relief they are entitled ?"
2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Governnient of India, Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 7th February, 2002
ANNEXURE
S.O. 710.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. I.D. No. 36/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute befween the employées in relation to the management of Catholic Syrin Bank Ltd., and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06-2-2002.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
[No. L-12012/189/94-IR (B.I.)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOURCOURT, 1230, WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR(MP).
ANNEXURE
PRESIDING OFFICER: K M, RAI
CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(310) OF 1999
Shri Ashish Chakravarty ... Workman
Vs.
The Divisional Railway Management South Eastern Railway. Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) EVTHE CENTRALGOVERNMENT LABOURCOURTERNAKULAM (Labour Courts Ernakulam)
(Thursday, the 29th day of November, 2001) PRESENT:
Smt. N. ThulasiBai, B.A.. LL.B., Presiding Officer2258 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Industrial Dispute No. 36 of 1995 (C)
BETWEEN
The Chairman, M/s. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Head Office, St. Mary's Collège Road, Trichur-680020.
AND
The General Secretaiy, Catholic Syrian Bank Staff Association, 47, Unity Building, Mannadiar Lane, P.B. No. 114, Trichur-680 001.
Représentations:
Sri. N. Venugopalan, Advocate, Thrissur-1.
... For Management Sri. C. Anil Kumar, Advocate, Kochi-17.
... For Union
AWÂRD
This référence was made by the Central Government- as per order No. L-12012/189/94-RBI dated 30-11-95. The dispute is between the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited and its workman Sri. Lazar Joseph represented by the General Secretary, Catholic Syrian Bank, Staff Association, Trichur. The dispute referred is:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. is justified in deducting spécial (Stenographer's) allowance in respect of Sri. Lazar Joseph C. for five days in November, 1993 when he took privilège leave. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. In response to notices issued from this court, union representing the workman and the management appeared through their respective counsel. Union filed a claim statement stating as follows:—Sri. Lazar Joseph employed as a Typist-cum-Clerk in the Catholic Syrian Bank had been assigned the spécial duty of stenographer from 1 -5- 1998 onwards. Since the above date the assignment had been treated as a permanent one and he was given Stenographer's allowance. He was given the allowance during his leave period and without interruption and on a permanent basis thereby it has become part of his service conditions. But in November 1993 the management without any notice deducted a sum of Rs. 98.48 from his salary being the Stenographer's allowance during leave period of 5 days in May 1993 and 5 days in June 1993. The above curtailment of his spécial allowance from the salary of the employée is an illégal infringement of his service condition and hence not sustainable. Though représentation was made through letter dated 20-12-1993, there was no response. So the union prays for passing an award declaring the action of the management as unjustifiable and to disburse the deducted amount to the employée.
3. Management filed a written statement raising the following contentions:—It is true that Lazar Joseph was employed as a Typist-Clerk in the Bank. He was required to do duty of a Stenographer from 1-5-1988. As per letter dated 4-5-1988 he was allowed stenographer's allowance w.e.f. 1 -5-1988 on a temporary basis for the period during which he was required to perform the duty of a stenographer. It was informed that the spécial allowance could be discontinued whenever he has relieved of the duty of a stenographer. Thus it is clear that the spécial allowance allowed to the employée was on a temporary basis thereby it will not form part of the service conditions. It is true that spécial allowance of 10 days was deducted from the salary of Sri. Lazar Joseph for his leave during May and June 1993. It was done as per the provisions of the Bipartite Seulement. As the spécial allowance allowed to the employée in the présent case was on a temporary basis he is not entitled to get the same during leave period. So the management prays for dismissing the claims raised by the union.
4. Union filed a rejoinder traversing the contentions raised in the written statement and reiterating the averments in the claim statement.
5. Evidence adduced from both sides which consists of the testimony of the workman as WW1 and one management witness as MW1 and Exts. Wl to W8.
6. Thus the points arise for détermination are:
(1) Whether déduction of spécial allowance due to the workman during his privilège leave period is justifiable?
(2) The reliefs to which the workman is entitled to?
7. Points : It is not disputed that the employée Sri. Lazar Joseph who was employed as a Typist-Clerk in the Catholic Syrian Bank had been assigned the spécial duty of Stenographer w.e.f. 1-5-1988. It is also not disputed that he was given Stenographer's allowance w.e.f. the above date as per order dated 4-5^1988. It is admitted by the management that the employée was given spécial allowance during privilège leave also up to November 1993. It is not disputed that the employée availed privilège leave for 5 days in May 1993 and another 5 days in June 1993 for which also no portion of spécial allowance was deducted from his salary till November 1993. But when salary was paid in November 1993, 10 days spécial allowance was deducted considering the privilège leave of 5 days each in May and June 1993. Accotding to the Union representing the workman since the spécial allowance was a permanent one it cannot be deducted for the period of leave. But according to the management since the spécial allowance granted to the employée was a temporary one he is not entitled to get the same during the period of leave and payments made earlier for the leave period was a mistake and it will not confer a right to the employée to get the same.
8. Ext. Wl is the copy of order by which Sri. Lazar Joseph was given Stenographer's spécial allowance with effect from 1-5-1988. It is stated in Ext. Wl that the payment of Stenographer's spécial allowance is purely on temporary basis for the period during which the employée is required to perform Stenographers' duty and whenever he is relieved from the duty of Stenographer payment of spécial allowance will be discontinued forthwith. Thus it is évidence from the above order that so far as the employée is required to perform stenographer's duty and till he is relieved from the duty of stenographer payment of spécial allowance will be continued. Thus though it is paid on a temporary basis it is permanent so far as the employée is performing the duty of a stenographer. The management has no case that the employée was relieved from the duty2259 of a stenographer till date. More over as the sanctioning of Stenographer's allowance was as per a written order no déduction from the allowance can be made without a written notice. Exts. W2 to W8 show that the employée was paid full spécial allowance irrespective of availing any sort of leave during the earlier periods and it is not disputed also. The union and the management relies on the Bipartite Settlement for claiming and refusing the portion of spécial allowance during leave period. The management had produced photo copy of pages 20 and 21 of the Bipartite Settlement. As per Clause 5.9 of the above settlement a workman will be entitled to a spécial allowance only so long as he is in charge of such work or the performance of such duties which attract such allowance. As per clause 5.10 the spécial allowance would continue to be drawn by a permanent incumbent while on leave. According to the management's counsel since the employée is not a permanent stenographer he is not entitled to get the spécial allowance attributed to the post during leave period. It is further stated in Clause 5.10 that a workman who is asked to work temporarily in a post carrying a spécial allowance would be entitled to such a spécial allowance pro-rata for such period during which he occupies that post. As referred earlier the management has no case that though the employée was posted to do the duty of stenographer on a temporary basis he was ever relieved from such duty prior to the period of availing leave by the employée. So from the earlier conduct of the management and from the documents produced from the workman's side and considering the relevant provision of the Bipartite Settlement relied on by the management also it can be clearly found that Sri. Lazar Joseph the employée involved in the présent case who was working in the post of Stenographer even at the time of his availing leave is entitled to get spécial allowance for the leave period also. Thus the action of the management in deducting spécial allowance in respect of Sri. Lazar Joseph for 10 days of leave during May and June 1993 when he took privilège leave is not justifiable and the workman is entitled to get the withheld spécial allowance. Points are answered accordingly.
In the resuit, an award is passed finding tnat the action of the management of M/s. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., in deducting spécial allowance in respect of Sri. Lazar Joseph during the period of privilège leave for 5 days each in May and June 1993 is not justifiable and the workman is entitled to get the withheld spécial allowance. The management is directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of publication of the award in officiai gazette, failing which the workman is entitled to realise the amount with 12% interest from the date of award to the date of réalisation.
Dictated to the Confidentîal Assistant, transcribed and typed out by her, corrected by me and passed by this the 2"9th day of November, 2001.
Erankulam. N. THULAS1 BAI, Presiding Officer.
Appendix
Witness examined on the side of Management:
MW1. Sri. M. Vesudeavan.
Witness examined on the side of Union:
WW1. Sri. Lazar Joseph. Exhibits marked on the side of Union:
Ext. Wl. Copy of letter dated 4-5-88 of the Management granting Spécial allowance to the workman.
Ext. W2. Order dated 13-3-91 granting privilège leave to Sri. Lazar Joseph from 4-3-91 to 8-3-91.
Ext. W3. Order dated 29-3-91 granting privilège leave to Sri. Lazar Joseph.
Ext.W4. Pay slip of Sri. Lazar Joseph for the month of Mardi 91.
Ext. W5 . Pay slip of Sri. Lazar Joseph for the month of April91.
Ext. W6. Order dated 14-3-92 granting privilège leave to the workman from 10-3-92—11-3-92.
Ext. W7. Pay slip of Sri Lazar Joseph for the month of Mardi, 1992.
Ext. W8. Pay slip of Sri Lazar Joseph for the month of Aoril. 1992.
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002 S.O. 711.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 158/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-02-2002.
[No. L-40012/65/99-IR (DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 3 lth December, 2001
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 158/2001
(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 153 /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.Raju and the management of Telecom Department.)2260 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] BETWEEN
Sri G .Raju :
I Party/ Workman
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri G.Raju as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
AND
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:—
1. The Chief General Manager, : II Party/Management Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.
2. The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt; Chennai.
3. The Divisional Engineer(Admn), O/o. General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt; Chennai.
4. The Sub Divisional Engineer(Groups) Télécommunications, Kancheepuram.
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s.M.Gnanasekar,
C.Premavathi & G.Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R.Kanniappan, Addl.
CGSC
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L-40012/65/99/ IR(DU)dated 30.07.1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 153/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 158/2001 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 02.02.2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing
The I Party/Workman Shri G.Raju (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01.10.1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily irated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1266 days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25.06.1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence. the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following:—
AWARD
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 01.10.1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1266 days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25.06.1995. It is further alleged The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:—
2261the side of the Management the Xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II Party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri G. Raju as Casual Mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
Point :—
that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1994-1995 less than 240 days. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointaient, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are : —
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient 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 départaient. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the Icnrncd counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 c;isc-> which arc similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witaesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of theii* respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their-consideration to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witaesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as coramon évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Kannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a comon witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the Xerox copy of the Service Certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On
529 GI/2002—182262 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Clairn Siatements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail taise certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Clairn Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the coinmon witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industi ial Dispuies Act, 1947 isab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of M W1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. "I he learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondenl'Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and Ihey were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent'Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service
certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW 1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who bave been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of M W1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year, It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work. thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite2263
II Party/Management
M. W. 1 Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
— Service Certificates issued to
Wl Séries (7)
Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
II Partv/Management
Ml
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
New Delhi, the 4th Feburary, 2002 évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the départaient has found that the partjculars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the départaient. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Pepartment as a record for their service in the départaient, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given jndependent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of • Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
S.O. 712.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 159/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt., and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-02-2002.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
[No. L-40012/66/99-IR (DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31 st December, 2001.) .
ANNEXURE
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI \ Party/Workman
Monday, the 31th December, 2001 W.W.I Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/
2001)
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
W.W.2 Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001)
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 159/2001 [TamilNadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No. 154/99 ) W.W.3 Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in l'.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
[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. Anandan and the management of Telecom Department.]
W.W.5 Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam]2264 . THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA tl, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] BETWEEN
AWARD
Sri M. Anandan : I Party/Workman
AND
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
1. The Chief General Manager, : II Party/Management Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri M. Anandan as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
2. The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt. Chennai.
3. The Divisional Engineer (Admn.), O/o. General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt, Chennai.
4. The Sub- Divisional Engineer, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram.
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s.M. Gnanasekar, C.
Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan, Addl.
CGSC
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 Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 40012/66/99/ IR(DU)dated 30-07-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 154/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 159/2001 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 02-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments fîled by the leamed counsel for the 1 Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the tearned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
The I Party/Workman Shri Anandan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-12-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1326 days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting- Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terrninating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary.
2265Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Teleconi Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petjtioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 01-12-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1326 days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-06-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis fpr the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1994-1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner wheji there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that trje Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are : —
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged prior to 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuou,s 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along witl] the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner jn I.D. No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/ 2001, Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 18.4/2001 and S/Sri M. Karnnappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certifïcates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certifïcates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is -
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri M. Anandan as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectfvely. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certifïcates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certifïcates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certifïcates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certifïcates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their-consideration to2266 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. lt is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Responderit/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in theirClaim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were
terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Responderit/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Managenjient MW 1, no suggestion is put to him aboui the worlt of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners • who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were2267 available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchtnent from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. 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 (Common
I Party/Workman
W.W.l Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/
2001)
W.W.2 Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001)
W.W.3 Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam)]
II Party/Management
M. W. 1 Sh. P. Chandrasekar [(DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V. Santhanam
*
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
Ml
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850 attended were complétée! and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly'proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like openingnew téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MWI that on checkingthe service particulars given by the Petitioners. the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as cqmmon witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the .production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the
M2
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/82268 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002
S.O. 713.—In pursuanceof Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 160/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Telecom Deptt., and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/67/99-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2001
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 160/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.155 /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 Itldustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri N. Chiralan and the management of Telecom Department.]
BETWEEN
Sri N. Chiralan
I Party/Workman
AND
1. The Chief General Manager, : II Party/Management Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.
2. The General Manager,
Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt., Chennai.
3. The Divisional Engineer(Admn.),
O/o. General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt., Chennai.
4. The Sub Divisional Engineer(Groups)
Télécommunications, Kancheepuram.
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s.M.Gnanasekar,
C.Premavathi & G.Manjula, Advocates Fôr the Management : Sri R.Kanniappan, Addl.
CGSC
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers cpnferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 40012/67/99/ IR(DU)dated 30.7.1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 155/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 160/2001 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 5.2.2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case rurther.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned couhsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following: -
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:-
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri N. Chiralan as casual tnazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?" •
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:-
The I Party/Workman Shri N. Chiralan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 22.02.1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1262 days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mûzdoors working in the départaient for a long2269 2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 15.06.1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of tempojary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of naturel justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Graup D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4, When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Karmappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the 1 Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is -
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri N. Chiralan as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?"
Point :-
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 22.02.1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1262 days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 15.06.1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1994-1995 foraperiod less than 240 days. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are : -
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been priorto 31.3.1985;
529 GI/2002—192270 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : M ARC H 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—Stc. 3(ii)] conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/. Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in theit respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioningtheir service particuiars. The common daim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the terrnination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW 1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross exammation of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particuiars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for then-consideration to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the narne of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements lhat they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examimation, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously 1 ill 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/
Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent/Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contenlion that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particuiars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By suffïcient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and M Wl it has been established that the particuiars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW 1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 thgit the particuiars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them.
2271issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31 st December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.I Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/
2001)
W.W.2 Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001)
W.W.3 Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam)]
II Party/Management
M. W. 1 Sh. P. Chandrasekar [(DE (Lcal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
- Service Certificates issued to
Wl Séries (7)
Sh. V. Santhanam
- Service Certificates issued to
W2 Séries (3)
Sh. S. Arputharaj
- Service Certificates issued to
W3 Séries (8)
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
Ml
— Xerox copyofM.R. No. 19/05850 From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the defïnite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really
— Xerox copyofM.R. No. 06216/8
M22272 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 4. The Sub Divisional Engineer (Construction)
Télécommunications, Sriperumbudur.
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s. M.Gnanasekar,
C.Prernavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan Addl.
CGSC
New Delhi, the 4th February, 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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide OrderNo.L- 40012/69/99/ IR(DU)dated 30.07.1999.
S.O. 714.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Gov- ernment hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 161/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt., and their workman, which vvas received by the Central Government on 04-02-2002.
[No. L-40012/69/99-IR (DU)]
KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 157/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 161/2001 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 5.2.2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 31 st December, 2001
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 161/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.157 /99 )
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, wiritten arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
(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. Vijayaraghavan and the management of Telecom Department.)
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
BETWEEN
Sri M. Vijayaraghavan I Party/Workman
AND
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminatingthe services of Sri M. Vijayaraghavan as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
1. The Chief General Manager. : II Party/Management
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the 1 Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.
2. The General Manager,
Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist, Chennai.
3. The Divisional Engineer (Admn.),
The I Party/Workman Shri M. Vijayaraghavan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 1.12.1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1148 days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication O/o. General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist, Chennai.
22731. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date ofthe implementation of Scheme i.e. 1.10.89;
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service in any one ofthe 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient did not consjder the claim ofthe Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted false service particulars, with a view to getting employment and other benefits from the départaient. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
in order to absorb the casual mazdoors wqrking in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25.6.1995 and, when hi$ services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terrninating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initip void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the abovç relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side ofthe I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmefl like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side pf the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Karmappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side ofthe Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II Party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the action ofthe management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri M. Vijayaraghavan as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
Point :—
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 1.12.1984 and his contention about continuqus working with the Responde.nt/Department for a period of 1148 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25.6.1995. Il is further alleged that the Petitioner was engagisd purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.g, to çarry ont digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other cftsual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1995 for a period of 228 days. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Sinc$ therg was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme ealled 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casuaj Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the requesj ofthe learned counsel on either side, a joint2274 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II-—SEC. 3(ii)] was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availabiliry of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has lerminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW 1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners lo speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal ând they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their-consideration to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the departmerit near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to W W3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he2275 concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse thins in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certiftcates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Partv/Workman
Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certifîcates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certifîcates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certifîcates. If really, the particulars given in the service certifîcates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent /Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1-995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1
W.W.I Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/
2001)
W.W.2 Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001)
W.W.3 Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam]
II Party/Management
M.W.l Sh. P. Chandrasekar [(DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Partv/Workman
Wl Séries (7) — Service Certifîcates issued to
Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certifîcates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) — Service Certifîcates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
Ml
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850 ,that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certifîcates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certifîcates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certifîcates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certifîcates. No date of issue of those service certifîcates is available in the service certifîcates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certifîcates by the
M2
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/82276 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002
S.O. 715.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 87/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CSD Canteen Shatrujit, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-02-2002.
[No. L-14012/19/97-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI R.P. PANDEY PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 87 OF 1998 IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN Sri Ram Singh S/o Sri Janger Singh Village Nagla Birhara P.O. Dholna District Etah Uttar Pradesh
AND
The Canteen Officer Shatrujit Canteen 9, Shivaji Road, Agra Cantt, Agra.
AWARD
1 Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, vide its notification No. L-14012/19/97-IR (DU) dated 17-4-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal—
Whether-the action of the management of CSD Canteen Shatrujit Agra Cantt. to terminate the service of Sh. Ram Singh, Accounts Clerk is légal and justified? If not he is entitled to what relief?
2. The concerned workman has filed statement of claim with the allégations that he was continuously working on the post of Accounts clerk with effect from 2-12-88 urider the management. He was lastly paid Rs. 1900/- as monthly wages besides encashment of leave and other benefits. It has been further alleged that with a view to deprive him from attaining the status of regular and permanent employée, the management vide order dated 13-7-76 terminated his services with effect from 15- 7-76. It has been alleged that the management with a view to avoid légal obligations has artificially terminated the services of the workman and has engaged new hands Such as Rajesh thereafter H.S. Negi on the post of Accounts clerk knowihg the fact that the work was still there. It has been further alleged by the concerned workman that at the time of termination of his service he was neither given any notice nor notice pay nor retrenchment compensation and thereby the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the basis of thèse allégations the concerned workman has prayed that the action of the management in terminating his service be declared illégal and unjustified and he be reinstated in service with ftill back wages and ail consequential benefits.
3. The management has filed written statement with the allégations that the concerned workman was not appointed as regular and permanent employée. The appointaient of the concerned workman was purely on adhoc basis for a period of two years, which was extendable by a period of one year or more. The concerned workman was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 1600/- per month alongwith other benefits as mentioned in the Standing Operating Proceedings. It has been alleged that the concerned Wofkman was paid cash incentive on receipts of quantitative discount équivalent to one months pay and allowance and no bouns was ever paid to him. The services of the concerned workman were not extended beyond two years but he continued in the employment., Thus his continuation in the employmept during the extended period Was absolutely adhoc in nature. The concerned workman vide letter dated 13-7-96 was informed that his services are being terminated with effect from 15-7-96. The management has denied the allégations of ulterior motives to deprive the concerned workman of the service benefits of a regular and permanent employée. It has been alleged that the concerned workman was allowed to continue in service up till 11-96, thereafter the concerned workman left the service without any information. It has been denied by the management that it has violated the provisions of section 25F Of the Act on the ground that the services of the concerned workman stood determined on expiry of two years from the date of his appointaient unless the same were formally extended each year, hence question of retrenchment does not arise. The concerned workman is not entitled to continue against any regular or permanent post. On the basis of thèse allégations it has been prayed by the management that the claim of the concerned workman be rejected.
4. The concerned workman has filed rejoinder in which he has reiterated the facts alleged by him in the claim statement.
5. The concerned workman filed affidavit and examined himself as W.W. 1 and filed a few documents in support of his case.
6. As the management stopped appearing in the case after 25-7-2000,- the case proceeded exparte against the management.
2277which was received by the Central Government on 04-02-2002.
[No. L-40012/64/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 31th December, 2001
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN,
Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 157/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.152 /99 ) 7. I hâve heard the authorised représentative for the concernée workman and hâve gone through the record of the case. The concerned workman has proved his case by filing évidence QJJ affidavit. From his évidence as well as from the admission of the management in their written statement it has been proved that the concerned workman continuously worked under the management more than 240 days preceding the date of termination of his service. It has also been admitted by the management that at the time of termination of the service of the concerned workman no notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to him. In this way according to the own admission on the part of the management it is established that the provisions of section 25F of the Act hâve been breached. As none appeared from the side of the management to rebut the évidence adduced by the concerned workman I hâve no hésitation in holding that the termination of the service of the concerned workman with effect from 15-7-96 is bad in law being in violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Act and is liable to be set aside.
(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 V. Santhanam and the management of Telecom Department.)
BETWEEN
Sri V. Santhanam I Party/Workman 8. The workman has also proved the fact that after his termination the management has engaged another person by the name.of Rajesh and H.S. Negi. Thus from the un-rebutted évidence of the concerned workman it is also proved that the management has also breached the provisions of section 25H of the Act.
AND
1. The Chief General Manager, : II Party/Management
Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.
2. The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist, Chennai.
3. The Divisional Engineer(Admn),
9. In view of above considérations the action of the management in terminating the service of the concerned workman with effect from 15-7-96 is held as illégal and void and the concerned workman is held entitled for reinstatement in the service with full back wages and ail consequential benefits. Accordingly the management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman in service and to pay him arrears of back wages within a period of one montn from the date of publication of the award in the officiai gazette.
10. Référence is answered accordingly.
O/o. General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt, Chennai.
R.P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer
4. The Sub Divisional Engineer(Groups)
Télécommunications, Kancheepuram.
Appearance:
For the Workman :
M/s.M.Gnanasekar, C.Premavathi & G.Manjula, Advocates
For the Management :
Sri R.Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC New Delhi, the 4th February, 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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide OrderNo.L- 40012/64/99/ IR(DU)dated 30.07.1999.
S.O. 716.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 157/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt, and their workman,
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 152/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this 529 GI/2002—202278 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 157/2001 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 02-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Coitnter Statement, additiona! counter statement. the other material papers on record, the oial and uccumentary évidence let in on either side. written arguments flîed by the learned counsel for the 1 Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal lias passed the following :—
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt for adjudication bv "his Tribunal is as follows:--
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri V. Santhanam as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If rot, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industriaJ dispute as pleased by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:—-
The I Party/Workrriian Shri V. Santhanam (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-03-1985 fer digging, drawing wires. laymg posts and for other ail Lu jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages, Though the Petitioner has been contiiuously working with the Respondent, and has put in ' '-da\s of service he had not been regularised. The Depai\;tient of felecommunication in o r d er to a b s o rb t he C J S U < • <: i î , ' . i l ; i a . -d a S c h e me k n o wn as casu.il mazdoors (Grant u\ Tetnpcrary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. I he Respondent Telecom Department failed to confer temper^rv status ori the Petitioner under the Raid Stbcme, whidi is i légal and arbitrary. The I Part} Workman K:s been denied employment w.e.f. 15-06-1995 and, when his services were lerminated he was getting Rs 60,'- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned duthority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he wil) be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was vvaiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding lus ré- engagement. However. he has not i ece ived any orders nor he was taken back to dutv so far. His ,-ervice was utiiiseu for the regular work that ;s pe remua! ;Î nature. Thtrefure. when the work and the nccet>siî> to c t;age ihe Petitioner continuons, there is no reason oi iii.viiication fordcnying the employaient tothe Peîitioner. h'o re.ison was given b_\ Ihe Responduif I cie. uni Department for terminatins.- the :" ! v r,:c , n* H." IVtiii'>'.i., 'i=,• ii'>.' Répondent tailcu 10 i'.'liow ttie pïin1,ipics •_•( naiiira; justice. Ko enquï'} ">\as u o n d u c t e d a r iu \< •. i v i , - ' o , H :t A
|C n n ï g m - r i a nv o p p f - n u r - i îy j i , > t . . :C ; , i- . - . t ri n .. • U L IC c i iv ' . . i i ; n . : - .^ i l i -; P e t i t i o n er h as [Hit m more i!ni i a décade continuons sur. lu and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against reguîar Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Depaitmenf s action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has ftled a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 01-03-1985 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1335 days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 15.06.1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1994-1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Sirce there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointaient, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature andnot perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent'Tdecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. so, die department did not consider the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted false service particu'ars, with a vievv to getting employment and other benefits f-om the department. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the departmert is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petiticner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. Since there is no work and there is no post, there is no scope for the Petitioner for his re-employment in the Respondent/Telecom2279 Department. The Petitioner was engaged on casual basis as and when required by the départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001. Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Karnnappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a comon witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is -
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri V. Santhanam as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
Point :—
respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work, It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that Ihey hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner. he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as hc has stated in his claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab inito void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the allegad termination of service in the year 1995. But . it is the contention of the Respondent,.Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent/Management has terminated them from service. There is no appointaient order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificate of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims bases on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their2280 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondént/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondént/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/ Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been éstablished that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been éstablished on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certifïcate of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondént/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examinatiori of the common witnèss for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since he work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly éstablished by the Respondént/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the
department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondént/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondént/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW 1 that on checkingthe service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished aie not true and they were found to be bogus. AH thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondént/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is éstablished that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW 1 to WW 3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondént/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in2281 his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined (Common)
I PartyAVorkman
W.W.I Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/ 2001)
W.W.2 Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/ 2001)
W.W.3 Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/ 2001)
W.W.4 Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom) W.W.5 Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam)] 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai no.w as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/70/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31 st December, 2001
Présent : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 162/2001 (TamilNadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.158/99)
(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 K.Sugumar and the management of Telecom Department.)
BETWEEN
II Party/M anagement
M. W. 1 Sh. P. Chandrasékar [(DE (Légal & Commercial)] Shri K. Sugumar : I Party/Workman
AND
Documents Marked (Common)
1. The Chief General Manager, : II Party/Management I Party/Workman
— Service Certifîcates issued to Wl Séries (7)
Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certifîcates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) — Service Certifîcates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.
2. The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt., Chennai.
3. The Divisional Engineer (Admn),
O/o. General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt., Chennai.
4. The Sub Divisional Engineer (Construction), Télécommunications, Sriperumbudur.
II Party/Management
Ml
— Xerox copy of MR. No. 19/05850 M2
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8 New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002
S.O. 717.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industgrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 162/ APPEARANCE:
For the Workman
: M/s.M.Gnanasekar, C.Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates For the Management
: Sri R.Kanniappan Addl.
CGSC
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 Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 40012/70/99/ IR (DU) dated 30.07.1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as LD. No. 158/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 162/2001 and notices were sent to the parties on either side, informing them about the transfer of this2282 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 05.02.2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, tbe counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing
Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming tbe above relief.
on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
The Inâustrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri K.Sugumar as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:—
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 01.12.1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1252 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 16.06.1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1994-1995. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'Grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are: —
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged pr' jr
to 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of
the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.1989;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient did not consider the clairn of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted false service particulars, with a view to getting employment and other benefits from the départaient. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
The I Parry/Workman Shri K.Sugumar (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01.12.1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as . directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1252 days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 16.06.1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conféraient of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of naturel justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinuai. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/2283 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D. No. 157/2001, Sri Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No.. 195/ 2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M.Kannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the wofkmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II Party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri K.Sugumar as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workmarf is entitled?"
Point :—
employées of thé Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointaient order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Co"urt individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse daims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioners WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted thafthey hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent2284 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus.
certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given Wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. AH thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it iû seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioneirs and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service doeS not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and Compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it'is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
2285(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witneses Examined (Common)
the management of Employess Provident Fund Organisation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-2-2002.
[No. L-42012/109/2000-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
I PartyAVorkman
W.W.I - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001) W. W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001 ) W. W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/2001 ) W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom) W. W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai (SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam) BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CGIT 55/2000
Référence No. L-42012/109/2000/IR (DU)
Date 26-09-2000 H Party/Management
M. W.I - Sh. P. Chandrasekar (DE (Légal & Commercial)) Documents Marked (Common)
Jitendra Kumar Nirvan S/o Shri Ghasilal, R/o 144, Hathroi Baavri, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
...Applicant
Versus
Régional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Nidhi Bhavan, Jaipur
IParty/Workman
- Service Certmcates issued to Sh. V. Wl Séries (7)
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu
Rajasthan
...Non-Applicant Attendance:—
For the Applicant : Shri Yogesh Sharma, advocate For the Non-Applicant : Shri V.K. Jain,advocate Date of Award : 31-12-2001
AWARD
II Party/Management
MV- Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002 S.O. 718.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industgrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT- 55/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employées in relation to 529 GI/2002—21
The Central Government vide order mentioned above has referrred the following dispute under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) for adjudication.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of the Employées Provident Fund Organisation, Jaipur in terminating the services of Shri Jitendra Kumar Nirvan we.f. 13-8-1999 is légal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" The applicant filed the statement ofxlaim stating that he was appointed in the office of non-applicant on 10/5/93 as a daily wage employée. He worked there from 10/5/93 to 12/8/99 continuously and was paid wages regularly. By oral order dt. 13/8/99 he was denied to work on the above post. He worked for more than 240 days in each year. He raised the dispute in respect of his illégal termination of services before the settlement officer but the dispute was not referred on the ground that he had not worked for 240 days. Thereafter he filed Civil Writ Pétition in the High Court and in compliance of the order of the High Court, the dispute was referred to the Tribunal. It has been alleged that his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G of the Act, 1947 and in violation of rule 77 ofthe Industrial Dispute-(Central) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 1957). It was prayed that termination of his services may be declared illégal and he may be reinstated in service with ail perquisites.
2286 THE GAZETTE OF1NDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3The non-applicant filed the reply to the claim. It was denied that the applicant was appointed on 10/5/93. It was also denied that die applicant had worked in the year 1993, 1994 and 1995. It was stated that the applicant had worked for 23 days in the month of July 1997,20 days in the month of May 1997 and 25 days in the month May 97 and 18 days in the month of June-98 as a casual labour. It was denied that the applicant had worked for 240 days in any calendar year. It was also denied that the applicant was paid in différent names and was denied to work orally on 13/8/99. It was fiirther stated that the establishment of non- applicant doesn't fall in the définition of "industry". It was also denied that the provisions of section 25-F & G of the Act, 1947 were violated.
The applicant filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. It was stated that in the month of August, September and December 1993 payment was rnade in the name of Jagga Kumar Nirman, Jankilal and Jaswant Singh respectively. For the month of February, March & April 1994 he was paid in the name of Jankiram, Jaswant and Bhanwarlal respectively. In the month of January 96 payment was made in Hie name of Gopalsingh and for the month of February he was paid in the name of Dansingh.
On the pleadings of the parties the following points of disputes were framed.
Points of Disputes—
In support of the claim the applicant filed his own affidavit. The opposite party was given opportunity to cross-examine him. On behalf of the non-applicant affidavit of Shri R.G.Meena, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner was filed. The learned counsel of the applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine him on his affidavit. The non-applicant also filed copy of adjustment bill Ex-D-1 to D-18 along with the vouchers.
Heard arguments on behalf of both the parties and perused the record. The points of disputes arc decided as follows:-
Point No. 1 The applicant has stated that he worked in the establishment of non-applicant from 10/5/93 to 12/8/99 continuously on daily wage oasis. His signatures, however, were obtained in muster roll in différent names. He signed the muster roll in his name and name of other persons in the following manner:-
Month/Year
Name
Sr. No.
1
2
3
Own name 1. May-93 to July-93
August-93
Jugga Kumar 2.
Jankilal
3. September-93
4. 1 Oct. & Nov. 93
Joginder Singh 5. December-93
Jaswant Singh 6. January-94
Dansingh 7. February-94
JankiRam 8. March-94
Jaswant Singh 9. April-94
Bhanwarlal 10. May-94
Ramchandra 11. June to August 94
Own name 12. Jan95
Shtamlal 13. Fjebruaryand March 95 Arvind
14. April 95
Surender 15. May-95
Nandram 16.
Madho Singh June-95
17. July to Sept-95
Jaswant Singh 18. October-95
Chothmal 19. November-95
Jasod Singh 20. December-95
Jagat Singh 21. January-96
Gopal Singh 22. February-96
Dansingh 23. March-96
Hiraprasad 24.
Navalkishor April-96
Jamanlal 25. June-96
26.
Own name July & August-96
Jamnaprasad 27. September-96
Jamanlal 28. October-96-~
Jeevan Ram 29. November & December-96
30. 1997-1998-1999
Own name and in the name other persons.
In cross-examination he hais denied the suggestion that he worked from July-96 and not from 10-5-93. He has admitted that in the month of July-96 he worked for 23 days and in the month of May-98 for 25 days. He has stated that he does not remember that he worked for 20 days in the month of May-97. He has denied the suggestion that in the month of June-96 he worked for 18 dàys. He has stated that he cannot say that in which year and in which month and for how many days he worked in this own name and in name of other persons. He has admitted that he did not file any complaint for taking work in other names.
2287Shri R. G. Meena witness for the non-applicant has stated that the applicant was not given any appointment letter on 10-5-93. He did not work ùp to 12-8-99. He worked for only 23 days in the month of May-97, 20 days in the month of May-97,25 days in the month of May-98 and 18 days in the month ofJune-98 as a casual labour rough caretaker. Except for the above period the 'icant did not work. The work was not taken from the v\t in other names. The question for denying the
.icant to work on 13/8/99 doesn't arise.
the month of June 94 in his handwriting. Similarly the non-applicant has filed adjustment bill along with payment vouchers for the month of February, March and April 94 Ex-D-2, D-3 and D-4 respectively. The applicant has stated that for the month of February, March and April 94 he signed the vouchers in the name of Jankilal, Jaswant and Bhanwarlal respectively. The applicant has not identified the signatures on thèse vouchers in his handwriting. Similarly the non-applicant has filed the payment vouchers along with the payment vouchers for the month of January, February and December 95 Ex D- 5, D-6 & D-7 respectively. The applicant has not identified signatures on thèse vouchers in his handwriting. For the month of February 96 the payment voucher along with the adjustment bills Ex D-8 has been filled. Applicant has not identified signatures on the payment vouchers in his handwriting. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the Tribunal may compare the handwriting of the applicant with the signatures on the payment vouchers. When the< applicant himself has not identified the signature on the above vouchers in his handwriting, no such attempt is required to be made. The non-applicant has filed adjustment bill along with the payment vouchers for the month of August, October and November 98 Ex D-l 1, D-12 & D-l3 and for the month of January, April, May, June and July 99 Ex D-l4, D-l5, D-l6, D-l7 & D-l8 respectively. As per the above vouchers no payment was made to the applicant for the above period. The applicant has denied that he worked for 18 days in the month of June 98. The non-applicant has filed the adjustment bill along with the voucher of the above period marked Ex D-10, which shows that he was paid for 18 days only in the month of June 98. The statement of the applicant that he did not work for 18 days in the month of June 98cannot be believed. The applicant himself has stated that he cannot say in which year and in which month and for how many days he worked in his own name and in the name of other persons. It is also not believable that a person may remember that during the last 5 to 8 years in whose name he singed the payment vouchers. The statement of the applicant that he worked in the name of différent person doesn't inspire confidence and is not believable. In thèse circumstances adverse inference for non-production of the record is not required to be drawn against the non-applicant. It is, therefore, not proved that the applicant had worked continuously from 10-8-93 to 12-8-99 in the establishment of the non- applicant.
The learned counsel for the applicant has ontended that by order dated 2-7-01 non-applicant was directed to produce the attendance register of the applicant and payment vouchers of the persons whose names were mentioned in para 3 of the counter reply tothe claim. The non-applicant neither filed attendance register nor ail the payment vouchers and, therefore, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the non-applicant. He has contended that in thèse circumstances the statement of the applicant should be believed that he worked continuously from 10-5-93 to 10-8-99. The learned counsel for the non-applicant on the other hand has contended that in reply to the application filed by the applicant for production of the documents it was stated that muster rolls of the daily wagers were not prepared. The adjustment bills and the payment vouchers which were available had been produced on behalf of the non-applicant. The applicant has not identified the signatures on the payment vouchers in his own handwriting. He has contended that in thèse circumstances adverse inference is not required to be drawn against the non-applicant. It may be stated that in the statement of claim no détails were given in which year and in which month the applicant signed the payment vouchers in his own natne and in the name of other persons. In the counter reply he has stated that for the month of August, September and December 93 he singed the payment vouchers in the name of Juggaram Nirvan, Jankilal and Jaswant Singh respectively. For the month of February, Mardi and April-99 he signed the payment vouchers in the name of Jankiram, Jaswant and Bhanwarlal respectively. In the month of January, February and December-95 he signed the payment vouchers in the name of Shyamlal, Arvind and Jagatsingh respectively. For the month of January and February 96 he signed the payment vouchers in the name of Gopal Singh and Dan Singh respectively. In the affidavit however he has added the names of other persons in Whose names he signed the payment vouchers, the particulars of which hâve already been stated above.
Point No.2: - The applicant has stated that he was denied to work on 13/8/99. The adjustment bills along with the payment vouchers D-15 to D18 for the month of (April 99 to July 99 show that the applicant was ne t in the employment of the non-applicant during the above period. There is no proof that the applicant was in employment in the month of August-99 in the establishment of the non-applicant. Last payment was made to him for the month of June 98, as per the voucher filed with the contingent bill Ex D-10. The question of termination of service of the applicant on 13/8/99 therefore, does not arise. It has been proved that the applicant was not in empioymenr- The addition of the names in the affidavit of the applicant appears to be after thought. Had he signed the payment vouchers in other names in addition to those stated in the counter reply he might hâve mentioned in the counter reply. Moreover no request was made to produce the payment vouchers in the name of other persons after February-96. The non-applicant has filed adjustment bill along with payment vouchers for the month of August 93 Ex D-l. The applicant has stated that he signed the payment voucher in name of Juggakumar. He has not identified the signatures on the payment vouchers for2288 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2,2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Dated 09-08-2000
Shri Nakhat Singh, Through Sh. Kunal Rawat, 35-36 Ranjeet Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ...Applicant
Versus
of the non-applicant during the year 1998 during the month of August, October and November 98 and in the year 99 during the month of January, April, May, June and July. It is, therefore, not proved that the applicant had worked for 240 days during the year preceding to the alleged date of termination i.e. 13-8-99. The violation of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 is, therefore not proved. As the applicants services were not terminated on 13-8-99 the question of applicability of Section 25 G and rule 77 of the Rules, 1957 also does not arise.
The Director, National Institute of Agriculture Marketing, Bambala, Sangaaner. Rajasthan
...Non-Applicant
ATTENDANCE: -
For the Applicant : Shri Kunal Rawat, advocate For the Non-Applicant : None
Point No 3 :— It has not been proved that the applicant's services were terminated on 13-8-99 by the non-applicant. The question, therefore, as to whether the termination of services of the applicant on the above date is légal and justified or doesn't arise. The applicant is notentitled to any relief.
Date of Award : 19/12/2001
AWARD
The copies of the award may be sent to Central Government under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.
Sd/- Illegible,
Presiding Officer
The Central Government vide order mentioned above has referred the following dispute under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1947) for adjudication.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Director, National Institute of Agricultural Marketing, Jaipur in terminating the services of Sh. Nakhat Singh S/o Sh. Sajjan Singh, Driver is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
The applicant filed the statement of claim alleging that he was engaged by non-applicant as driver w.e.f. 5/3/97. Since then he continued to work on that. post. However his services were orally terminated by the officers of non-applicant by oral order dt. 13/12/97 in violation of Section 25 F, G & H of the Act, 1947. It was prayed that order of termination of his services may be declared illégal, void and he may be reinstated with ail benefits.
New Delhi, the 4th February, 2002
The non-applicant filed reply to the claim. Since ex- parte proceedings were taken against the non-applicant on account of his absence on the date of hearing, the facts mentioned in reply need not be stated.
S.O. 719.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT- 44/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Instt. of Agricultural Marketing and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-2-2002.
[No. L-42012/46/2000-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the points of disputes were framed and the applicant was directed to produce évidence on 12/10/2001. On 12/10/01 the learned counsel for the applicant requested for adjournment. The case was then adjourned to 5/12/01 and thereafter to 19/12/01 for évidence. Today also neither the applicant nor his évidence is présent. None is présent on behalf of the non-applicant also. It seems that the parties hâve come to some settlement. No Dispute Award is, therefore, passed.
ANNEXURE
The copies of the award may be sent to the Central Government under section 17 (1) of the Act, 1947 for publication.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Sd/- Illegible, Case No. CGIT 44/2000
Presiding Officer Référence No. L-42012/46/2000/IR(DU)2289 New Delhi, the 4th Febuary, 2002
S.O. 720.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 56/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom., and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-02-2002.
[No. L-40012/480/99-IR (DU)] KULDEP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI * Monday. the 3 lst December, 2001 Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 56/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.62 /2000) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of subTsection (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri N. Padmanabhan and the management of The General Manager Télécommunications, KancheepuramDist. Chennai.
BETWEEN
Shri N. Padmanabhan I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager. : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt. Chennai.
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s.M.Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R.Kanniappan Addl.
CGSC
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No- 40012/480/99/ IR(DU) dated 13-03-2000.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 62/2000. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of ïndia, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 56/2001 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 24-01-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following: -
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:-
"Whether the action of The Chief General Manager Telecom, Chennai in terminating the services of Sri N. Padmanabhan casual mazdoor is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute are briefly as follows:-
The I Party/Workman Shri N. Padmanabhan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers,to as Respondent) on 1-11-1984. He was working as Casual Labour from 1-11-1984 to 28-02-1990 in the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Co- Axial Cable division, Chennai on a daily wages basis of Rs. 8/- per day. He worked there till 28-2-1990. Thereafter he was transferred by Junior Engineer on 1-11-1991 to the office of the Assistant Engineer (G) Téléphones, Tirutani. He was working there till 25-6-1995. He was working continuously from year 1991 to 1995 without any break. The Petitioner was receiving a salary of Rs. 1600/ - at the time of his termination. The Petitioner has put in 2044 number of days of service. The Petitioner has been denied employment from 25-06-1995. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, his services had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme.
2290 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-6-1995 and, when he approached the concerned authority. he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work which is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was give by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more thaaa décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action ofthe Respondent/Department in terminating the services ofthe Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio and void and the Petitioner is deemed to be continuous in service and therefore, entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3 . The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department and put in the said number of days of service and the alleged termination ofthe Petitioner from service and the said date. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 26-11-1994 to 25-06-1995 for a period of 211 days only. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when they approached the concerned officer for the above mentioned casual work and they also used to engaged for such type of casual work on daily rated wages basis. Since the work order ofthe MR come to an end and since there was no work, the persons like Petitioner was not further engaged hence, the question of appointment, termination and continuance of service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Petitioner will be taken back to service by the Respondent/Telecom Department. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are: -
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service in any one ofthe 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 askedto furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the department did not consider the claim ofthe 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side ofthe I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner inl.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri MKannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certifïcates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side ofthe Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certifïcates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
" Whether the action ofthe Chief General Manager, Telecom, Chennai in terminating the services of Sri Mr. N. Padmanabhan, casual mazdoor is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?" Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint2291 Statement that ail of a sudden they were terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating them from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1985. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Ma-aagement would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been estabiished that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been estabiished on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned m the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW 1. no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MWT that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse seryiee certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute'against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3. they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status niazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse thihgs in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer. whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. Their further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/ Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the sidem of thé Respondent/Management the common witness one * Mr. P. Chandrasekar lias been examined as MW1. According to' the Petitioner, he was engaged by the *V-.";V-'V-i---.- ">- ;••' -rTélécommunication * . • • s • . i orked continuously till 1995 as they hâve stated in their respective Claim Statement. It is their further allégation in the Claim2292 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that they hâve been created by thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases as it is contended by the Respondent/ Management. From the available materials, it is seen that the petitioners were not employed by the Respondent/ Management in regular course and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Partv/Workman
W.W.l
W.W.2
Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/ 2001) Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/ 2001)
W.W.3 Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/ 2001)
Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.4
Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam)]
W.W.5
II Party/Management
M. W. 1 Sh. P. Chandrasekar [(DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. P. Magesh Babu
TT Partv/Manasement
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
Ml
Petitioners as casuaj mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common vvitness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed1 or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those musier rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really. the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent /Department that this Petitioners has not workedcontinuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the départaient as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the w ork thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management départaient were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petit ioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners.Jhe department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus" AU thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Managemem; by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further those service certificates hâve not been proved by the Petitioners by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the
— Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
M22293
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial
Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. 40012/479/99/
IR(DU)dated 13.03.2000.
New Delhi, the 4th Febuary, 2002
This référence has been madë earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 63/2 000. When the matter was pendirrg enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from thatTribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No.55/2001 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 24.01.2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
S.O. 721.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 55/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexute in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-02-2002.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
[No. L-40012/479/99-IR(DU)]
KJJLDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
AWARD
ANNEXURE
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 31st December, 2001
"Whethef the action of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Chennai in terminating the services of Shri M. Ramaraj, casual mazdoor is justified? If not to what relief he is entitled?"
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
2. The facts of the industrial dispute are briefly as
follows :—
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 55/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.63/2000 )
(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. Ramaraj and the Management of the General Manager. Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
SriM.Ramaraj : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
Appearance :
For the Workman : M/s.M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi and
G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
The I Party/Workman Sri M.Ramaraj (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) from 01.02.1984. He was.working as Casual Labour from 01.02.1984 to 19.10.1987 in the Office of the Sub Divisional Officer. Telegraphs, Kancheepuram.Thereafter he was working as Casual Labour from 1.11.87 to4.8.91 in the Office of the Assistant Engineer Co.-Axial Equipment Division, Chennai. The nature of the work of the Petitioner was attending cable fault laying cables, front Une work digging pôles etc. Thereafter the Petitioner was working from 1.4.1995 to 15.05.1995 in the Office of the Sub Divisional Engineer, Wireless, Madras Radio, Tiruvottiyur P.O. Chennai. He was paid nominal wages. The Petitioner was receiving a salary of Rs. 1600/- at the time of his termination. Sub Divisional Engineer, Wireless, Madras Radio, Tiruvottiyur by his order dated 15.5.1995 terminated the services of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has put in 1645 number of days of service He was getting Rs. 60 at the time of termination. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, his services had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the Addl. CGSC
529 GI/2002—222294 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA MARCH2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the impleméntation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondeni/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 16.06.1995 and, when he approached the concerned authority, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent /Telecom Department regarding lus re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work which is perennial in nature. Therefore. when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner contitmous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for lerminating thé services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put m more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of. Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio and void and the Petitioner is deemed to be continuous in service and therefore, entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against Yegular Group D post The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. :L:ncc. this-industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent /Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/S ri V.Santhanam. Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner inl.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri MKannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Paity/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
" Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Chennai in terminating the services of Shri MRamaraj, casual mazdoor is justified? If not to what relief he is entitled?"
Point :—
3 The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Slaîement denying the allégations of îhc Petilioner in the Claim Statemerit about his appointaient as Casual Labour and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department and put in the said number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service and the said date, [t is further alleged that Pelitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1995 for a period of 40 days only. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when they approached the concemed officer for the above mentioned casual work and they also used to engaged for such type of casual work on daily rated wages basis. Since the work order of the MR corne to an end and since there was no w ork, the persons like Petitioner was not further engaged henec, the question of appointaient, termination and conlinuance of service does not arisc. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Petitioner will be taken back to service by the Respondent/Telecom Department In 1989. a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers" was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry. as per the request of the learned counsel on either side. a joint2295 trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature hasbeen conducted. Three out of^these Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in. their respective Claim Statements. Thcy havc raiscd thcsc claims based on the service records. Thc\ wcrc filed inlo Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 haye spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examinatioh of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient neâr their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested hjm to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. Their further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases arc ail faisc certificates and they were created by them. Thcy havc also denied ihc suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/ Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioners, they were engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1985 and worked continuously till 1995 as they hâve stated in their respective Claim Statements. It is theîr further allégation in the Claim
Statement that ail of a sudden they were terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating them from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial DisputesAct, 194"is;i1'iiiili()\;ii'.l:iii.1;i";iiii-l l.iw Since the said action of il ic Ko-j'osulv-m Mm.ï'.vincMii i"- illégal they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/ Management from the date of the ;iI1es:cd icrminalion of service in the year 1985. But it is ilie contcniion of Lhe Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements . The learried counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie siand of the iespondent/ Management that ail thcsc Pctitioncis havc not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statemenl filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department v>ere not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are allbogus. By sufficient documentary évidence. Mi-: ^ kL'iKvlhiourh WW4 and WW5 the départ mental oi'l'uiis!" oviimn.vl ou the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of lhe Management b> produdng lhe original of the concerned numberof nuisicr rolls mcnlioncd in lhe service certificates of the Petilioncis and brouglu n lo the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, m: intained b} the Telecom Department. The xerox copj of the san=e had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Ma*. ; . •—"t as Management exhibits. It. the crjss examinas >>f lhe common witness for the M. lagement M 1, no suggestion" is put to him about t work of the 1 itic ?r for 240 days in the Telecom De rtment. No suj./estL-n was put in the cross examina ion of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the serv ce certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus bu thcy are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination aixwt thèse service certificates. Both W W4 and ^VW5 hâve stated2296 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] those service certificates by the concerhed officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as à record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse thing in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that they hâve been created by thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases as it is contended by the Respondent/Management. From the available materials, it is seen that Petitioners were not employed by the Respondent/Management in regular course and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arid the issuance of prior notice and compensation under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Staternent. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31 st December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officei
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Partv/Workman
W.W.I- Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/ 2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/ 2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/ 2001)
Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.4 -
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai fSDE (Groups), Kalpakkaml
II Party/Management
M.W. 1 - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
- Service Certificates issued to
Wl Séries (7)
Sh. V. Santhanam
- Service Certificates issued to
W2 Séries (3)
Sh. S. Arputharaj
- Service Certificates issued to
W3 Séries (8)
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any^written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been^vorking as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So firom the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certifïcates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent /Department that this Petitioner has not worked continuously from 1984 to 1985. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further those service certificates hâve not been proved by the Petitioners by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850 M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/82297 New Delhi, the 5th Fcbruary. 2002 S.O. 722.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Réf. No. CGIT- 2/162 of 99) of the Central Government Industriral Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Anncxurc, in the Industrial Dispute between the cmploycrs in relation to the management of Postal Deptt. and their workmen. vvhich was reccived by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
|No. L-4()012/16/99-IR(DU)| KULDIP RAI VERMA, Dcsk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNALNO. H,MUMBAI PRESENT:
S N. SAUNDANKAR, Prcsiding Officer.
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/162 OF 1999.
EMPLOYEERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF POST The Senior Manager. Mail Motor Service. D/o Post. Worli, MUMBAI-400018.
AND
THEIR W U I M . M EN
Sh S B Rajbhar. Tckarashi Baithi. Chawl No. 3. Room No. 16, Ncar China Mills. Scwn. MUMBAI-4OOO15.
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE EMPLOLYER • Mr. V. Narayanan
Advocale.
FOR THE WORKMEN Mr M.B. Anchan
Advocatc.
AWARD-PART-I
Mumbai, Dated 6th December, 2001 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by itsOrderNo. L-40012/16/99/IR(DU), dtd. 19/21-07-1999, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act hâve referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication, to this tribunal.
"Whether the action of the management of Postal Deptt, Mumbai by dismissing the workman Shri SB. Rajbhar from his service is légal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" 2. Workman, Rajbhar was appointed as a mechanic in the Mail Motor service in postal départaient from 1-12-83. He had completed 10 years serivee. He was chargesheeted on 8-9-92 alledging that he had secured appointaient as a mechanic by producing fake school leaving certificate involving questionable integrity in a manner unbecoming of Government serveant in violation of sub-rule 1(1) and (iii) of Rule 3 of C C S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is the contention of workman vide his Statement of claim (Exhibit-5) that the chargesheet given to him was kept blank and no witnesses were cited and thatthe management did not examine any witness during the course of the inquiry. It is his contention that Head Master of the school Elakhs Singh had reported that no such School Leaving Certificate was issuedby the School authorities and three letters received from the éducation authorities Ajamgarh. Uttar Pradesh, were heavily relied upon during the course of the inquiry which were obtained behind his back and there by préjudice had caused to him. It is contended by workman that he had requested the inquiry office to allow him to produce Ambika Singh the then Head Master of the school, who had issued the certificate to him as the defence witness but it was rejected and concluded the inquiry on 31-7-05 holding the charge proved and that the disciplinary authority vide their letter dtd. 30-9-96 dismissed him from the service. It is contended that the workman had preferred departmental appcal. however, it was rejected on 25-2-97, and that revision against the said drder before the Member, départaient of Posts, New Delhi was mechanically rejected, without giving him opportuity of hearing on 18-2-98. It is contended that workman before to SC community, he cornes from Uttar Pradesh, the inquiry held against him was against the Principles of Natural Justice and therefor it bc set aside.
3. Management, postal department resisted the claim of workman by filing Written Statement (Exhibit- 7) contending that the inquiry was proper. It is contended that workman joined the service on 1-12-83 adn that the case was referred for vérification of the certificate and during the vérification it was revealed that the workman had produced bogus certificate of his qualification from one school viz Koylsa. Ajamgadh, based on the letrer dt. 17-7-92 received frbm the District Basic Education Officer, Ajamgadh and based on that, department had chargesheeted him. It is entended that inquiry was started on 29-6-93 and before that workman was made to know to file relevant documents and the list of the witnesses to bc examined. however. though he attended the inquiry and inspitc of sufficient opportunity he did not give list of witnesses and that the verge of inquiry i.e. 9-6-94 he made on application for Unie to bring some documents and witnesses in his defenec, to delay the proceedings and2298 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] therefore it was rejecied by the inquiry officer. It is contended that the inquiry was fair and proper, and the Appelate authority in its discrétion passed the appropriate order. Consequently management prayed to reject the claim of workman.
4. By Rejoinder (Exhibit-11) workman contended that the inquiry was once held, when he was on leave. Inquiry was a farce. He was appointed in 1983 and the inquiry was made on this allégation of producing fake certificate of educational qualification on 8-9-92. Consequently reiterating the récitals in the Statement of Claim, he opposed the récitals in the Written Statement.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, my learned predecessor framed preliminary issues at Exhibit-9. Workman filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-14) and after his cross-examination closed évidence vide purshits (Exhibit-15). Deputy Manager. Mr. Kulkarni on behalf of the postal department filed affidavit (Exhibit-16) and closed évidence vide purshits (Exhibit- 21). Workman filed his written submissions (Exhibit-22) and the mamagement (Exhibit-23). On persuing the record as a whole. the written submissions and hearing the counsels at length, I record my findings on the following preliminary issues for the reasons mentioned below :
Issues
Findings
1. Whether the domestic inquiry which • was condected against the workman was against the principles of Natural Justice ? No. 2. Whether the findings of the inquiry
officer are perverse ? No.
REASONS
6. Admittedly workman, Rajbhar was appointed as a mechanic in mail motor service since 1983 and that he was chargesheeted for producing fake school leaving certificate in the year 1992. According to the workman, inquiry is improper as the tarée letteis from the éducation authorities, Ajamgadh on the basis of which his integrity was questioned was obtained behind his back and that he was not given oppprotunitv to examine the witnesses named in the statement of claim, and that he was not given sufficient opprotunity during the inquiry. Management witness Kulkarni denied the same. According to him inquiry was commenced in 1993 and ended in 1995 and during this period, though sufficient time was given he did not move to examine the witness by adopting delaying tactics. On perusal of the proceedings of the inquiry filed with list (Ex-9) it is seen the chargesheet was given to the workman-delinquent on 8-9-92. Actually the inquiry was held on 29-6-93, 14-1-94, 3-2-94, 19-5-94, 9-6-94 and 8-6-95 and except two dates, he attended the inquiry. Workman admits in his cross-examination that he participated in the inquiry, however, did not give application in writing to the inquiry officer till 6th September '94 that he has to examine the witnesses. When according to him inquiry was started on 29-6-93, if really intended to examine the witnesses. he should hâve infact by way of reply to the chargesheet and at the latest in the beginning of the inquiry disclosed the names of the witnesses. However it seems, for the first time, in the year 1994 i.e. on the verge of completion of the inquiry he appears to hâve req uested for examining defence witnesses, which is obviously with a view to protract the inquiry. The Learned Counsel Mr. Anehan for the workman submits that management did not examine any witness which had occassioned préjudice to the workman. According to management, their case is based on the documentary évidence. If that is so, it was for the workman to examine the persons concerned, disclosing their names in the beginning. However, workman failed to do so, for which, inquiry officer cannot be blamed. On plain reading of the chargesheet dtd. 8-9-92, shows workman was asked to produce the list of witnesses and further it is seen, the workman was agam asked to produce the list before 6-8- 93,3-2-94 and 14-2-94. If that is so hardly lie in the mouth of workman that he was not given opprotunity to examine the witnesses. It is seen from the cross-examination of workman he participated in the inquiry. It is not his case that he did not receiive the copies of the three letters referred to above. Therefore there is no substance in saying that those letters were obtained behind his back and thereby préjudice caused to him.
7. It is seen from the cross-examination of management's witness Mr. Kulkarni, two inquiry officers were appointed viz. Mr. Sukumaran and Thomas. It is not the case of workman that he was not made to know the change in the inquiry officer. Since he participated in the inquiry. it is apparent that he had knowledge on the inquiry officer and the procédure. Therefore there is no substance in saying that, that caused him injustice, which infact, not pleaded by the workman.
8. As stated above inquiry of the chargesheet dtd. 8- 9-92 ended in 1995 and that on 31-7-95 inquiry officer submitted his report. Therefore it cannot be said that inquiry was held hurriedly without giving opportunity to the workman. Their Lordships of the Suprême Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen 1963 IILLJ SCC, page 367 pointed out that :—
"Inquiry cannot be said to hâve been propoerly held unless :
(i) the employée proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him,
(ii) the witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the présence of the employée in respect of the charges.
(iii) the employée is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
(iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter and, (v) the enquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report.
On going through the record, I find the management did not act contrary to above points. On perusal of the record as a whole and the ruling, hardly can be said that the inquiry was held against the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play. Therefore issue No. 1 is answered in the négative. So far the findings of the inquiry officer are concerned workman nowhere stated that those are perverse. The workman was charged for seeking appointaient as mechanic by producing fake certificate involving2299 BETWEEN
Sri M. Raman
: lstParty/Workman
AND
1. The Chief General Manager, : II Party Management
Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.
2. The General Manager,
Télécommunications, KancheepuramDist., Chennai.
qucslionnblo intCjïritv in a manner unbecoming of a ()iivi,.riiii!Ci!i s-jr\;im ' )ocuments fiied during the inquiry (Ex-S/2) alongwith annexures were received through regular officiai correspondence which does not indicate admission entry of workman in the school register nor the school leaving certificate was issued by the school. The case based on documents and that documents speak the position. The reasoning given by the inquiry officer cannot be said against the record, thereby, the findings being based on record, cannot be said to be biased. Issue No. 2 is therefore answered in the négative. In view of this, the following' order is passed :
3. The Divisional Engineer (Admn), ORDER
O/o General Manager, Télécommunications, KancheepuramDist., Chennai.
The domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was as perthe Principles of Natural Justice. The findings of the inquiry officer are not perverse.
4. The Sub Divisional Engineer (Construction),
Télécommunications, Srioerumbudur.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer
APPEARENCE :
For the workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of the 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), hâve referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Ordei No. L-40012/72/99/IR(DU) dated 30-07-1999.
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002
S.O. 723.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Réf. No. 164/ 2001) of the Central Government Industriral Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workmen. which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
This référence lias been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 160/99. When the matter was pending énquiry in that tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry ol Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from thaï tribunal to this tribunal for adjudication. On receipt ol records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on the file as I.D. No. 164/2001 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 appearbefore this tribunal on 05-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
[No. L-40012/72/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, CHENNAI
Monday. the 3 lst Dccember, 2001
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001. upon perusing the claim statement, counter statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence'let in on either side, ..'".:: . • .i:i, ' filed by the learned counsef for the :>••• ' :'. • upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this tribunal has passed the following :—
PRESENT :
AWARD
K. KARTHIKEYAN. PRESIDING OFFICER
Industrial Dispute No. 164/2001
The industrial dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this tribunal is as ibllows :—
"Whethër the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri M. Raman as casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled ?"
(Tantil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 160/99) (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 M. Raman and the management of Telecom Department. )2300 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II—Spr 3(ii)] 2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman aie bnefly as follows :—
question of appointment. termination and continuous service does not arise The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989. a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are:—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged prior
to 31.3.1985:
2. He should be currently employed on the date of
the implementation of Scheme î e. 01.10 89:
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service
in any one of the preceding years prior to 01.10."l989;and
4. There should not be a break for a period of more
than one year
The Casual Labourers ivho actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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 depattrnent. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 reinstatemént as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
The I Party/Workman Shri M. Raman (hereinafter refers to as petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as respondent) on 01-10-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages, Though the petitioner has been continuously working with the respondent. and has put in 1289 days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the depaertment for a long period formulated a scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporay Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom department failed to confer temporay status on the petitioner under the said scheme. which is" illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment vv.e.f 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/-as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority. for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his reengagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the petitioner and the respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of industrial disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The respondent ought to hâve conferred temporay as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Departments action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication canbe tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001. Sri S. Arputharaj Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu. Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri MKannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments..
3, The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 01.10.1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1289 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25.06.1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1995 less than 240 days. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the2301 5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sri M.Raman as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
Point :—
that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his claim statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department irt terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 the service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointaient order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/ Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls. maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the" side of the \ï;iii:n;k :\u'\\'. *c".v of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls ::I::III"M:JII •.:: :'. J vrvice certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individunlly in their respective cases as the son icc cori i llcalcs issucd lo them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to conter temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant - Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion
529 GI/2002—232302 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the départaient. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the départaient, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.I - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001).
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001).
W. W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/2001).
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom).
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai FSDE (Groups), Kalpakkaml.
II Party/Management
M.W.I-Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal & in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work ibr which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve bcen examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and fhey haye not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issuedby the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were atlended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case b\ way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Rcspondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said penod and hâve not been pàid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument ihal the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but thc\ are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in ihc service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners arc taie, they would hâve been granted temporary status i :i/doors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that Ihcse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further. it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the départaient as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is Ihe évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a confinuous or and it is not available ail through theyear. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended 'as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management départ ment were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on coinplction of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the départaient to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners. the départaient has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. AU thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service
Commercial)].
2303Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman :
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V. Santhanam.
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj.
The Working Président, Ail India Fédération of SC/ST Emp. Association C/o ISP Staff Qrts. New Quarter No. ID Nasik Road, NASIK (MAHARASHTRA)-422 101.
APPEARANCES:
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu.
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850.
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 062Î6/8.
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. K.R. Yelwe, Adv. holding for Mr. Masurkar Mr. M. V. Nagare Représentative.
FORTHEWORKMEN : No Appearance.
CAMP : NASIK, dated 14th December, 2001
AWARD
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 S.O. 724.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT- 2/99 of 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Currency Note Press and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
[No. L-16011/4/2001-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by itsOrder No. L-16011/4/2001/IR(DU), dtd. 18/6/2001 and 24/8/2001, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hâve referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.
' ' Whether the action of the management of Currency Note Press, Nasik Road in not granting Spécial Allouante lo Tii^pecliir-.'As'.kirmt Inspectors ncconip;iii\iii ":I;J!(>IIS;IIIJ iîii'.payingthem TA/DA as paid to their counterparts in RBI is légal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman concerned are entitled to ?"
2. On receipt of the référence notées were sent to the management and the union, However, on 1/10/2001, Advocate Ms. Mestry, holding for management appeared and that the union though served vide (Exhibit-6) did not appear. Since the matter pertains to Nasik it was kept at Nasik with due notice to the parties vide (Exhibit-9 & 10) on 12/12/2001. However, on that date also none appeared on behalf of the union, though Advocate Sh'ri Yelwe holding for management was présent. Later on the matter was adjourned to 13/12/2001, and eventually to date. However, none présent on behalf of the union, which indicate that the union is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, the following order is oassed :—
ANNEXURE
ORDER
Référence stands disposed of for non-prosecution.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II,
MUMBAI
(CAMP : NASIK)
PRESENT :
S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/99 OF 2001.
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
THE GENERAL MANAGER, Currency Note Press, Nasik Road, NASIK (MAHARASHTRA)-422 101.
AND
S.N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer2304 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002
4. It is not known as to why the workman and the
union are absent throughout. Number of adjoumments are
given but the First Party union and the workman remained
absent.
5. No purpose will be served if the dispute is kept
pending. It appears that the union and the workman are
not interested in this dispute and therefore, I proceed to
pass the following Order :
ORDER
S.O. 725.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hère by publishes the award (Réf. No.
23/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of Central Silk Board and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 5-2-2002.
The référence is rejected.
[No. L-42012/284/99-IR(DU)]
(Dictated to PA transcribed bv her corrected and signed by me on 3 lst jânuary 2002)
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
V.N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated : 31st January. 2002
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI V.N. KULKARNI, B. Corn. LLB, PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE.
C.R NO. 23/2000
IPARTY IIPARTY
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 Président The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board Central Silk Board. Employées Union, Central Silk Board, Complex, C/o, Manjunatha Stores, IV Floor, BTM Lay out, No. 268/2, Hosur Road, III Main, Pipeline West, Madivala, Kasturbanagar, Bangalore-560068 Mysore Road, Bangalore-560026 (Karnataka)
AWARD
S.O. 726.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 81/ 97, 83-84/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Silk Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
[Nos. L-42012/113/94-IR(DU) 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 dispute vide orderNo. L-42012/284/99/IR(DU) dated 3rd March 2000 for adjudication on the following schedule.
L-42012/112/94-IR(DU) SCHEDULE
L-42012/184/94-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
"Whether the claim of Central Silk Board Employées Union that Shri Nagaraju, former Casual Labourer was engaged directly by the National Silkworm Seed Production Centre, K.R. Nagar is maintainable ? If so, the claim of the Union for his regularization and reinstatement is maintainable ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated : 16th January. 2002
PRESENT :
2. The first party union workman was working with the Second Party. The union has raised dispute for regularization of the workman and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.
HON'BLE SHRI V.N. KULKARNI, B. Corn.
3. Aller the issue of the notices only management
L.L.B., Presiding Officer
appeared and filed Vakalat of the Advocate.
2305COMMON AWARD
C.R. NO. 81/97
IPARTY IIPARTY
Shri Jayappa, The Member Secretary, S/o Shri Nathappa, Central Silk Board, H. Mangasandra, Govt. of India, Kasaba Hobli, 5th Floor, GowribidanpurTaluk, CSB Complex, Kolar District BTM Layout,
Madiwala, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068
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-42012/l13/94/IR(DU) dated 3rd October 1995 for adjudication on the following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Central Silk Board is justified in threatening the workman, Shri Jayappa which caused termination of his services from January, 1987 ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to and from which date ?"
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. 42012/184/94-IR(DU) dated 30th November 1995 for adjudication on the following Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Central Silk Board is justified in denying work to C. Subramanyan, Casual Labourer of SSPC Gowribidanur w.e.f. January 1990? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. Thèse 3 cases are kept clubbed as per the requests made by the parties. Common évidence was recorded except some changes in C.R. No. 83/97.
3.1 hâve heard the learned counsels appearing for the management. Mr. Satyanarayana has appeared for the workman in ail thèse 3 cases has filed retirement mémo.
4. It is seen from the records that since a long time workmen were absent.
5. The workmen in thèse 3 cases were working with the management and they were threatened and it caused termination and therefore Industrial Dispute is raised.
CR.No. 83/97
6. In C.R. No. 83/97 management discontinued the services. In C.R. No. 84/97 management denied the work and therefore dispute is raised.
IPARTY IIPARTY
Shri Anjinappa, The Member Secretary, S/o Chickkanarayanappa, Central Silk Board, Bullahalli Village, Govt. of India, HarohalliPost, 5th Floor, Devanahalli Taluk, CSB Complex, Bangalore Rural District. BTM Layout,
Madiwala, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068 1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2 A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. 42012/112/94-IR(DU) dated 8thNovember, 1995 for adjudication on the following Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Central Silk Board is justified in discontinuing Shri Anjinappa from work w.e.f. 16th December 1993? If not, to what relief Shri Anjinappa is entitled to and from which date?"
C.R.NO. 84/97
7. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.
8. In C.R. No. 81/97 the case of the workman is as follows:
9. It is the case of the workmen that he was working with the management's Gowribidanur Grainage since 1979-80 as a Labourer and was discharging duties most honestly, diligently and to the best of the satisfaction of the superiors but the management terminated his services w.e.f. January 1987. The work was of a perennial and continuous nature and the wage was being paid by the management directly after obtaining a stamped money receipt. He was working under the direction, control and supervision of Shri Som Reddy, S.R.A. at Hindupur. AH of a sudden the work was stopped and the action of the management is not correct because it amounts to retrenchment and mandatory provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as stated in para 9 of the Claim Statement are not followed.
IPARTY HPARTY
Shri C. Subramanyan Swamy, The Member Secretary, Vivekananda Colony, Central Silk Board, Gouribidanur Taluk- 561208 Govt. of India, Kolar District 5th Floor, Karnataka CSB Complex,
BTM Layout, Madiwala, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560068 10. In C.R. No. 83/97 the case of the workman is that he was engaged in the Chawki Rearing Centre , Harohalli on 1-2-1991 and he was illegally discharged w.e.f. 16-12-93 . He had put in 3 years of unblemished service. His service was continuous. He was paid Rs. 400 per month for working ail the days in month. The workman approached the ALC(C), K.G.F. but nothing is happened.
11. It is also said that workman is suffering a lot to maintain the livelihood of himself and his family members. The action of the management is not correct. Mandatory provisions are not followed.
12. In C.R. No. 84/97 the case of the workman is as follows:
2306 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH'2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]recorded in C.R. No. 83/97 and were requested the same évidence may be treated as évidence in other cases.
13. He was engaged as Casual Labourer from 7-1-1988 and he was discharging duties. He was continuously working from 7-1-1988 to January 1990 without any break. His services were terminated illegally. Conciliation proceedings failed. The action of the Management is not correct and the management has not filed the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F clauses (a) and (b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the action of the management is not correct.
14. It is seen from the records that the management
appeared and filed Counter.
22. Management in order to prove the case examined MW1, Mr. Dasappa, Asstt. Director. He has given detailed évidence. They take villagers as représentative of farmer to do the work of Sericultural activities. His further évidence is that the workmen were taken on temporary basis for National Silk Worm Projçct and no attendance was maintained. He was not an employée. His further évidence is that the project was closed in 1993. Nothing is made out from his cross examination to disbelieve his évidence. From the above évidence it is abundantly clear that the workmen were engaged as Casual Labourers for temporary project work. Adjoxirnments were granted on request of the counsel. Ultimately the counsel appearing for the workmen has filed mémo and he took adjournment and intimatedthe workman but workmen has not attended the court. Therefore I hâve heard the arguments.
23.1 hâve carefully considered the évidence of MW1 and the documents relied by the management. It is also in the évidence of MW1 that Appointment Order was not given.
24. For the reasons best known to the first party workmen they hâve remained absent and they hâve not given évidence.
15. In C.R No. 81/97 it is stated that it is not a dispute under the meaning of Section 2k of the [ndustrial Dispute Act Schedule 2 or 3 provides for a référence in terms of Section 10 read with Section 2(k) of the Act. The true facts are that the second party is a Statutory Board having its office at Bangalore. The SSPC, Gowribidanur which was engaged in preparing disease free silk worm eggs and selling scientifically tested laying to farmers at subsidised rates for development of Sericulture Industry. It required Casual Labourers and they were engaged and the work was causal in nature. Workman was engaged temporarily on daily wages. The said project was ternporary one and it was not a permanent project providing for permanency to any workman. Therefore, question of taking any action does not arise. The first party workmen hâve not continuously worfced for 240 days as per the records.
25 I hâve read the décision of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.7505/99 C/W W. A. No.7506, 7507,7508,7509, 7510,7511,7512,7513,7514, 8011 and W.A. 8012 of 1999. The facts of thèse 3 cases are similar to the facts of the above Writ Appeals. It is categorically held in the above writ appeals that the workman concerned had been engaged on daily wages only for the purpose of completion of the project undertaken by the Telecom Department for laying Co-axial cables in the Belgaum District. It is also said that the said project had been completed in 1986-87 itself.
16. It is the further case of the management that the first party left the work on his own and never returned to the work. On completion of the said project the grainage centre itself has been closed. Even according to the first party he has worked up to January 1987 and thereafter the second party has not provided the work. The Central Govt. has made a référence in the year 1995. There is delay in making this référence. The main contention of the management is that on completion of the project the grainage centre itself has been closed and therefore the question of retrenchment and violation of Section 2(oo) and Section 25-F of the I.D. Act does not arise at ail. Management has prayed to reject the référence.
26. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above décisions, I am of the opinion that in thèse 3 cases the workmen were engaged as Casual Labourer for a particular project.
27. It is in the records thaï, the particular project has been closed long back and the workmen hâve no right to continue as casual labourer.
17 In C.R. No. 83/97, the management has filed Counter The case of the management is that it had launched a project known as 'National Sericulture Project'. The scheme of the project is stated in détail in para 2 of the Counter.
28. Taking ail this into considération, I proceed to
pass the following Order:
ORDER
The références in CR No. 81/97, 83/97 and 84/97 are rejected. Keep the copy of this Award in CR No. 83/97 and CR No. 84/97.
18. It is the further case of the management that the dispute is not an Industrial Dispute. There is no relationship of master and servant between the parties. The management is justified in discontinuing his service on facts and circumstances of the case. Management for thèse reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the référence.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and 19. In C.R. No. 84/97 the case of the management is
signed by me on 16th January 2002.)
as follows:
V.N. KULBLARNI, Presiding Officer 20. Many of the grounds alleged are similar to the ground alleged in 2 other références. The main contention of the management again is that the project is a temporary one and it was not a permanent project providing for permanency to any workman. Ail other contentions are similar.
21. It is seen from the records that common évidence were recorded as requested by the counsels. Evidence is2307 New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 234/99. When the marier 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 197/2001 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 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
S.O. 727.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hère by publishes the award (Réf. No. 197/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Telecom Deptt. andtheirworkman, vvhich was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/122/99-IR(DU)]
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/ Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following : —
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
AWARD
ANNEXURE
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:-
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday. the 3 lth December, 2001
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
" Whether the demand of the workman Sri R. Yuvaraj for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 197/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.234 /99 )
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
(In the mattcr 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 R. Yuvaraj and the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Sri R. Yuvaraj :
I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
Appcarancc:
For the Workman . M/s.M.Gnanasekar,
C.Premavathi & G.Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R.Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The I Party/Workman Shri R. Yuvaraj (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 14-12-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1138 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and RenuinrKitiiVnï Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom l)op;iiiiiijiii l'inlttl to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25.06.1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned aufhority, for conforment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by 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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 40012/122/99/ IR(DU) dated"25-08-1999.
2308 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F qf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefîts including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner as and when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementationof Scheme i.e 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So. 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 benefîts from the department. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.MageshBabu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri MKannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri R. Yuvaraj for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into2309 Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 haye spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service jparticulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. it is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer,an requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met nd asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner. he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were
terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for layihg the cables, and erecting polês and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the offltials of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witaess for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who haye been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never 529 GI/2002—242310 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus. the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst Deçember, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Président Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.l - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001)
- Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.2
- Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
W.W.3
200 ï)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam]
II Party/Management
M. W. 1 - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S. Arputharaj
Séries (8) -
W3
Service Certificates issued to Sh. P. Mangesh Babu
II Party/Managemeat
Ml
- Xerox copyofM.R. No. 19/05850
- Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
M2
New Delhi, the 5th FebfHary, 2002 worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as conténded by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1985 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners vvere engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW 1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they vvere done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not tnie and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated beforc this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve fijrnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service ce lificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- merion of the same in their Claim Statements and the proc iction of thèse certificates without iny base during trial of the cases beforeihis Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seeu that the Respondent/ Management in reguiar course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circum stances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for
S.O. 728.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 187/2311 2001) of the Central Government Industriel Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmaii, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having siood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passée! the following :—
[No. L-40012/121/99-IR (DU)]
AWARD
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
The Industria' Dispute referred to in the above order ot itfcrence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by tbis Tribunal is as follows :—
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 31st December, 2001
"Whether the action of the General Manager Télécommunications, Chcngalpnlhi in terminnting the services of Shri S. Main, cnsual niii/door is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?" Présent : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:—
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 187/2001
(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No. 210/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under cl?nse (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), betwcni the Workman Sri S. Mani and the General Manager, Télécommunications, KancheepuramDist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Shri S. Mani : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager : II Party/Management Télécommunications, KancheepuramDist. Chennai. Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kamùappan
Addl. CGSC
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/121/99/ IR(DU)dated 25-8-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 210/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in thaï Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 187/2001 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 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
The I Party/Workman Shri S. Maai, (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-12-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1400 days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grantof Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employaient w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conforment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so fer. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes. Act. 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initie void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ûught tp hâve cqnferred temporary status as per the ternpprsry status scheme and further absorbai tan agatnst When the. matter came up before me f§r final leasing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the ejajm §tat<ïment.
2312 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Cqunter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour.
Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.MageshBabu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri MKannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the action of the General Manager Telecom munications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Sri S. Mani, casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to whât relief, the workman is entitled?"
It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging. drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages only. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner as and when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989. a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
Point :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged prior
to 31.3.1985;
2 He should be currently employed on the date of
the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner werc found to be bogus and manufactured one. So. 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 bcncfits from the department. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Pelitioncr for any purpose and also not doing such type of vwk as donc by the Petitioner. 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 ehgible for rcinstatement as per the law and as weli as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
When the matter was taiken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issuéd to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim - made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people. who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry. the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the2313 themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by prodv.cins the original of the concerned number oî'nisiMcrrolfciinciiiioiiaJ m the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names haye not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1985 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the départaient as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminatedthem from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by thé Petitioners2314 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Witneses Examined (Common)
IParty/Workman:
W.W.l - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/ 2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai [(SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam)]
IIParty/Management :
M.W.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [(DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P. Maeesh Babu
II Party/Management :
- Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
Ml
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through theyear. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work Uke opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were donc as prqject works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Siatements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
S.O. 729.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes Ihe award (Réf. No. 184/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
(Dictated to the Sténographier, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st December, 2001.)
[No. L-40012/118/99-IR (DU)]
KULDIP RA.I VERMA, Desk Officer K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer2315
AWARD
ANNEXURK
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
Monday, the 31st December, 2001
PRESENT :
K. Karthikeyan. Prèsiding Officer
"Whether the action of the General Manager Télécommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Sri P. Mahesh Babu, casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?"
Industrial Dispute No. 184/2001
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 204/99)
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:—
(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 P. Mahesh Babu and the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Shri P. Mahesh Babu : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai. APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
AddLCGSC
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/118/99/ IR(DU) dated 25-8-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 204/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 184/2001 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 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentais évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the leamed counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advancedby the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
The I Party/Workman Shri P. Mahesh Babu. (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-03-1985 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.7.25 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 2005 number of days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/ Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 13-05-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages.'When he approached the concerned authority, for conféraient of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Retitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the RespondemVTelecom Department claiming the above relief.
2316 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 01-03-1985 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 2005 number of days of service and the alleged termination ofthe Petitioner from service on 13-05-1995. Itisfurther alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a period of 109 days only diring 1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointaient, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date ofthe implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service in any one ofthe 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the department did not consider the claim ofthe 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the daim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side ofthe I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam. Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001. Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner. the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/ Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the action of the General Manager Telecom munications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Sri P. Mahesh Babu. casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?" Point :-
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some ofthe Xerox copies ofthe muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Départaient is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further2317 contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respohdent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rails mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoor"s in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointaient order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1994 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW 1, no suggestion is put tô him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work 529 GI/2002—25231S THE GAZETTE OF JNDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J
available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/
Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners
and they were not given independent work, so the question
of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under
such circumstances, the question of Respondents not
following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under
section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail
arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available
materials it is seen that the action of the Management of
Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as
casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for
which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence,
this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in
his Claim Statemènt. Thus, the point is answered
accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the
Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim
Statemènt. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed
by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court
on this day the 31 st December, 2001. )
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001)
Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S.
Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
W.W.3 - Sh. P. 2001)
. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.4 - Sh.M
Madurai (SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam)
W.W.5 - Sh. C.
II Party/Management :
M.VV.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar (DE (Légal &
Commercial))
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
- Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
W2 Séries (3)
Arputharaj
- Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
W3 Séries (8)
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the leamed counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mnzdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Deptirtment. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continu ously from 1985 to 1995. Further. it is scen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that *he work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous onc and it is not avai Sable ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work Hke opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work. thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definitc evHence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars givon by the Petitioners. the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. AU thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated beforc this Tribunal by the ResA ondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners \\ ère not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is estabîishcd thaï the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the dcpartmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certifiâtes. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not staled in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their senice in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the saine in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the
- Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
M22319 New Delhi, the 5th February,' 2002 S.O. 730.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industriel Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 188/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government 5-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/117/99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31" December, 2001
Présent :
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 188/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 219/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clasue (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 R. Munusamy and the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Sri R. Munuswamy : I Party/Workman AND
The General Manager : IIParty/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt. Chennai. APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : M/s. M.
Gnanasekar, C. Premavathi & G.Manjula, Advocates For the Management : Sri R. Kanmappan
Addl. CGSC 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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/117/ 99-IR(DU) dated 25-08-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No.219/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the ca^e has been taken on file as I.D. No. 188/2001 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 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and ptosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me f jr final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Ciaim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon liearing the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood overtill this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following : —
AWARB
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri R. Munus-vamy, casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Shri R. Munuswamy (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 14-12-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. Hc was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily ratcd wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1891 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdee s (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scîu.uie. The Respondent/Telecom Department failcd '• •> confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the saie Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and. when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Tekcom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he2320 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No feasoh was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefïts including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action is not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégation of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 14-12-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1891 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-06-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages only for a period of 227 days during 1995. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service dœs not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' wasintroduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are:—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01 -10-89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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 benefïts from the department The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D. No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001, Sri P. MageshBabu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional EngineerMr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as à common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certifïcates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the earned counsel for the I party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is :—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri R. Munuswamy, casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief heis entitled?"
Point :
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the requrest of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses liave been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in ttieir respective cases as the2321 service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were fîled into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in aie évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Clâim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificats by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Rcspondent/Managcmcnl is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management nnd also the évidence of MW1 that service ccriilïc 2322 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not ai; ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31 " December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Président Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001)
Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.2 -
• Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
W.W.3 -
2001)
• Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.4 -
• Sh. C. Madurai (SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam)
W.W.5 •
II Party/Management :
M.W.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Partv/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P. Mapesh Rîihii
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
or teraiinated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which haye been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoorsïor Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/ Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1985 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW 1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as-Tproject works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by ihe Respondent/ Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witncsses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondeiil/2323 New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 S.O. 731.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 195/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/103/99-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31" December. 2001 Présent : K. KARTHIKEYAN,
Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 195/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 232/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clasue (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 S. Arputharaj and the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.) BETWEEN
Sri S. Arputharaj : I Party/workman AND
The General Manager : II Party/Management Télécommunications. Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
APPEARANCE •
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L-40012/103/99/ IR(DU) dated"25-08-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No.232/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 195/2001 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 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri S. Arputharaj for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Shri S. Arputharaj (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-05-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1540 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-03-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/-as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engagée the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given 6y the Respondent/2324 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casuai Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 casuai basis as and when required by the départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/pepartment in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D. No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj. Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/ 2001. Sri P. MageshBabu, Petitioner in I.D. No.184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1. WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional EngineerMr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the zerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the zerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workman hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is :—-
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri S. Arputharaj for reinstatement by the General Manager, Telecommuniations, Chengalpattu as casuai mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"
Point :—
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casuai Labour on 01-05-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1540 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-03-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casuai basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casuai works on daily rated wages only for a short spell during 1994-95. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment. termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casuai in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/ Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989. a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casuai Labourers' was introduced for the Casuai Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casuai labour should hâve been engaged
priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service in any one of the preceding years prior to 01-10-1989; and
4. There should notbe a break for a period of more
than one year.
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentionining their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from The Casuai Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient 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 départaient. The alleged work donë by2325 the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are ayailable in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to avilability of service certificates in their claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them
from service. Thére is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/ Management for thèse petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Indistrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/ Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are ail bogus. By suffïcient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the Original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are. not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them \n the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they' themselves hâve left the service afterthe work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them 529 GI/2002—262326 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31 st December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in ID 184/
2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam]
II Party/Management :
M.W.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 062Ï6/8
to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied uponby the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the RespondentOepartment. From the évidence*'available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/ Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1985 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the départaient as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work anditwasnota continuous one and it is'not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue ki service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnishçd are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been denonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/ Management by relevant documents that the namës of the Petitioners were not available m the original muster rolls tnat has been mentioned in their service certificates from this it is established that the particulais given in their ser ;ce certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve" not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve be^n examinée! as common witaesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on whicri they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department. the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any* base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents notfollowing the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior2327 New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 S.O. 732.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 198/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the cnip1o\cis in relation to the management of Telecom. Dep'i .IIKIIIIJII uorkman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2001.
[No. L-40012/94/99-IR(DU)] KULDEEP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 3 lstDecember, 2001 PRESENT :
K. KARTHIKEYAN. Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. .198/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 235/99)
(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 Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri S. Baladhandayutham and the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram. Dist., Chennai.)
BETWEEN :.
Sri S. Baladhandayutham .... I Party/Workman AND
The General Manager. : II Party/Management Télécommunications Kancheepuram Distl. Chennai.
Appcarancc :
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates For the Management : Sri R. Kannniappan
AddI. CGHC The Govl. 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). haye referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Ordcr No.L- 40012/94/99/ IR(DU)datcd "25-08-1999.
This référence has been made carlicr to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 235/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. cf India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to ordcr transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 198/2001 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 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the lollowing :—
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Centtal Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follov. s:—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunication, C . .; : '• '!•! '. _: :.-sii-- - the services of Shri S. )• :! •.: .!:;•• r ".!•:. mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are bnefly as follows:—
The I Party/Workman Shri S. Baladhandayutham (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-03-1985 for digging, drawing wires. laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1308 number of days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conféraient of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However. he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no KMion or jiisiifkntioM foi doux ins'. the employment to the ]\.-iilioiu-1 So ici^oii w.i"- jjiwn by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination2328 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industriel Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement. It is alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires. laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointaient, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989. a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are: -
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 0.1-10-89;
3. He •should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So. 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001. Sri P.Magesh Babu. Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Kannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW l, WW2, WW3. WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chenagalpattu in terminating the services of Shri S. Baladhandayutham casual mazdoor is légal andjustified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?'"
Point :-
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a. joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issuéd to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were2329 doing the work of the départaient near their house. requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer. and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour. Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They rurther say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in Ihcir respective Claim Statements that they were given service ccrlilianes by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination. that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent, A Ta un peinent the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasckar lias been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner. he was engaged by (lie Rcspmidcnl/Management Department of Tclecoiimiiinicrilion as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Rcspondcnt/Managemcnt from the date of the alleged leniiiiuUion ol' service ni llic \ear 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service cenificales filcd b> llic Polilioncrs arc ail falsc and crcalcd by ilicniscl\c";ind ihe\ ha\c nol ineiiiioncd amtlnng wilh regard to a\ ailabilih of sers icc ccrlificatcs in their Claim StatemenK 1 lie Icarned counscl for llic Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where lhe\ lia\ e worked and who in the Respondent Dcpartnienl lias terminalcd them from service Thcre is no appomtment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/ Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were lerniinated againsl llic provisions of Industrial Disputes Acl. 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/ Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Managernent that ail thèse
Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has !\v" ;ï:.i'1"""K.:n Itis their further contention that service .:>i!!!i..!i.> s.1!-..! uponby thèse Petitioners as issuedby the officialsof the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are ail bogus. By sufficicnt documentai") évidence, the c\idcnce through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been establishèd that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been establishèd on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster roi Is încnlioned in llic service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross élimination of the common. witness for the Management M\V I. no suggestion is put to him about the work "of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars fnrnished in the service ccrlilicalcs produced b> the Pctilioncrs are not bogus but thc> arc genuinc. Whcn two of the departmental officiais ha\cbecn cxaniincd on llic side ofthe Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves have left the service after the work for which they engaged was complcted. The Petitioners who have been examined as common witness for workmen have admitled that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they have not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who have been working as casual ma/doors leniporarilv by assisling the regular and permanent staff of Rcspondcnt/Tclccom Department ha\c lefl sincc the work lhc> were attended were completed and thcre was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly establishèd by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which have been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners have never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and have not been paid wages by the department: From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the2330 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographcr. transcribed and typed by him. corrected and pronounced b\ me in the open court on this day the 31M Deccmber. 20Ô1.)
K KARTHIK.EYAN. Prcsidmg Oïïïcer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V. Santhanamf Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001)
WW.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D 195/2001)
W.W3 - Sh. P. Magcsh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer. Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai (SDE (Groups). Kalpakkam)
II Party/Management :
M.W.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
IVÎagesh Babu
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of MR. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 particulars givenin the servicecertifïcates relied uponby the Petitioners are true. the\ would hâve been granted temporary status niazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Departmenl. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly provcd by the Respondent/ Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1985 to i 995. Further. it is scen from the évidence available that the Petitioners vvere engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/ Management department were only devel opinent work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthenmg the existing exchanges and they were donc as project works and on completion of that work. thèse Petitioners hâve no work m the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners. the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certifïcates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the RespondemVTelecom Department as a record for their service in the départ ment the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials. it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchrnent from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
S.O. 733.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 191/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court. Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in 6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the2331 the Industrial Dispute betvveen the employers in relation to the management of Telecom. Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/93/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
When the matter came up beforeme for final hearing on 26-12-2001. upon perusing the Claim Statement. Counter Statement. the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side. written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman. upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal haspassedthe following :—
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT.
AWARD
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 3 lst December, 2001
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:—
PRESENT :
K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 191/2001
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri J. Saravanan for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications. Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is legaiand justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?"'
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 222/99)
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
(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 J. Saravanan and the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram, Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN :
Sri J. Saravanan ... .1 Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Managemcnt Télécommunications Kancheepuram, Distt. Chennai.
APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 40012/93/99/ IR (DU) dated 25-08-1999.
The I Party/Workman Shri J. Saravanan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 18-03-1985 for digging. drawing wires. laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by lus supériors Hc was paiu nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been eontinuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1492 number of days of service he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary- status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conféraient of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous. there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 222/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 191/2001 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 appearbefore this Tribunal on 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
2332 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]cntitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industnal dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Part}/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 18-03-1985 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a penod of 1492 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-06-1995. H is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out- digging, drawing out wires. laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages only for a short spell during 1994-1995. The départaient usedto engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointaient, termination and contir.uous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/ Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989. a Scheme callcd 'Grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourcrs who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme arc :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985,
2. He should be currcntly employed on the date of the implcmentation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should have put in 240 days continuous service in any onc of the preceding ycars prior to() 1-10-1989; and
4. Thcrc should not be a break for a period of more ihanoncyear.
The Casual Labourers who actually worked werc askcd lo furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner werc found to be bogus and manufactured onc. So. the départaient did not consider the claim of the Petitioner The Pctilioncr had submitted false service particulars, with a view to gctting employment and other benefits from the department. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skillcd and perennial in nature. As on date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like Ihc Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as donc b> ihc Petitioner. Since there is no work and thcrc is no post. there is no scope for the Petitioner for lus re-cmploymcnt in the Respondent/ Telecom Department. The Petitioner was engaged on casual basis as and when required by the department. henec. lie is not cligiblc for reinstatement as per the law and as wcll as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hcncc. it is prayed that the Horfblc Tribunal may bc plcascd to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the lcarncd counscl on cilher side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of Ihe I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001. Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and Sri M.Kannappan and C.Mathurai, have been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates have been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen have been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is -
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri J. Saravanan for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?"
Point :-
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners have been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses have been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively have been marked. On the side of the Management some of the xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen have been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issuéd to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They have raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to W W3 have spoken about the service certificates they have filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they have admitted that they have given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house,2333 Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for vvhich the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. ït is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners andMWl it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the sema: certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notu of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been avaslaoic in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of M W1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are gcnuine When two of the departmental officiais hâve been exanmied on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Pctitioneis, no question was put to them in the cross exaimnaùon about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that these Petitioners have worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying ont the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves have lcfl the service after the work foi winch they engaged was complctcd. The Petitioners who have been examined as common witness for workmen have admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not percnmal and they have not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Teiccom Department. From the évidence available in tins case, it is seen that Petitioners who have been working as casual mazdoors temporariJy by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department have left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the matenals available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which have been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioneis have never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for îhc said period and have not been paid wages by the department. Frnm this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondenî/Management in his argument thaï ihe particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but thc> are bogus certificates. It'really. the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour. Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer. whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner. he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors m 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated m lus Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the R"vvik!. !•! V':n ï:\,-:- •...:.: Télécommunication Department :s M!11 •• .'••'•*• him '.:,•. < service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 is ab imtio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentirjned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/ Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and the\ were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent' Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connecîed casual works. Tt is the spécifie sland of the Respondent/Management that al! thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 davs and in the
529 G1/2002—2725*34 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (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 Examinée! (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001).
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001).
W.W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001).
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom).
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai (SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam).
II Party/Management :
M.W.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman :
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam.
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj.
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu.
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850.
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8.
New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent / Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1985 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence ofMWl that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners àttênded as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/ Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work. thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they fumished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denièd. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Managernent by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concemed officiais in the department. ]f they were really issued by tlic officiais of the Rcspondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department. the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the sa me in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go lo show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve creîited them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work. so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of iK-dustrial Disputes Act. 1947 and the issuanceof prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So. under such circumstances. from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence. this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statcment. Thus. the point is answered accordingly.
S.O. 734.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 192/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
2335th+s tnatter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following: - to the management of Telecom Deptt. andiheir workmen, which was received by the Central Government un 5-2-2002.
AWARD
[No. L-40012/92/99-IR/DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:-
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT. CHENNAI
Monday, the 3 lst December, 2001
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri R. Pandian for reinstatement by the General Manager. Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 192/2001 (TamilNadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No. 223 /99)
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:-
(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 R. Pandian and the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Distt. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Sri R. Pandian : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager : II Party/Management
Télécommunications,
Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
Appearances :
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri RKanniappan Addl. CGSC
The Government 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 Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 40012/92/99/IR(DU) dated 25-08-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 223/99. When the matter was 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 192/2001 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 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
The I Party/Workman Shri R. Pandian (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-08-1983 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1292 Number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denîed employment w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conféraient of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and2336 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ri)] action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute lias been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department lias iïled a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 01.08.1983 and his contention about continuous vvorking with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1292 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25.06.1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging. drawing out wires. laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages only for a short spell during 1994-1995. The department usai to engage persons hke the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work donc by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/ Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are: -
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employée on ihe date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service in any one of the preceding years prior toOl 10.1989. and
4. There should not be a break for a period of more than one y car
The Casual Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particutars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted b> the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the department die) not consider the claim of the Petitioner The Petitioner had submitted false service particulars. with a view to geiting employmenl and other bencfïts from the department The alleged work donc by [he Petiîioner is not skilled and pe'en.oal in nature. As on date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purposc and also not doing such type of work as donc by the Petitioner. Since Ihere is no work and there is no post, there is no scope for the Petiîioner for his re-employment in the Respondent/' Telecom Department. The Petitioner was engaged on casual basis as and when rcqiârcd b> the department, î>e:ice. he is not eligibJe for reinsur.erueni as per dit îau ondas vvell as Teaipcan St.'îtis VA<.-J;''XV Scheme. HUK-;. ii is praved that the Hon"blc J'nbunaî uia.v be pleascd io dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was îaken up for enquiry. the learned counscl on either side represcnïed ihat the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Parly/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen Hke the Petitioner pending enquiry before lins Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001. Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I D. No. 195/2001, Sri P. Magesh Babu. Petitioner in I.D No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai. hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2. WW3. WW4. WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the zerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workman exhibits. On the side of the Management Ihe zerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The wntten arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filcd The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri R. Pandian for rcinstatement by the General Manager. Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is Icgal and justified? If not. to what relief he is entitled?"'
Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry. as per the request of the learned counsel on either side. a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducled. Thrce out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Deparlmcnt as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively lune been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Rcspondent/Telccom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service bv the Respondent/Managemcnt is illégal and they must be rcinslated m service by the Respondcnt/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They have raised thèse claims based on the service records. Thcv '.v;:rc filcd mto Court in their respective cases. WW3 to \ AV " have spoken aboul the service certificates they have fJed iiuo their respective cases. In the cross examination ofaii the Petitioner WW1 -to WW3. they have admitted that they have given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status ma/doors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people. who were doing the work of the department near their house. requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department iike lineman to give them work and as per their direction ihey went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the2337 certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to have been issued by the officiais ofthe Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are ail bogus.
Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as comraon witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour. Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say thaï they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signmg the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross exammation that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They have also denied the suggestion that they have not worked m the Respondent/Telccom Department for the period they have mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Managcmcnt the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been exammed as MW1. According to the Pctitioner. he was engaged by the Respondcnt/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement It is his further allégation in the Claim Statcment that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Rcspondent/Managcment Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 is ab initio \ oid and against law Since the saidaction of the Respondent/Managemcnt is illégal he must be reinstatcdin service by the Respondent/Managementfrom the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners arc ail false and created by themselves and they have not mentioned anything with regard to availability ofservice certificates in their Claim Statements The lcarned counscl for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Slatcmcnt of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they have worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. Thcrc is no appointment order as well as Ihc termination order passcd by the Respondent/ Management for llicsc Pclitioncrs to claim that they were appointed by the Rcspondcnt/Tclecom Department and they werc terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thesc pcople werc engaged in the ycar 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the rcgular staff of the Respondent/ Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other conncctcd casual vvorks. It is the spécifie stand of the Rcspondent/Managcment that ail thèse Petitioners have not worked for 240 days and in the Countcr Statcment filed by the Respondenl/Management in their respective cases, the days for winch the concemed Pctitioner had worked in the Rcspondcnt/Deparlmcnt has been clcarly given. It is their further contention that service
By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the" departmental officiais examined on the side ofthe Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side ofthe Management by producing the original of the concemed number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates ofthe Petitioners and brought it to the notice ofthe Petitioners that their names have not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1. no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two ofthe departmental officiais have been examined on the side ofthe Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 have stated in their évidence that they have no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is scen that thèse Petitioners have worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves have left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who have been examined as common witness for workmen have admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they have not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who have been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department have left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the matenals available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clcarly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which have been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners have never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and have not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would have been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the2338 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31 st December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 ~- Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam]
II Party/Management :
M.W.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002 Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent / Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1985 to 1995. Further, it is seenfrom the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it vvas not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the j car. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/ Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project work s and on completion of that work, thèse Petittoners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners. the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificatcs. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificaîes by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hase nol stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued Ihose service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondcnt/Telccom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases have created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not einploy Petitioners and they were not given independent work. so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail anse. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail anse. So. under such circumstances. from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they have engaged is lcgal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief ne prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus. the point is answered accordingly.
S.O. 735.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT-2/58 of 94) of the Central Government Industrial 6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
2339Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M.T.N.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-2-2002.
[No. L-42012/156/93-IR/DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI
PRESENT
S. N. SAUNDANKAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/58 OF 1994
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MTNL, BOMBAY The Chief General Manager, Mahanagar Téléphone Nigam Ltd., Téléphone House, Prabhadevi, Dadar, Bombay 4000281.
AND
till August'84. He pleaded that in September'84 the Assistant Engineer did not permit him to work and informed him that his services are not required and that he would be given work whenever possible. It is the contention of workman that he had completed 240 days in 12 months immediately before September '84 and consequently he was entitled for retrenchment compensation as per the provisions of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, without giving him compensation and notice pay he was terminated in September'84 in contravention to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. He approached the authority and requested for employment, however, he was not given work. Authority gave him certifïcate dtd. 9/3/85. It is contended that workman by the letter dtd. 24-2-92 demanded work from the authority. but, in vain and that on 24/3/92 he wrote to the A.L.C. (C) Mumbai, who in turn. tried conciliation, but, failed. It is the contention of workman that though he worked 240 days his services were terminated illegally, and therefore he contended, to direct the management to reinstate him and to pay back wages.
THEIR WORKMEN
Shri Shiv Pujan R. Yadav, C/o Nitu Seth Ki Gadi, Jawahar Nagar, Khar (E), Bombay 400051.
3. The management, MTNL, resisted the claim of workman by filing Written Statement (Exhibit-5) contending that inordinate delay has occurred and therefore the claim is stale. It is their contention that the workman did not work continuously 240 days in a year as contemplated under the Act. It is contended that the workman after August'84 did not turn up for job, and thereby he voluntarily abandoned the services, and that after-thought in 1982, he raised the dispute. It is contended that since workman did not work continuosuly for 240 days and that he abandoned the work, question of his termination and giving compensation, notice pay, does not arise. For ail thèse contentions management prayed to dismiss the claim of workman.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Ms. Y.J. Mestry
Adv. holding for Management.
FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr. N.Y. Lokhande
Advocate.
Mumbai. Dated 20th December, 2001
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-40012/156/93/IR(DU), dtd. 16/29-11-94. in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hâve referred the following industrial dispute to this^ribunal for adjudication.
"Whether the action of the management of Mahanagar Téléphone Nigam Ltd., in retrenching of service of Shri ShivpujanR. Yadav, casual labour from September 1984 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. The workman Shivpujan R. Yadav vide his Statement of Claim (Exhibit-3) contended that he was employed as a casual labourer in the external départaient of Assistant Engineer Vile-parle Mumbai Téléphone Exchange in or about July'83, and that he worked there 4. Record shows that my Learned Predecessor by his order dtd. 21/8/96 (Exhibit-19) had held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to décide the référence as the management MTNL is not an industry. The same was challenged by workman vide Writ Pétition before the Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court, Bombay and later- on in Appeal No. 1071 of 1998 in Writ Pétition No. 1386 of 1997, and that the Division Bench, by their order dtd. 25/10/99 (Exhibit-21) set aside the order of the tribunal dtd. 21/8/96 (Exhibit-19) holding MTNL an industry, remitted the matter directing to décide afresh.
5. Since no issue were framed earlier on the basis of the pleadings this tribunal framed issues at Exhibit- 25A. After remand workman did not lead oral évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-26) contending évidence led vide (Exhibit-8) be teated as their évidence. However, Junior Telecom Officer. Shri Jacob Thomas filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-28) and finally. management closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-29).
6. The workman filed written submission (Exhibit- 30) alongwith copies of the rulings and the management (Exhibit-31) with the copies of the rulings. On hearing the counsels, perusing record as a whole and the written submissions, I record my findings on the following issues for the reasons stated below :—
2340 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA • MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II~Stc 3(ii)lIssues Findings
1. Whether the action of the management Yes.
"where the worker was employée only for eleven months the fact that during such a period of 11 months he had worked more than 240 days would not entitle him to get the benefit of Section 25 F of the said Act."
of M T.N.L. in retrenching service of Shri S.R. Yadav. casual labourer from September'84 is justified?
2. If not. what relief the workman is As per order
entitled? below.
REASONS
10. The Learned Counsel Mr. Lokhande urged with force inviting attention of this tribunal to the letters/ circulars issued by Head of Department, management follow the practice first to remove the casual labour without giving any notice pay and retrenchment 1 compensation as required under the Industrial Disputes Act. giving assurances that they vvill give the job is required to be considered in as much as bargaining capacity of the woikers is weak as compared to the employers and that labourers hâve to succumb to the wishes of employer for bread and butter. It is seen from the record the workman was away from the office for years together. In case of daily rated casual labourers vvhenever work is available the same is provided. If that is so, dealy speaks volume. At this juncture the Learned Counsel Ms. Mestry relied on EShoop Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. ( 1992) 3 Suprême Court Cases 136 Wherem Their Lorships observed :
7. The workman stated that he worked in MTNL from August'83 lo August'84 and that his services were terminatedby the end of August'84 Managemenl witness Mr. Thomas admits that workman Yadav worked during October'83 to August'84 for 270 days. however according to him, he was not m continuous service. He admits on issuing letterby their office dtd. 9/3/85 (Exhibit-4/2). This letter shows workman worked 31 days in August'83, but, there was no work in September and April'84 and that in May, June he had not worked for the whole mon th. That means, he was not in continuous service, which is clearly admitted by workman himself in cross examination (Exhibit-8/pg.2).
8. According to management services of workman were not terminated, however. he himself, voluntarily remained absent, which is abandonment of work. Workman admits in cross-examination (Exhibit-8) that he hadbeen to his native place and had raised dispute in 1992. He is unable to explain as to why the dispute was not raised earlier. This shows, since September'84 till March'92 he was silent. If really workman was refused to give work. he would hâve complamed to that effect immediately. as in ordinary course of human nature, reacts promptly on the happenings.
9. The Learned Counsel Mr. Lokhande for the workman by the written submissions pointed out that workman was running from pillar to post for his stomach. However. management which is always on upper hand as usual, adopting négative modus-operandi put-fourth the theory of abandonment. Assuming for a moment as urged by Mr. Lokhande, workman had not abandoned the work it is appearent as stated above that, he was not in continuous service. The Learned Counsel Mis Mestry holding for Advocate for the management pointed out that, daily rated casual labourers are concerned, they hâve to attend office everyday and if work is available the same is provided to them. However. if daily rated casual labourers used to remain absent continuously, then it is clear that they are not interested in the work and the same thing has happened in the présent case. Under section 25(B) workman should hâve completed 240 days within a block of 12 calendar months commencing backward from the date of alleged termination. Workman admittedly did not work continuously. It is held by Their Lordships of Suprême Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 3657 :
''It is expected of a Government servant who has a legitimate claim to approach the Court for the relief he seeks within a reasonable period, assuming no fixed period of limitation applies. This is necessary to avoid discloting the administrative set-up after it has been funclioning on a certain basis for years, During the interregnum those who hâve been working gain more expérience and acquire rights which cannot be defeated casually by collaterial entry of a person at a higher point without the benefit of actual expérience during the period of his absence when he chose to remain silent for years before making the claim. Apart from the consequential benefits of reinstatement without actually working, the impact on the administrative set-up and on other employées is a strong reason décline considération of stale claim unless the delay is satisfactorily explained and is not attnbutable to the claimant. This is a material fact to be given due weight while considering the argument of discrimination in the présent case for deciding whether the petitioner is in the same class as those who challenged their dismissal several years earlier and were consequently granted the relief of reinstatement. In our opinion the lapse of a much longer unexplained period of several years in the case of the petitioner is a strong reason not to classify him with the other dismissed constables who approached the court earlier and got reinstatement It was clear to the petitioner latest in 1978 when the second batch of pétition were filed, that the petitioner also vvill hâve to file a pétition for "'• .' ••' :; •.•."' Eventhen he chose to wail " \ *" ;' case also being decided in 1987. The argument of discrimination is. therefore. not available to the petitioner."
"the daily wage emplolyees vvhose services were engaged on the basis of need of work. termination of such employée cannot be construed to be retrenchment."
In Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Vs. Their
11. True it is. the object of the act is to improve the service conditions of the industriaî labour so as to provide the ordinary amenitiesof lifeandby the process. tobring about industrial peace which would in its term accelerate productive activity of the country resulting in its workman SCC IILLJ 367 Their Lordhips observed :
2341ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI
PRESENT
prosperity. Their lordships in Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. & Anr. JT 1999 (3) SC 38, observed that. the provisions of the Act hâve to be interpreted in a manner which advance the object of the législature contemplated in the statement of objects and reasons and that attempt should be made to avoid industrial unrest, secure industrial peace and to provide machinery to secure that aid.
12. Looking to the facts of the case in the light of the décisions, contention of management that workman abandoned the work, question of retrenchment does not arise, finds substance. It is seen workman did not work continuouly as required under Section 25 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. which does not entitle the benefit of Section 25 (F) of the said Act. In view of the position action of the management is totally justified and consequently workman is not entitled to any relief. Issues are therefore answered accordingly and hence the order :—
ORDER
The action of the management of Mahanagar Téléphone Nigam Ltd., in retrenching the service of Shri ShivpujanR. Yadav, casual labour from September, 1984 is légal and justified and consequently he is not entitled to any reliefs.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002 S.O. 736.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT-2/90 of 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M.T.N.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/102/2001-IR/DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer 529 GI/2002—28
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/90 OF 2001 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF MTNL, MUMBAY The Assistant General Manager, (Adnin.) East. I. Mahanagar Téléphone Nigam Ltd., KCC, LBS Marg, Vikhoroli, (W), Mumbay-400083.
AND
THEIR WORKMEM
Shri Akshay Bapu Patil, Dr. B. Ambcdkhar Colony, Sidharth Nagar, Park site, Vikhroli ( W), Mumbay 400079.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. K.G. Nagwekar
Advocate.
FOR THE WORKMEN : No appearance.
Mumbai. Dated 28th January, 2002
AWARD
The Government cf IndU-i. Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-40012/102/2001/IR (DU), dated 27-6-2001 in exercise of the powcrs conferred by cl au su (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-seclion (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. hâve referrcd the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.
"Whether the action of the management of Mahanagar Téléphone Nigam Limited. Mumbai by terminating the services of Sh. Akshay Bapu Patil is justified and proper ? If not. iiien whal relief the workman is entitled?' '
On receipt of the référence this Uibunal issucd notices and accordingly workman and the management's Advocate appeared before the tribunal consequently workman was to file his statement of daim. Howcvcr record shows, workman though sufficient tirne gianted since 26-11-2001 till todate remained absent, nor put statement of claim, which indicates, he is not interested to prosecute the référence and therefore the following order is passed:—
ORDER
Référence stands disposed of for noir-prosecution.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer2342 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 TPART II—SEC. 3(ii)l New Delhi, the 6th February. 2002 S.O. 737.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. CGIT- 2/132 of 99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Richarsdson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-2-2002.
[No. L-42OI2/236/98-IR(DU)] K.ULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. Il, MUMBAI PRESENT : S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer Référence No. CGIT-2/132 of 1999 Employers in relation 1o the management of M/s. Richardson & Cruddas Ltd.
The Genl. Manager (1R), M/s. Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. (1972), Byculla Iron Works,
Bycullla, Mumbai, 400 008.
AND
Their Workmen
The Président, Association of Engineering Workers, 252, Janta Colony^ Ramnarayan Narker Marg, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400 077.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer : Mr. S. Z. Choudhary
Advocatc.
For the Workman • Mr. V. T. Mirajkar
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated 21st December, 2001 AWARD—PART-I
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its OrderNo. L-42012/236/98/IR(DU), dtd. 6-5-1999, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section (1) and Sub-section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Induslrial Disputes Act, 1947, hâve referredthe following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd., Mulund Works, Mulund, Mumbai-400 080 in terminating the services of the workman Sh. K.D. Rai is légal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. Workman, K. D. Rai was working as gas cutter since 19 years in the Richardson and Crudas Co. (hereinafter referred to as management/compamy). It is contended by the union that workman was an active member of the union. His record was clean and unblemished, management falsely alleged against the workman, by the chargesheet dtd. 27-12-93, that workman comm itted m isconduct by attempting to comm it fraud in connection with the business/property of employer which also amounts to act subversive of discipline in the permises of the establishment. It is contended that the workman being active member of union, the company lodged a false complaint with the police by which criminal case bearingNo. C.R. 125/P/94 came to be registered and the complaint is pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mulund. The union contended that, the management was apprised not to hold a domestic inquiry, since the criminal case was pending before the court. However, 1o harass workman, inquiry was commenced. It is contended, inquiry officer Mr. A.S. Kulkarni and the management représentative Mr. Kalokhe being officers of the company, were biased against the workman. they were acting under the instructions of Personnel Manager, Mr. Gunjal. It is contended the inquiry officer did not allow the workman to represent through advocate though the charge was serious, nor postponed the inquiry till the décision of the court case, thereby the inquiry is improper. It is contended, inquiry was held in haste, against the Principles of Natural Justice, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer being perverse and the inquiry being improper, vitiates.
3. The management company opposed the claim of the workman by filing Written Statement (Exhibit-10) contending that the workman on 25-12-93, being a Christmas day, a paid holiday, by entering the factory premises in the morning, by jumping overthe compound wall from Shop No. 2, picked up S.S. Plate, lying near the cutting machine and brought the same near the compound wall with intention of throwing it outside the compound wall and was caught red handed by security guard while attempting to commit theft of trre property of company, therefore he was chargesheeted on 27-12-93. Workman did not reply to the chargesheet. The domestic inquiry was held against him by the inquiry officer Shri Kulkarni and management was represented by Mr Kalokhe. it is contended aims and objects of departmental inquiry totaliy differs. the level of required proof also differs, therefore keeping the inquiry in abeyance till disposai of the criminal case pending in2343 court, was not justified. The workman was représentée! by Mr. K.R. Verma, Office bearerof the Association, who had conducted many inquiries. Inquiry officer on giving sufficient opporrunity concluded the inquiry on 3-10-94, holding the charges proved, and that on the basis of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority dismissed the workman ' by the order dtd. 31-10-94. It is contended inquiry officer on the basis of the évidence recorded the findings, the inquiry being proper and finding being not perverse, the claim of the workman be rejected.
4. On the basis the pleadings my Learned Predecessor framed issues at Exhibit-12. Workman filed his affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit- 14) and closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-15). Mr. Kulkarni, inquiry officer filed affidavit (Exhibit-16) on behalf of the management by way of Examination-in- Chief, and closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-22).
5. Union filed written submissions (Exhibit-23) and the management (Exhibit-24).
6. On hearing the counsels and perusing the record as a whole, I record my findings in the following preliminary issues for the reasons stated below :
Issues
Findings 1.
No Whether the domestic inquiry which was conducted against the workman was against the Principles of Natural Justice?
2.
No Whether the finding of the officer are perverse?
REASONS
7. According to the workman Rai, he was an active member of the union, which was not liked by company, therefore on 27th December, 1993 he was given false chargesheet of the incident dtd. 25-12-93. He stated that he had requested the inquiry officer Mr. Kulkarni to permit him to engage an advocate for his defence, as the criminal case was pending of the incident dtd. 25-12-93, in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, however, that was rejected. His further grievance is that the inquiry officer declined to postpone the inquiry till the décision of the criminal complaint, and inspite of that, the inquiry was concluded holding him guilty for the charges, and therefore the findings are perverse and inquiry vitiates. Mr. Kulkarni denied that inquiry was against the Principle of Natural Justice and fair play. Admittedly, workman is the active member of union and that he was représentative by Mr. Verma who had represented many inquiries. He admits Verma conducted the inquiry well, he had received copies of the proceedings.
8. So far contention of workman that the inquiry officer refused to postpone the inquiry till the décision of the criminal case pending in court and -therefore the inquiry is unfair, is concerned, the Learned Counsel Mr. Choudhary has rightly pointed out that the departmental inquiry totally differs, the level of required proof also differs, therefore there was no reason to postpone the inquiry till the décision of the criminal case.
9. It is seen from the inquiry proceedings filed by the management (Exhibit-13) offence as alleged, occurred on 25-12-93 of which chargesheet was issuedto workman on 27-12-93, workman did not reply the chargesheet, inquiry actually commenced on 25-02-94 and ended on 13-10-94, by consuming about 34 dates there was no haste and there was no propriety to keep pending the departmental inquiry till the décision in the criminal case. So far the - request to engage advocate as Defence Counsel, declined by the inquiry officer is concerned, standing order applicable to the company do not permit. Therefore, inquiry officer was right, thereby inquiry cannot said to be infair.
10. It is seen from the record workman had received copies of the inquiry proceedings. he had not given application to the company nor the inquiry officer on the alleged unfair inquiry. Had any préjudice caused to the workman, he would hâve apprised the same in writing. However, that is wanting. It is seen only because domestic inquiry was not kept in abeyance till the décision of the criminal case, the workman was aggriéved. However, nothing on record to show that, préjudice had occasioned, therefore, it cannot be said that inquiry was improper.
11. So far the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse, is concerned,Their Lordships of Suprême Court in Central Bank of India Vs. Prakash Chand Jain 1969 II LLJ pg. 377, observed "perversity is that when the findings are such which no reasonable person would hâve arrived at on the basis of the material before him." In the case in hand, the report dtd. 20-10-94 (Exhibit-13, pg. 112/114) show two witnesses were examined by the management viz. Ambre and Hariharan and they were cross-examined at length by the Defence Représentative, and that documents produced had gone unchallenged. It is not that findings were not based on record therefore it cannot be said that the findings are perverse.
12. So far domestic inquiry is concerned, Their Lordships of Suprême Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. Vs. Their Workman, 1963 II LLJ pg. J67 pointed out the inquiry cannot be said to hâve been properly held unless :
(i) the employée proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him.
(ii) the witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the présence of the employée in respect of the charges.
(iii) the employée is given a fair opportunity to cross- examine witnesses;
(iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter; and (v) the inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report.
If we applied the test in the said case, it is clear that the inquiry was fair and proper and findings are not biased as based on the évidence on record. Consequently issues No. 1 & 2 are answered accordingly and hence the order :—
ORDER
The domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was as per the Principles of Natural Justice.
The findings of the inquiry officer are not perverse.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer2344 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SIC. 3( ii)j
Mumbai, Dated 21st December, 2001
AWARD-PART-Ï
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, bv
its OrderNo. L-42012/227/98/IR(DU), dtd, 16/20/4-1999,
in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hâve referred the following
dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.
"Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd, Mulund Works,
Mulund, Mumbai-400 080 illegally terminating the
services of Shri S. A. Haldankar. Helper is légal
and justifïed? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?"
New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002
S.O. 738— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 1 4 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishestlv;award(Ref. No. CGIT- 2/120 of 99) of the Centrai Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betvveen the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-2-2002.
[No. L-42012/227/98-IR(DU)]
KULDSP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORr i '!- MR AL GOVERNMENT INft. •• >; ' '. i IR1BUNALNO. II,
PRESEN [:';.• '-. ^ '•• •. )AKk
l-'u.r'.iiu: :-;>• CGU'-2/120of 1999
EVH'LOYERS IN RELATION TO THE
MANAGEMENT Or M/S RICHARDSON AND CRUDDAS
. " : •• • ' - . ; ! ! - .. ! i v : i d c n t o c c u r ed as m e n t i o n ed in t he s h o ' Jv ZJ r:
• • • < : • . . . :• l i t d. 11- 4 - 9 7, c h a r g e s h e et d td 1 9 - 5 - Q? V PS i s s u es A $ . - . x ; i . j> • • ' >; i .i • M .-
• ' ! ! .' W ' o ' i ^ - . --
' J: :- '• . ' r k m a n. ii is c o n t e n d ed t he s h o \v c a u se n o t i ce
: .).ni> the consistent rnisbebavio'jr reiiiltinvr in fear 2 5 2, J a i ' M' -i • , Rainn:M'.' • ' • '• : ' - . ' *• i Gh.ttkc.p.ir > !Vi. ' : Mu;n'!\ii
A P i 'l A R A N Ci S
For the E : n p l o s er Vlr. S. Z . C h o u d h a ry
ciïîi'.pîex effecting safet> of stai". ^ -voh ( hnt.^os wert eïiq'iired b> the inquiry officsr b;. Luim: r.u'Ticienî opportunit> It ÎS contended that Génial ha-J rnx reason to be biased againstthe u'iion and to instnret the înqnir> otïicer to act in favour of the management. It is contended. inquiry officer after considering ail record and materia! giving sufficient opportunity, concluded the inquirv and thereafter the management on the pioved charges punished the workman suitably. It is contended that the
2345findings recorded by thc inquiry officer arc based on the material évidence and thcrcfore not perverse. Consequently according to thc management, company. inquiry being fair and proper and the findings being not perverse, daim of the union be rejected.
4. On the basis the pleadings my Learncd Predecessor framed issues al Exhibit-10. Workman Haldankar filed affidavitby way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-12) and thereafter union closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-14). Mr. Khilari, inquiry officer, filed affidavit (Exhibit-19) on behalf of the management and the management company finally closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-20).
5. The union filed written submissions (Exhibit- 22) and the management (Exhibit-23). On perusing the record as a whole and hearmg thc counsels and the written submissions.
I record my findings on the following three prelimmary issues for the reasons statcd belovv :
Issues
rindmgs ].
Référence is maintam- able.
Whether the référence is not maintamable in view of the objections raised in para- graph-l(a)?
2.
Yes.
Whether the domestic inquiry which was held against thc workman was against the Principles of Natural Justice?
3.
Yes.
Whether the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse?
7. So far fairness of inquiry is concerned workman Haldankar stated that inquiry is improper as the chargesheet was vague, mqmry officer was biased and no opportunity was given. He stated that the managements représentative and the inquiry officer were pressurising him to complète the cross-examination Inquiry officer, Mr. Khilari admits in his cross- exammation para. 8 that he was appointed as inquiry officer as per order dtd. 19-5-97, pg. 81 to make inquiry in the light of the charge sheet dtd. 19-5-97. Hc admits chargesheet dtd. 19-5-97 does not show which spacific charge workman has to face, and further admits that he recorded the findings in thc inguiry. pg. 115 not as per the charges mentioned at page. 79. Management hâve filed the inquiry papers with list (Exhibit-11 ) Show cause notice isdtd 11-4-97. pg. 76. where as chargesheet is dtd. 19-5- 97. pg 79 Inquiry officer, Mr. Khilari admits that chargshect docs not specify the charges. A référence of show cause notice dtd. 11-4-97 is in the chargasheet Howevcr. when employer gives the chargasheets to the amployee. employer is under obligation to spacify the charges against the employés m the chargesheet itself. In catena of Judgments it is observed by Their Lordships that. not only charge shouldbe mentioned. but. it should be unambiguous. spécifie, giving clear out particulars of the charges which the employée has to face. However. chargesheet dtd. 19-5-97 is admittedly vague thereby to my view, perejudice has caused to the workman.
REASONS
6. The management in their Written statement (Exhibit-9) para-1 (a) contended that the company has been declared as a sick unit by the B.I.F.R., under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Spécial provisions) Act, 1985, and revival packages has been approved by the B.I.F.R. and that now the company is in nursing period. Howevcr. the union without permission from B.I.F.R. instituted the proceedings and therefore it is not maintainabie. Company though averred in Written Stîitcment not pointed oui; by way of Written submissions as So how thc référence is not maintainabie in the light of Use said aver-ments The union on the other hand clearly pomtcd out in written submissions, para 6 as to how no permission from B.Î.F.R. is required. Union relied on the décision Modistone Ltd & Ors. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai ï 999 Iï CLRpage-371. wherein their Lordships of the Bombay High Court held "Modistone company cannot takc spelter of Section 22 of Sick Industrial companies (spécial provisions) Act, 1985. in respect of workers. Thereby according to the union permission as contended by the management is not at ail required. Company has not taken this issue seriously nor averred so in affidavit by its witness Mr. Khi) ari (Exhibit-19). Apart from this , order of schedule has been referred by the Ministry of Labour under section 10 ( 1) (d) to this tribunal for adjudication and not by the union directly, therefore requifing prior approval, as averred in the written statement has no force. Therefore I find référence is maintainabie.
8. Inquiry officer Mr. Khilari in cross-examination. para. 10, admits that copias of complaints against the workman were not given alongwith the chargesheet to him. Those complaints are at pgs. 82, 84, 86 (Exhibit- 11). Ps. 82 & 84 are the complaints of kalwer and page. 86 is of one Nardikar whose names find place in the show cause notice dtd. 11-4-97. pg. 76 on which basis the company contended that, chargesheet refers. The Learned Counsel Mr. Mirajkar relied on CST, Mumbai Vs Ranjan Kumar Mohalik, 2000 III CLR 117, wherein His Lordships of Bombay High Court observed:
"When relevant material was considered without making the same available to the workman there would be an infraction of the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play."
In the case in hand, it is seen from the inquiry proceedings the inquiry officer considered the complaints ps. 82, 84, 86 without making the same available to the workman and therefore it can certainly be said that. that occassioned préjudice to the workman.
9. It is the contention of union that Shivaji Gunjal was biased, be was anti-union and that inquiry officer was acting under his instructions. Needless to say. inquiry officer should be impartial on whom dépends, whether inquiry would be fair. On perusal of the inquiry paper pg. 38 A (Exhibit-11) dates of the inquiry 12-9-97, 19-9-97 and 20-9-97 were given by said Gunjal. Chief Personnel Manager. It is seen from the inquiry report (pg. 89 to 115) (Exhibit-11) inquiry was commenced on 21 -5 -97. That mens inquiry officer had taken the work of inquiry since then. Thcre was no reason for Gunjal to give dates ôf inquiry vide (Exhibit-38 A). This clearly shows the intefererence of Mr. Gunjal in the inquiry. Therefore in view of the discussion supra, it is clear that the inquiry was not as per the Principles of Natural Justice.
2346 THEGAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 |PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)]10. In so far as contention that the findings are perverse once it is clear that the inquiry îtself was vitialed there is no further need to record any'findings regarding perversity as hald in the above said décision in 2000 III CLR 117. Otherwise also going Ihrough the inquiry/ proceedings, the findings are not based on the documents évidence and therefore are perverse. Consequantly issues are answered accordingly and hance the order:—
ORDER
The domestic inquiry conducted against the workman is not as per the Principles on Natural Justice. The findings of the inquiry officer are perverse. Management is allowed to lead évidence to justify its action.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002 S.O. 739.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebv publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT- 2/103 of 99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai. now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. and their workman. which was received bv Ihe Central Government on 6-2-2002.
[No. L-42()12/226/98-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT :
S. N. SAUNDANKAR Presiding Officer Référence No. CG1T-2/1O3 of 1999 Employers in Relation to the Management of M/s. Richardson & Cruddas
The Genl. Manager (P&A), M/s. Richarsdson & Cruddas (1972), Ltd., Mulund Works, L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080.
AND
Their Workmcn
The Président, Association of Engineering Workers, 252, Janta Colony' Ramnarayan Narker Marg. Ghatkopar (East). Mumbai.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer : Mr. S. Z.Chowdhary
Advocate
For The Workman : Mr. V. T. Mirajkar
Advocate.
Mumbai, Dated 21st December, 2001 AWARD-PART-I
The Government of India. Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-42012/226/98/[R(DU), dtd, 16/20-4-1999, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of" Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947, hâve referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd., Mulund Plant Mumbai-70 in terminating the services of Sh. B.B. Rai is légal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. Workman, B.B. Rai, was employed sixteen years before his dismissal. It is contended vide Statement of Claim (Exhibit-8) that workman was active member of the union which was not liked by Mr. Shivaji Gunjal. an anti-union company officer. It is contended workman had gone to his native place on sanctioned leave from 24th November, 1993 to 22nd December, 1993. He was to résume duty on 23rd December, 1993. However, he fell sick, due to the tension of the death of his father and sickness of his mother and therefore, could not résume on duty. On lst December, 1995 he went to résume duty alongwith the fitness certificate issued by Dr. Sinha of Ranchi. However, he was not allowed to join duty, saying, on due inquiry, on his absence, he has been dismissed from service. It is the contention of union that workman had not received any show cause notice nor chargesheet in respect of alleged misconduct of absentism. Workman was not given opportunity to défend the inquiry, the inquiry being ex-parte and the findings perverse made to victimise the workman and therefore the same being unfair be set aside.
3. Management, company, opposed the claim of union by filing their Written Statement (Exhibil-10) contending that the workman remained absent without any application/intimation and therefore he was given chargesheet dtd. 1-6-94, on the misconduct of remaining absent. It is contended workman inspite of receiving the chargesheet wilfully avoided to give reply and to face inquiry, therefore. the inquiry officer Shri A S. Kulkarni. concluded the inquiry on 24-10-94. It is contended on the findings of the inquiry officer the Disciplinant Authority terminated the workman. Therefore the inquiry being proper and findings being not bisased. the claim of the union, be rejected.
2347against the workman can safely be said to be not fair and proper. Once the inquiry vitiates, there is no need to record any findings regarding perversity, as held in CSTMumbai Vs. Rajan Kumar Mohalik 2000 III CLR 117. Consequently issues are answered accordingly and hence the following order :
4. On the basis of the plcadings my Learncd Predecessor framed issues at Exhibit-11 Workman filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chicf (Exhibit-13) and closed évidence vide (Exhibit-16) Management filed affidavit of inquiry officer Mr. Kulkarni by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-21) and finally closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-22).
ORDER
The domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was as per the Principles of Natural Justice. The findin&s of the inquiry officer are not perverse. Management to lead évidence to justify its action.
5. Union filed written submissions (Exhibit-23). and the management at (Exhibit-24). On perusing Oie record as a wholc and the written submissions and on hearing the counscl at length, I record my findings on the following preliminary issues for the rcasons stated below "
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer Issues
Findings
1.
Yes.
Whethcr the domestic inquiry was held against the workman was against the Principles of Naturl Justic?
2.
Yes.
Whether the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse?
REASONS
New Delhi, the 6th February. 2002
S.O. 740— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT- 2/104 of 99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2. Mumbai, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. and their workmen. which was reccived by the Central Government on 6-2-2002.
6. Admittedly workman Mr. Rai was on sanctioned lcavc from 24-11-93 to 22-12-93 and that he did not report on dut\ from 23-12-93. Inquiry officer. Mr. Kulkarni admitted in his cross-exammation (para. 9) that the companv and the Prcscnting Officer had disclosed him that Rai had gonc oui of station, and that he had not reported on duty on 23-12-93. Mr. Kulkarni furtheradmits that Rai did not inform him that he would not attend the inquiry Hc had informed the management to apprise Rai that hc would conduct inquiry ex-parte against Mr. Rai. According to workman. wittiout apprising him inquiry was conducted ex-parte and that findings arc preverse. No doubt workman admits in cross-cxamination. para 8 that hc had rcceivcd 12 letters from the company to attend the duly. hc had rcceivcd the chargesheet from the company. hc was also informed regarding the date of inquiry. but hc did not attend the inquiry. The Learned Counscl Mr Chowdhary urged with force that inspite of rccciMiig chargesheet. workman dclibcrately avoided to attend the inquiry and therefore the inquiry can safely be said to bc proper.
[No. L-42012/222/98-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
S. N SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer
Référence No. CGIT-2/104 of 1999
Employers in Relation to the Management of
M/s. Richardson & Cruddas
7 II îs the case of workman that he was under tension duc to bad happenings and hc was also sick and thereforc hc could not résume duty on 23-12-93 and that on 1-12-95 hc went tojoin the duty alongwith fitness ccrtificatc of Dr Smha of Ranchi. but, he was not allowcd. as thcinqmry washcldearlicr. The crucial point wc have to sec whethcr the workman had sufficicnl rcason for not attending the inquiry. It is not thaï uisticc is shown to have been donc. Itappcars to have been donc If looked into the facts on record, no doubl workman admitted to have reccived chargesheet and not altcndcd the inquiry, but at the samc time. point crops on whethcr the ccrtificatc issued b\ Dr Sinha was gcnuinc or nol and the very fact had gonc. uncnquircd
The Gcnl. Manager (P&A). M/s Richarsdson & Cruddas (1972). Ltd., Mulund Works, L.B.S. Marg, Mulund (West). Mumbai 400 080.
S. As slatcd above. management and the inquiry officcr both were awarc that workman had gone to his native place on sanctioned lcavc. The fact that workman had produeed fitness ccrtificatc from Dr. Sinha and that was not enquired. point of Pnnciplcs of Natural Justice, crops up. and from tins point of view. the inquiry held
AND2348 THE GAZETTE OF IMDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II- -SEC. 3(ii)] Their Workmen
The Président, Association of Engineering Workers, 252, Janta Colony, Ramnarayan Narker Marg, Ghatkopar (East). Mumbai.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer : Mr. S. Z Chowdhary
Advocate
For the Workman Mr. V. T. Mirajkar
Advocate.
Mumbai, Dated the 21 st December, 2001
AWARD-PART-I
has been obtained from B.LF.R. to institute proceedings. It is contended that Deputy General Manager (PA and IR), Mr. Gunjal had no reasons to be biased against the union. It is contended because of the misconduct on the part of the workman which was affecting the peace of the organisation as a whole a show cause notice dtd. 9-4-97 was given and thereafter he was chargesheeted on 20-7-97, fair the wilful insubordination, disorderly behaviours, acts subversive of discipline etc , and thereafter the inquiry was commenced against the workman by the inquiry officer Mr. Khilari, who had no reason to be biased against him. It is contended inquiry officer giving sufficient opportunity, recorded findings on 21-1-98, and that workman sceking to the findings on 28-1 -98, the Disciplinary authority considering the proved charges against the workman, to saye the company from the indiscipline, terminated the services of workman on 31-1-98. It is contended that the inquiry officer gave findings on the basis of the évidence and they are not perverse. Consequentiy management contended to reject the claim of the union.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by itsOrderNo. L-42012/222/98/IR(DU),dtd, 16/20-4-1999, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (!) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, hâve referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.
4. M y Leained Predecessor on the basis of the pleadings fiamed preliminary issues (Exhibit-12). On behalf of the union workman Gamre filed his affïdavit (Exhibit-13) and closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit- 14). Inquiry officer Mr. Khilari filed affïdavit by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhibit-15) and finally management closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-21 ).
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Richardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd.. Mumbai illegally terminating the services of Sh. G. B. Gamare, Charge-hand is lcgal and justified? If not. to what relief the workman is entitled?"
5. The union filed written submissions (Exhibit-22) and the management (Exhibit-23). On perusing the record as a whole and the written submissions and on hearing the counsels for both sides I record my findings on the following preliminary issues for the reasons stated below :
Issues
Findings
!,
No
Whether the domesnc inquiry which was conducted against the workman was agamsl the Prinuples of Natural Justice?
->
No
Whether the findings of !he mquiry officer are perverse"?
3
Tribunal has junsdic- tior".
Whether the tribunal has no junsdiction in view of the contention taken by the management in paragraph 1(a) of the Written Statement'7
REASONS
2. Workman, G. B. Gamare, was employed in the company in the year 1976 as charge-sheet. It is contended by the union vide Statement of Claim (Exhibit-6) that workman was active member of the union and that the Personnel Manager, Mr. Gunjal was anti-union, and with intention to break the union and the active worker the workman was issued Show Cause Notice on 9-4-97 and thereafter he was chargesheeted on .20-7-97 for the allégations of "wilful insubordination or disobedîence. drunkeness, riotious, disorderl} and indécent beliaviour on the premises. act.subversive of discipline, which he had replied. However, the management started nquiry against him appointing Mr M N. Khilari as inquiry officcr on higher rémunération, he was tolally biased aga'nst the workman It is contended that inquiry officer without giving lair and proper reasonable opportunity concluded the inquiry with unduc haste on 21-1-98, holding workman guilty. It is the contention of the union that the workman had given say to the findings on 28-1-9J? to the inquiry officer but without considering the sanie, the Disciplinary authority by the order dtd. 31-1-98 terminated his services illegally. It is contended that Ihe workman was due for superannuation on 31 st May. 1999. His record was clean and unblemished. The inquiry officer did not record the findings appreciating the évidence placed before him, therefore the findings are perverse. Consequently union contended that the inquiry being against the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play and the findings being perverse, be set aside.
6, Attheoutset management company. averred in the written statement (Exhibit-9), para. 1 (a) is concerned the company is said to hâve been declared as a sick unit by the B.i Ï'.R under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Spécial Provisions) Act. 1985 and revival package has been approved by the B.I .F.R., and that now the company is in nu-sing period It is averred that the union without permission from B.I,F.R. cannot institute the preeeedings and in the absence of permission, the référence is not ma intenable. The company though averred in tlte wriiten statement as above not pointed out in written submission? as to h:>w the référence is not niainiainable. îî seerns shat point h.'iS not been senously taken by îhe management. On the other hand the union 3. Management, company, opposed the claim of union byiïling Written Statement (Exhibit-9)con1ending that référence is not maintainable as the company has been declared as a sick unit by the B.t F.R. under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Spécial Provisions) Act. 1985 which is in a nursing period and thaï no permission2349 clearly pointed out in the written submissions, para. 12 as to how permission from B.I.F.R. is not required, under the circumstances. Union has relied on the décision of Modistone Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai. 1999IICLR, pg. 371 (BOM HC), whereinTheir Lordships of Bombay High Court held that :
"Modistone company cannot take shelter of Section 22 of Sick Industrial Cases (Spécial Provisions) Act, 1985. in respect of workers."
This is applicable to the présent case. The order of schedule has been referred by the Government. Ministry of Labour under section 10(l)(d) to this tribunal for adjudication and not by the union directly, requiring prior permission as averred in the written statement. Therefore I find référence is maintainable Consequently Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
curtail cross-examination and thereby he was not given fair opportunity to défend is concerned, in cross- examination, para. 8. he had to admit that ail the three witnesses were cross-examined by him. Inquiry proceedings (Exhibit-11) shows Defence Représentative Mr. Verma, cross-examined the management witnesses at length. No doubt. workman in cross-examination, para. 8, stated that the question put by them and the answer given by the witnesses were not recorded by the inquiry officer. He does not remember, which questions were put by them. and which answers given by the witnesses were not recorded by the Enquiry officer. He admittedly did not report to Higher Authority on the allegcd not recording évidence properly. Had as stated above happened, Defence Représentative who is the union office bearer and the workman who claims to be union activist, and therel'ore was not liking the company officer Mr. Gunjal would not hâve lost opportunity to complain to that effecr cither to înquiry officer or the higher authority. It seems, for the frst time afier thought workman has taken the said stand, save his ?kin Nothing on record to show that any préjudice \^as caused lo the workman in view of the discussion supra.
10. So far the fmdings of the inquiry officer are perverse, Their Lordships of Suprême Court in Central Bankoflndia Vs. Prakash Chand Jain 1969IILLJp. 377 pointed out :
"perversity is that when the fmdings are such which no reasonable person would hâve arrived at on the basis of the material before him."
In the case in hand. the inquiry proceedings show fmdings are basée! on the évidence and the documents on record, therefore hardly the fmdings can be said to be perverse.
11 In so far as domestic inquiry is concerned. Their Lordships of Suprême Court in Sr Énamel & Stamping Works Limited Vs.Their Workmen 1963 IILLOJ p. 367, pointed out that the inquiry cannot be said to hâve been properly held unless •
7. So far fairness of inquiry is concerned. workman Gamre stated that the inquiry officer. Mr. Khilari was biased against him. favouring the company and that without following any Principles of Natural Justice he completed inquiry with hàste. He disclosed that he was not given fair opportunity, not to his defence représentative to cross-examine the witnesses fully and that inquiry officer was pressurising him to complète the cross-examination. He further disclosed that management e.xamined witness Mr. G. S Karigar in the inquiry in the absence of himself and his Defence Représentative, who was the vital witness and therefore préjudice is caused to him. Inquiry officer negatived the same contending that sufficient opportunity was given to the workman. In crose-examination, para. 8, workman admitted that he was represented by Mr. Verma. Defence Représentative, Witnesses of the management were cross-examined by Mr. Verma and that some questions were put by Verma and also by him. ail the three witnesses examined by the management were cross-examined. He had received the copies of the inquiry processings every day. On plain reading of the inquiry papers. pp. 109 to 129 (Exhibit- 11) show that inquiry was commenced on 30-7-97 and ended on 10-1-98 It is seen inquiry consumed about 24 dates, therefore hardly can bc said that inquiry was hcld with haste.
(1) the employée proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him.
(2) the witnesses are examined ordinarily in the présence of the employée in respect of the charges,
(3) the employée is given a fair opponunity îo
cross-examine witnesses.
(4) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, nnd
(5) the enquiry officer records his findings with
reasons for the same in his report.
8. So far the witness Mr G.S. Karigar, examined by the management on 29-11-97 il is seen, on the relevant date workman was at the gâte of the company and when called he went away. no application for adjournment appears to hâve been given by workman nor his Defence Représentative. Workman was admittedly receiving copies of inquiry proceedings rcgularly. Inquiry proceedings dtd. 2-12-97. shows workman was présent, however. his Defence représentative was absent and that on next hearing date i e 9-12-97 they both were présent and proceedings further shows that thereafter on the date of hearing workman and his Defence Représentative were présent. Had workman any grievance on the inquiry he would hâve complained to that effec!. however that is wanting. Remaining présent at the gâte of the company on the date of the inquiry, but not attending the inquiry, to my view. amoùnts to intentional act of not responding the inquiry, therefore it cannot be said that the inquiry officer was at fault.
9. The statement of workman that inquiry officer was pressurising hun and his Defence Représentative to complète the cross-exammation and iherefore he had to
If we apply the tests in the said case, to the facts of the case on hand. it is clear that the inquiry was as per the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play and that findings are not biased. Coi:scqueply issues are answered accordingly and henec the order :
529 GI/2002—292350 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
ORDER
The domestic inquiry conducted against the
workman was as per the Principles of Natural Justice.
The findings of the inquiry officer are not perverse.
S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer
This référence was made by the Central Government as per order No. L-42012/122/99/IR(DU) dated 13-10- 1999. The dispute is between the management of Parent Teachers Association, Kendriya Vidyalaya. Kochi-3 and their workman Sri. K. P. Gopalakrishnan, Nangyarath House, Nettoor P.O. The dispute referred is :
"Whether the action of the management of PTA of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pori Trust in terminating the services of Sri. K. P. Gopalakrishnan, Driver with effect from 22-6-98 is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"
2. No claim statement filed. No représentation for workman. He has been absent on several occasions and no claim statement filed so far. Managements counsel présent. I am satisfied that the workman is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence I find that there exists no dispute at présent between the parties to be adjudicated by this court and award is passed accordingly.
Send the award for publication.
Pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day New Delhi, the 7th February, 2002
of November, 2001.
Ernakulam. N. THULASI BAI, Presiding Officer.
S.O. 741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of PTA of Kendriya Vidyalaya and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.
[No. L-42012/122/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
(Wednesday, the 28th day of November, 2001)
New Delhi, the 7th February, 2002 Présent :
Smt. N. Thulasi Bai, B.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 68 of 1999 (C)
Between :
S.O. 742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of PTA of Kendriya Vidyalaya and their workman, which was received by trie Central Government on 7-2-2002.
[No. L-42012/121/99-IR(DU)] The Secretary, Parent Teachers Association, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Port Trust, Kochi-682 003.
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer And
ANNEXURE
Sri. K. P. Gopalakrishnan, Nangyarath House, (Via) Kundanoor, Nettoor P.O.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Représentations :
(Wednesday, the 28th day of November, 2001) M/s. Menon & Pai, Advocates Kochi-18. ... For Management
PRESENT :
Smt. N. Thulasi Bai, B.A., LL.B., Presiding Ofticer
M/s. Youseff& Aysha, Lawyers, Mullassery Canal Road, Kochi-11. ... For Workman2351 Industrial Dispute No. 70 of 1999 (C)
BETWEEN
The Secretary, Parent Teachers Association, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Port Trust, Kochi-682 003.
Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.
AND
[No. L-40012/221/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer Shri P. R.Vijayan, Puthankari House, Kumbalanghi South P.O. Kochi (Kerala)-682007.
ANNEXURE Représentations :
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI M/s. Menon & Pai, Advocates Kochi-18. ... For Management
Monday, the 31 st December, 2001 M/s. Youseff & Aysha, Lawers, Mullassery Canal Road, Kochi-11. ... For Workman
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer AWARD
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 264/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.300/99) This référence was made by the Central Government as per order No. L-42012/121/99/IR(DU) dated 13-10- 1999. The dispute is between the management of Parent Teachers Association, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kochi-3 and their workman Sri. P. R. Vijayan, Puthankari House, Kumbalangi South P.O., Kochi-7. The dispute referred is :
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri M. Ashok Kumar and the management of The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Sri M. Ashok Kumar : I Party/Workman
AND
"Whether the action of the management of PTA of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Port Trust in terminating the services of Sri. P. R. Vijayan, Driver with effect from 22-6-98 is légal and justified ? If not, to what reliefheisentitled?"
The General Manager, . II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist, Chennai. APPEARANCE:
For the Workman : M/s.M.Gnanasekar, 2. Workman and Counsel absent. No claim statement filed. On so many occasions workman was absent and no claim statement filed so far. Management's cousel présent. I am satisfied that the workman is not intere^ted in prosecuting the dispute. Hence I find that there exists no dispute at présent between the parties to be adjudicated by this court and award is passed accordingly.
Send the award for publication
C.Premavathi and G.Manjula, Advocates Pronounced by me in Open Court this the 28th day
For the Management : Sri R.Kanniappan ofNovember, 2001.
Addl. CGSC Ernakulam.
N. THULASI BAI, Presiding Officer
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 Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L-40012/221 /99/ • IR(DU) dated 21 -10-1999.
New Delhi, the 7th February, 2002
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 300/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 264/2001 and notices were sent to the parties on either side, informing them about the transfer of t'iis case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear bcfore this Tribunal on 12-02-2001. On receipt of noticj from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
S.O. 743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 264/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other2352 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SFC. 3(ii)] mat.erial papers on record, the oral and documentary evicrence let in on either side, vvntten arguments filed by the leamed counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the leamed counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till thisjdate for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claimtng the above relief.
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the General Manager Télécommunications, Kancheepuram, in ternunating the services of Shri M. Ashok Kumar casual mazdoor is justified ? If not, to what relief, lie is entitled ?"
2. The tacts of the industriai dispute as pieaded by
the I Party/Workman are brieiîy is follows : --
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 01-12-1984 and his contention about continuous working w ith the Respondent/Department for a period of 997 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-04-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a short spell less than 240 daysduring 1995. The department usedto engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work Sine-" there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work donc by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/ Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'Grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are : —
1. The casuul labour should hâve been en^a^ed
priorto 3 -3-1985;
2. He should be currenlly employée! on the date of
the impiementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service in any one of the preceding vears prior to 01-10-1989; and
1 There should not be a break for a period of more
than one \ ear,
The Casual I.abouiers who actualh worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to granttemporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted b) the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufacturai one. So, the department did not considerthe daim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted false service particulars, w ith a vievv to getting employmen! and other benefits from the department. fhe alleged work donc b\ the Petitioner i> not skilled and perennial in nature As o>' date the departnif.it is not engaging Casuai Laboui hi !:"[C !"c':1ioner for .-m purpose and also not doing -"; i\ peoi v.oi't- as do'it: >-\ ihe î'eiitioner Since there r; ,f. Vvurk and there is IH. post, there is no scope for th< Petiiioner lbr his n'-emplovincnt in the Respondent' Telecom Department. Fhe PetitH'-.cr was ciijj-iged on casual basis as and when require.; b> ihe department, iience. he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. I fence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble l'ribunal may be pleased to dismisâ the claim pétition.
2353case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Kannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner? the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram, in terminating the services of Sri M. Ashok Kumar, casual mazdoor is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
Point :—
Telecom Department like Lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. Their further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/ Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating them from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of%service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of'the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/ Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/ Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the terniination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/2354 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)] in their respective cases, the days for which the concernée! Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the partîculars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais ofthe Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side ofthe Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particuiars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original ofthe concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates ofthe Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW 1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particuiars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff ofthe Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners wh'o hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management in his argument that the particuiars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particuiars but they are bogus certificates. If really,
the particuiars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/ Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particuiars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particuiars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/ Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particuiars given in their service certificates are fàlse. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-rnention ofthe same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action ofthe Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
23556. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer in the Industrial dispute betweerithe employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/11 l/99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Witnesses Examinée! (Common)
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 3lst December, 2001 I Party/Workman
W.W.I Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001) W.W.2 Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D 195/2001) W.W.3 Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/2001) W.W.4 Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom) W.W.5 Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups),
Kalpakkam)]
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN,
Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 211/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No.211/99 ) II Party/Management
M.W.l Sh. P. Chandrasekar [(DE (Légal &
Commercial)] [In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri A. Sivalingam and the management of The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.]
Documents Marked (Common)
BETWEEN
Sri A. Sivalingam : I Party/Workman
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications,
Kancheepuram Dist, Chennai
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi &
II Party/Management
Ml — Xerox copyofM.R. No. 19/05850 M2 — Xerox copyofM.R. No. 06216/8 New Delhi, the 7th February, 2002
S.O.744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 211/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure,
G. Manjula, Advocates For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/111/ 99/IR(DU) dated 26.08.1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 211/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 211/2001 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 07.02.2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side2356 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 2357 dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in l.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Kannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the 11 party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri A.Sivalingam casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, he is entitled?"
Point .-
to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WWI to W W3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statement and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statement filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/ Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. \Us his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 isab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse peopte were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and When the matter was- taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued tothem mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioner from service by Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse daims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WWI to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération
529 Gf/2002—30
2358 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]other connectée casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW 1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. pTom the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service
certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/ Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not, worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and il is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/ Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
2359which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
[No. L-40012/107/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Offïcer (Dictated to the Sténographier, transcribed and typed by him, correcteu and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
ANNEXURE
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Offïcer
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Witnesses Examined (Common)
Monday, the 31 st December, 2001 I Party/Workmen :
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Offïcer W.W.l - Sh. V.Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 229/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 241 /99) W.W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai (SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam)
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudicatioaunder 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 P. Chandran and the management of The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
II Party/Management :
BETWEEN
M.W.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar (DE (Légal &
Commercial))
Sri P. Chandran : I Party/Workman Documents Marked (Common)
AND
I Party/Workmen
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
Saiithanam
APPEARANCE:
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
For the Workman : M/s.M.Gnanasekar, W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu
C.Premavathi & G.Manjula, Advocates II Party/Management :
For the Management : Sri R.Kanniappan Addl.
CGSC Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
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), hâve referred the concerned I ndustrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 40012/107/ 99/IR(DU) dated 13-09-1999.
New Delhi, the 7th February, 2002
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 241/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 229/2001 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 08.02.2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing S.O. 745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 229/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman,
on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, Additional Counter statement the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by2360 THE GAZETTE OF INDJA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following: —
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows:-
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri P. Chandran for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:—
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement. It is alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner as and when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecome Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of
the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
The I Party/Workman Shri P. Chandran (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01.11.1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1262 Number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employaient w.e.f. 25.06.1995 and. when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessitv to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. "No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given'any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. Fuither, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hençe, the action of the Rcspondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner vvithout notice or compensation is ab initio void aad the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with, the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in2361 I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001, Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4, WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the zerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workman exhibits. On the side of the Management the zerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II Party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri P. Chandran for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
Point :-
they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/ Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/ Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and2362 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus.
the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/ Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen haveadmitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the rnaterials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are nottrue particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent / Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer2363
Witneses Examined (Common) ,
ANNEXURE
IPartyAVorkman :
W.W.l - Sh.VSanthanam(PetitionerinI.D. 157/2001)
BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOURCOURT,
CHENNAI
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj(PetitionerinI.D. 195/2001)
Monday, the 3 lst December, 2001 W.W.3 - Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitionerin I.D. 184/2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
PRESENT : K. KARTHIKEYAN, W.W.5 - Sh.C.Madurai(SDE(Groups),Kalpakkam)
PRESIDING OFHCER IIParty/Management :
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 199/2001 M.W.1 - Sh. P. Chandrasekar (DE (Légal & Commercial))
(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 236/99) Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (I) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri K. Ravikumar and the Mangement of General Manager. Télécommunications. Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
BETWEEN
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P. Sri K. Ravikumar : I Party/Workman Magesh Babu
AND
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
The General Manager : II party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar.
C. Premavathi <$. G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The Government 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), hâve referredtheconcerned •Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/95/99/IR(DU), dated 25-8-1999.
New Delhi, the 7th February. 2002
S.O. 746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 199/2001) of the" Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman. which was received by the Central Governmenton 7-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/95/99-IR/DU)]
KULDEP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal. Chennai. where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 236/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 199/2001 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 06-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
2364 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]When the matter came up before me for final heaiing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statemenl, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/ Workman. upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following: —
AWARD
The Industnal Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as folios s:—
more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of trie Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in sen'ice and therefore.' is entitled to be reinstated with ail other senice benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporan' status as per the temporan' status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telccom Departments action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hcnce. this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
"Whether the action of the General Manager. Télécommunications. Chengalpattuin terrninating the services of Shri K. Ravikumar, casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not. to what relief he is entitled9"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Part\ /Workman are bnefly as follows:—
The I Party/Workman Shri K. Ravi Kumar
3. The II Partv/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his contention of continuous working with the Respondenl/Department from 1984 to 1992 and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from senice. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purcly on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging. drawing out wircs. laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis. The department used to engage persons like the Pctitioner when there was work. Sincc therc was no work hc was not further engaged. Hencc the question of appointment. termination continuous senice docs not arisc. The work donc by the Petitioncr was purcly casual in nature and not perennial. The Rcspondent has never informed the Pctitioner that the Rcspondent/ Tclccome Department would takc the Pctitioner back to service. In 1989. a Schcmc callcd -Grant of Temporan Status to Casual Labourcrs" was introduced for the Casual Labourcrswhoactually worked The cssential conditions of the schcme arc :—
1. The casual labour sliould hâve bcen engaged
pnor t oi 1.3.1985;
2 Hc should bc currcntly cmploycd on the date of
the iniplemcntation of Schcme i.c 01 10 89;
3 Hc should have put in 240 days continuous service in any onc of Ihc preceding ycars prior to 01.10.1989; and
4. There should not bc a break for a period of more
than onc year
The Casual Labourcrs who actually worked werc asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporan status. On vérification, the senice particulars subnuttcd by the Pctitioner werc found to bc bogus and manufactured one. So. the dcpartmcnl did not consider the claim of the Pctilioncr. The Pctitioner had submitted falsc senice particulars. with a view to getting cmploymcnt and other benefits from the department. The alleged work donc b\ (hcreinafter refers to as Petitioncr) M as engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hcreinafter refers to as Rcspondent) on 01.12.1984 for digging. drawing wires. laying posts and for other alhed jobs as directed by lus superiors Hc was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily raled wages Though the Pctitioner has been contiiuiously working with the Rcspondent. and lias put in 1294 Nuinbcr of days of service, he had not bcen rcgulariscd. The Dcparimcnt of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Schemc kno\Mi as casual ma/doors (Grant of Temporan Status and Régularisation) Schcme. The Rcspondent/Tclccom Department failcd to confer temporan status on the Pctitioner under the said Schcme. which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has beendenied employmcnt w.c.f 25.06 1995 and. when lus services werc tcrnunalcdhc was gctting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When hc approachcd the conccrncd authority. for conforment of temporary status, hc was informed that hc will bc taken back to duty. The Pctitioner was waiting for orders from the Rcspondent/Tclccom Department regarding lus rc-cngagcmcnt. Howcver. he lias not reccived any orders nor hc was taken back lo duty so far His service.was utihscd for the rcgular work that is perennial in nature. Thcreforc. when Ihe work and the neccssity to engage the Petitioncr continuons, therc is no reason or justification for denying the cmploymcnt to the Petitioner. No reason was given b\ the Respondcnt/ Telecom Department for terminating llic senices of the Petitioner and the Respondent failcd to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his scniccs were discontinued. The Petitioncr has put in2365 the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner, 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 départaient, hence. he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman m this case along vvith the similar industnal disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication canbe tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001. Sri P. Magesh Babu. Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/SriM. Kannappanand C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW1, WW3, WW4. WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the zerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workman exhibits. On the side of the Management the zerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri K. Ravikumar, casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
Point :-
Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners m their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstatcd in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to W W? hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3. they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer. and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse \ things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour. Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer. whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/ Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination. that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual nw-doors in 1984 and worked continuouslv till 1995 as hc has stated in his Claim When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side. a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/
529 GI/2002—312366 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Statement. It is his fiirther allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the actionofthe Respondent/ManagementTelec"mmunicationDepartment in terminating him from service in not following the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date ofthe alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention ofthe Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availabiiity of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement ofthe Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of [ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais ofthe Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars ofthe alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais ofthe Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side ofthe Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side ofthe Management by producing the original ofthe concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates ofthe Petitioners and brought it to the notice ofthe Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy ofthe same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner
for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two ofthe departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff ofthe Respondent/Telecom Department in canying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondem/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/ Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paicl wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really. the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true. they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the départaient as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management départaient were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of2367
Witneses Examined (Common)
IParty/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitionerin I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. MageshBabu(Petitionerin I.D. 184/2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh.C.Madurai[SDE(Groups),Kalpakkam]
IIParty/Management :
M.W.1 - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
IParty/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
^ fcrî), 7 HI
^rr. 3ÏÏ. 747.—aflatfiich fa*rrç srf"#m,i947 (1947^14) ^"TRI17%311M
3Fpf"T •>¥ PiRi^i 3ÏlïîlPl* fà*liç "3f % ^ fa *R"bK 3ÏlïIlî'i=h
3Tf"R5T
êfiTîft t, "STt k>~i£\M *KebR ^ 7 - 2 - 2 0 02 ^ "SITO f 3 ïï "ïï I
[*T. T3?T-400-|2/80/99-3Tl£ 3fK. ( - s b ^ )]
New Delhi, the 7th February, 2002 that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the départaient to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the départaient has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/ Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the départaient. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the départaient, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
S.O. 747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 204/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed andtyped by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
[No. L40012/80/99-IR(DU)] K. KARTHKEYAN, Presiding Officer
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Qfficer2368 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVTINDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the31st December, 2001
PRESENT : K. KARTHDŒYAN, PresidingOfficer
Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 204/2001 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 07-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 204/2001
(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No. 197/99)
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947).between the Workman Sri C. Settu and the management of Telecom Department).
BETWEEN
Sri C. Settu
: I Party/Workman
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, Additional Counter Statement the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AND
AWARD
1. The Chief General Manager, . II Party/Management Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle. Chennai.
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above ordei of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
2. The General Manager. Telecom Communications. Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
"Whcther the action ofthe management of Telecom Department in terminating the services of Sri C. Settu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled ?"
2 The facts ofthe industrial dispute as pleaded by
the 1 Party/Workman arebriefly as follows :—
3. TheDivisional Engineer (Admn.), O/o. General Manager. Télécommunications. Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
4. The Sub-Divisional Engineer (Croups). Telecom Department.
APPEARANCE :
For the Workman M/s M Gnanasekar.
C.Promavathi & G. Manjula, Advocatcs
For the Management : Sri R Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The Govt. of India, Ministry ofLabour 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), hâve referred the concemed Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No L- 40012/80/99/IR (DU) datcd 264)8-1999.
The I Party/Workman Shri C Settu (hereinafter refers to as Pctitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the 11 Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Rcspondcnt) on 09-02-1983 for diggmg, drawing wires. la\mg posts and for other allied jobs as directed by lus superiors He was paid nominal wages of Rs 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been cont muously working with the Respondent. and has put m 1520 Numbcr of days of service, lie had not been rcgulansed. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual ma/doors working in the départaient foi a long period formulatcd a Schcmc known as casual ma/doors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) SdiviTK- The Rcspondent/Tciecom Department failed to couler temporary status on the Pctitioner under the said Schcme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w cf. 25-06-1995 and. when 1ns services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages When he approachcd the concerned authority, for conferment of teinporary'status, hc was informée! that lie will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Rcspondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. Howcver. hc has not receivcd any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the rcgular work that is perennial in nature. Thcrefore, when the work and the This référence has been made carlicr to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal. Chennai. where il was taken on file as I.D. No. 197/99 When the marier was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that2369 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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. rience, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further. the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reim-tated with ail other service benefits including arrears oîback wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence. this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001. Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001, Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examinedaswitnessesas WW1,WW2, WW3, WW4,and WW5, respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner. the zerox copy of the service certiflcates hâve been marked as Workman exhibits. On the side of the Management the zerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certiflcates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/ Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 09-02-1983 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1520 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-06-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging. drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are:—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
priorto 31-3-1985;
5. The Point for my considération is— "Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department in terminating the services of Sri C. Settu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?" Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint 2. He should be currently employed on the date of theimplementationof Scheme i.e. 01-10-89; 3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service in any one of the preceding years prior to 01-10-1989; and2370 THE GAZETTE OF1NDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Teleœmmunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has tenninated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. Il is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioneis as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are allbogus.
By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in Ihe original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour. Chcnnai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer. whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination. that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondcnt/Tclecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witncss one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged2371 said to hâve furnished those service certificates. NQ date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse thing in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst Deçember, 2001.)
K. KARTHDŒYAN, Presiding Qfficer
Witneses Examined (Common)
IParty/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V. Santhanam(PetitionerinI.D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. MageshBabu(Petitionerin I.D. 184/2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh.C.Madurai[SDE(Groups),Kalpakkam]
IIParty/Management :
M.W.1 - Sh. P. ChandrasekarpE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P. officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied uponby the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/ Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/ Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who
Magesh Babu.
2372 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PARTII—SEC. 3(ii)]II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of MR. No. 06216/8
New Delhi, the 7th February, 2002
S. O. 748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the lndustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No.203/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/82/99-IR (DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Qfficer 2. The Sub Divisional Enginasr,
(Groups), Telecom Department.
3. The Divisional Engineer (Admn.),
O/o. General Manager, Télécommunications, KancheepuramDist, Chennai.
4. The General Manager, Télécommunications, KancheepuramDist, Chennai.
APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : M/s.M.Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula. Advocates
For the Management : Sri RKanniappan
Addl. CGSC.
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferredby clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 40012/82/99/ IR(DU) dated 26-08-1999.
ANNEXURE,
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 196/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 203/2001 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 appearbefore this Tribunal on 07-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUS1RIALTRIBIJNAL-CIJM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 31 st December, 2001
PRESENT
K. KARTHDŒYAN,
PRESIDING OFFICER
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement. Counter Statement. additional counter statement the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed thefollowing :—
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 203/2001
AWARD
(Tamil Nadu State Industria" Tribunal L D. No. 196/99) (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 D. Shanmugam and lhe management of Telecom Department).
BETWEEN
Sri D. Shanmugam : I Party/Workman AND
1. The Chief General Manager, : II Party/Management Telecom Tamil Nadu Cire le. Chennai.
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department in terminating the services of Sri D. Shanmugam is légal and justified? If not.to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Shri D. Shanmugam (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-12-1984 for2373 Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are:—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
priorto31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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 benefïts from the department. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hoh'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1260 Number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 15-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conféraient of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put m more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industriel Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefïts including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri S. V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu. Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M.Kannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner. the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen cxhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 01-12-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1260 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 15-06-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Department in terminating the services of Sri D.Shanmugam is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?" 529 GI/2002—322374 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiiy, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature lias been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer. and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour. Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer'. whom they met and asked for work. It is their further e\idence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination. that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side ôfthè Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been. examined as
MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/ Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/ Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners andMWl it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls. maintainedby the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1. no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental2375 the departmental officiai who said to have furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who have been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also have not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not have been failed to mention ail these things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of these certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that these Petitioners for the purpose of these cases have created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging these Petitio'ners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they have engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. 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 (Common)
IParty/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitionerin I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitionerin I.D. 184/2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh.C.Madurai[SDE(Groups),Kalpakkam,]
nParty/Management:
M.W.l - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I PartyAVorkman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P. officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given iri the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondcnt/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent / Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they werc given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW 1 that the work the Petitioners werc doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and il was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the ycar. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only dcvelopmcnt work likc opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were donc as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Pctilioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished arc not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail these things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated beforc this Tribunal by the Respondent/ Management by relevant documents that the names of the Pclilioners werc nol available in the original. muster rolls that has been mcnlioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates arc false. Further the Petitioners have not proved thosc service certificates by examining
Magesh Babu2376 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] IIParty/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox CODV of MR. No. 06216/8
New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002
S.O. 749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 405/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L-42011/46/96-IR/DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAI, GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 28th Decembet 2001
Présent: K. KARTHDŒYAN, Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 405/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial I.DNo.84/96)
(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 of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and the Management of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,Chennai.)
BETWEEN
The General Secretary, : I Party/Claimant Kendriya Vidyalaya Employées Association, Chennai.
AND
The Assistant Commissioner. II Party/ Management Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chennai.
APPEARANCE:
For the Claimant : M/s. D. Hariparanthaman,
V. Ajoy Khose, Advocates For the Management : M/s. T. D. Vasu, 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 Dispute Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947). hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L-42011/46/96-IR (DU) dated 26.08.1996.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 84/96. When the rnatter 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 405/2001 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 before this Tribunal on 22.02.2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 20.11.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the documentai^' évidence let in on either side, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management alone and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following : —
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in not giving the scale of pay of Lab Assistants to the Lab Attendants is justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled?"
2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Party/Claimant are briefly as follows :—
The Kendriya Vidyalaya Employées Association represented by its General Secretary has raised this industrial dispute espousing the cause of the workmen, working as Laboratory Attendants in the lab'oratories of schools of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The II Party/ Management. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is fully owned by the Govt.of India. It was started in the year 1963. Initially 20 schools were started ail over India. Now there are about 850 schools. Ail the schools are affïliated to Central Board of Secondary Education and conducting classes up to 12"1 Standard. In ail the schools there are three laboratories namely Physics Laboratory. Chemistry Laboratory and Biology Laboratory. In each school three Laboratory Assistants were appointed. The Principal of the concerned school can utilise the services of Lab Assistants in any one of the three laboratories. The minimum qualification of the Laboratory Assistants was VIII Standard. Many persons possessing lesser qualification than VIII Standard were appointed as Lab Assistants. The post of Lab Assistants were classified as Class III Post. While so. from 1974 onwards, instead of appointing Lab Assistants, the II Party/Management Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter refers to as2377 Lab Assistants prescribed was 8th middle pass. Accordingly, Lab Assistants were appointed in the cadre of Class IV (Group D). Subsequently, the cadre was reclassified from Class IV (Group D) to Class III (Group C) in December, 1977 and the qualification prescribed isMatric/Senior Secondary/High Secondary with Science. However, the candidates with the qualification of 8* class/ middle pass who were appointed before the reclassification of the cadre from Class IV to Class III were permitted to continue as Lab Assistants. In 1974, as decided by the Board of Governors, being the Policy Taking Body for Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, the cadre of Lab Assistants in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was dispensed with. Instead the posts of Lab Assistants were created in the cadre of Group D, keeping in view the requirement rather the need of the laboratories of the Vidyalaya and the nature of duties to be discharged by the Lab Assistants appointed in the laboratories. Since the nature of duties performed in the laboratories are (1) cleaning, setting and arranging the apparatus in the laboratory (2) cleaning of Laboratory and dusting of its furniture, (3) carrying the apparatus to class rooms as required by the Teacher concerned, (4) collecting materials including frogs and other living animais required for practical work from outside the campus of the Vidyalaya, (5) repairing of apparatus and furniture, (6) painting and polishing of furniture, (7) making arrangements during function organised in the Vidyalaya from time to time etc. the requirements of Lab Attendants withthe qualification of 8* class/middle pass is sufficient to carry out the above duties. As such, the appointment to the post of Lab Assistants by the candidates with qualification of Matric/Higher Secondary pass with science subjects was dispensed with. The vacancies arising out due to the retirement/resignation of the existing Lab Assistants were filled up by promoting the existing Group D employée as Lab Assistants as per rules. Though both the cadre of Lab Assistants and Group D come under the cadre of Group D, the scales of pay are différent as shownbelow :—
(i) The pay scale of Lab Attendant is—
Rs. 775-12-871-14-955-15-1030-20-1150.
(ii) The pay scale of Group D is—
Rs. 750-12-870-14-940.
Respondent) started appointing Lab Attenders. The qualification for Lab Attenders was also VIII standard. The duties of Lab Attenders and the Lab Assistants are one and the same. In each school, out of the three persons required for laboratories, one/two may be Laboratory Assistants and the other one/two may be Laboratory Attenders. One person in a laboratory may be asked to work in another laboratory by the Principal. That is the person from one laboratory is inter-changeable by other person. But the Laboratory Attenders are classified as Class D Post. That is, they are put in a lesser scale of pay. By simply changing the désignation the Respondent has now reduced the scale of pay for the persons who are doing the same work in the laboratories. This is a dubious and ingenuine method adopted by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent has not been making Laboratory Assistants appointments. Their action is totally unjustified and illégal. The Petitioner Association representing a substantial number of employées of the Respondent objected to the dubious method of the Respondent in appointing Laboratory Attenders in Group D cadre to do the same work of the Laboratory Assistants who are classified as Group C cadre. The Petitioner Association made various représentations for years together. The aggrieved Lab Attenders also made several représentations. The représentations of the Petitioner Association to merge the Lab Attenders post into Lab Assistants post were put in cold storage. Hence, they approached the conciliation machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act. Instead of conceding the just demands of the Petitioner, the Respondent took an adamant and unhelpful attitude making ail sorts of technical objections. They should hâve instead met the case on merits. However, the conciliation officer took ail his efforts, but his efforts were failed resulting in the présent référence. The action of the Respondent is highly arbitrary in re-designating the Laboratory Assistants as Laboratory Attenders. It is withthe sole object of reducing the scale of pay. No persons are recruited to Laboratory Assistants post. Their aim is to extinguish the post of the Laboratory Assistants and to bring the Laboratory Attenders in that place, but in the lesser scale of pay. The action of the Respondent is violative of principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in the Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Out of 2500 laboratory staff in the Society schools, 1000 are Lab Attenders. The action of the Respondent in altering the conditions of service by çlassifying the Lab Assistants post as Lab Attenders post is only to give effect to place them in lesser grade. Further changing the post of Laboratory Assistants into that of Laboratory Attenders, when the post of Laboratory Assistants was in existence more than a décade is change in usage. Hence, it is covered by item no.7 and 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the Respondent did not give notice under 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, their action is illégal. The Lab Attenders are not giyen any promotion particularly to the post of Lab Assistants. Hence, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to merge the post of Lab Attenders into Lab Assistants and thereby to give the Lab Attenders the scale of pay of Lab Assistants.
3. The averments in the Counter Statement fïled by the II PartyManagement Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are briefly as follows :—
By creating the post of Lab Attendant, the existing Lab Assistants were not reverted to the post of Lab Attendant rather they are permitted to continue in the post of Lab Assistants, The requirement of Vidyalaya is sufficiently met by appointing Lab Attendants. As such the question of appointing Lab Attendant in Class III cadre does not arise. The décision of the Board of Governors has been carried out for further appointments. Almost ail the existing Lab Attendants are promoted from Group D employées of the Vidyalaya having the qualification for the post of Lab Attendants. So, at the time of appointment to the post of Lab Attendant, ail the group D employées who were promoted to the post of Lab Attendants were fully aware of the terms and conditions of the appointment to the post of Lab Attendants. They were free to accept or refuse the promotion to the post of Lab Attendant. It is not understood the reason for making a représentation after accepting the promotion and performing fhe duties for last 20 years. Moreover, to do the duties in the Laboratories of the Vidyalala, candidates having Matriculation/Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary At the time of inception of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in 1963-64, the qualification for the post of2378 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 2379 with the qualification of VIII standard/middle class pass, who were appointée! before reclassification of the cadre of Class IV to Class III were permitted to continue as Lab Assistants. This is also not disputed by the Petitioner Employées Association.
of Lab Assistants and to appoint Lab Attendants in the Vidyalaya is in order. Ail the contentions of the Respondent/ Management were also not disputed by the petitioner Employées Association. It is also not disputed that the pay scale of Lab Attendants is Rs. 775-12-871- 14-955-15-1030-20-1150 while the pay scale of Group D is Rs. 750-12-870-14-940. From this, it is seen the pay scale of Lab Attendants is higher than the Group D posts. The II - - rf. "• t.i•": -. s- ••". ~* filed a xerox copy of the documen" :.!•,,! i> :• '.•• . supplementary item in the Agenda of Board of Govenors 18th Meeting. From that document, it is seen that the subject has been shown as need for création of new cadre of Lab Attendants in the pay scie of Rs. 75-95 in the Kendriya Vidyalaya. In that, the reasons hâve been stated as follows :—
"That the presently employed Lab Assistants were categorised as Class IV and what ail the duties that were allotted to them for the maintenance and upkeeps of the laboratories in Chemistry, Biology and Home Science. The fourteen duties that were categorised for the work of Lab Assistants also hâve been stated and due to the demand of the Lab Assistants for reclassification of their cadre to Class III, the increased pay scales hâve been brought about and that the Lab Assistants are mentally unprepared to perfrom the duties for which they were initial ly appointed, which has created many practical/administrative difficulties to the Principals need therefore, it was felt necessary that in future to provide to their new Vidyalayas and wherever vacancy aries in existing schools only Lab Attendants in the scale of pay of Rs. 75- 95 and that the duties allocated to Lab Assistants and the duties of Lab Attendants hâve also been specifically mentioned and the qualification of Lab Attendants has been fixed as VIII standard pass." 6. It is the contention of the Petitioner Association that the Respondent/Management from 1974 onwards, instead of appointing Lab Assistants hâve started appointing Lab Attenders and the qualification for Lab Attenders was also VIII standard. The duties of the Lab Attenders and Lab Assistants are one and the same, as it is seen from the orders of the Respondent assigning the duties to Lab Attenders and Lab Assistants. It is further contended that any person in a Laboratory may be asked to Work in an another Laboratory by the Principal and the person from one Laboratory is inter-changeable by another person. but the Lab Assistants are classified as Class D post and they are put in a lesser scale of pay by simply changing the désignation, the Respondent has reduced the scale of pay for the persons who are doing the same work in the Laboratories and this action of the Respondent/Management is totally unjustifîed and illégal. For this contention, the Respondent/Management would contend in their Counter Statement that in 1974 the Board of Governors Managing the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has taken a policy décision as to dispense with the cadre of Lab Assistants in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. instead the post of Lab Attenders were created in the cadre of Group D, keeping in view the requirement rather the need of Laboratories of the Vidyalaya and the nature of duties to be discharged by the Lab Attenders appointed in the laboratories and that to carry out the duties of Lab Attenders as specified, the requirement of qualification is VIII standard/middle class pass and that the appointaient to the post of Lab Assistant by the candidates with the qualification of Matric/Higher Secondary pass with some science subjects was dispensed with and the vacancies arising out due to retirement/ résignation of the existing Lab Assistants were filled up by promoting exsiting Group D employées as Lab Assistants as per rules. Though both the cadres of Lab Attendants and Group D corne under the cadre of Group D. the scales of pay are différent. It is further contended that by creating the post of Lab Attendants, the existing Lab Assistants were not reverted to the post of Lab Attendants, rather they are permitted to continue in the post of Lab Assistants and hence the question ôf appointing Lab Attendants in Class III cadre does not arise. It is their further contention that the décision of Board of Governors has been carried out for further appointments and almost ail the existing Lab Attendants are promoted from Group D employées of the Vidyalaya having the qualification for the post of Lab Attendants. So, at the time of appointment to the post of Lab Attendants ail the Group D employées who were promoted to the post of Lab Attendants were fully aware of the terms and conditions of the appointment to the post of Lab Attendants and they were free to accept or refuse the promotion to the post of Lab Attendants. It is furhther contended that to do the duties in the laboratories of the Vidyalaya, candidates having matriculation /Higher Secondary/ Senior Secondary with science subject is not required. the candidates having minimum qualification of VIII standard/ middle class pass in sufficient to do the menial Job in the Laboratory and as such the décision taken by the départaient dispensing with the appointment
Ail thèse things are not disputed by the I Party/ Employées Association. Ex. M2 is the xerox copy of the minutes of the 18th and 19th meetings of Board of Governors of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan held on 18th March, and 3 Ist October, 1972 respectively. It is mentioned in this documents, as item No. 17, to consider the need for création of a new cadre of Lab Attendants in the pay acale of Rs. 75-95 in Kendriya Vidyalaya. It is stated there in that after detailed discussions, the Board decided that the status quo regarding appointment of Lab Assistants might continue. The Vice-Chairman was however. requested to visit some of Kendriya Vidyalayas and assess the difficulties, if any, in the présent arrangements. The matter could be considered further in thebasis of hïs recommendations. Thenext 19th meeting held on 3 Ist October, 1972. A décision has been taken in that meeting to create a new cadre of Lab Attendants. In that meeting, it was recorded that the Vice chairman on formed the memberd that he had generally looked into the duties of the existing Lab Assistants during his récent visits to one or two Kendriya Vidyalayas. The Board recalled their earlier discussions on item No. 17 of the Agenda put up at their 18th meeting held on 18th March, 1973. After detailed considération, it was decided that création of posts of Lab Attendants in the scale of Rs. 75-95 is sanctioned. there is however, need of exercising caution and discrétion in its implementation and it may not be necessary to sanction ail the new posts in the Lab Attendant cadre from this, it is seen that it is a2380 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] •Attendants. 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 Decembeir, 2001.
K. KARTHDŒYAN, PresidingOfficer
Witnesses Examined:
On either side : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED :
For the I Parry/Claimant :
Ex. No. Date
Description
03-09-70
Wl
Xerox copy of the circular issued by Management Relating to nature of duties Lab Assistants.
25-08-92
W2
décision taken by the Board of Governors of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan in two of its meetings. Ex. M3 is the xerôx copy of the explanalory letter given by the Deputy Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan dated 13-9-1974, to ail the Principals of Kendriya Vidyalaya for a question raised as to whether the Kendriya Vidyalaya need Lab Assistants or Lab Attendants or both and if so. what should be the norms. duties and promotion opportunities. In letter dated 16-12-1977, the Kendriya Vidyalaya has informed ail the Principals about the reclassification of the post of Lab Assistants from Class IV to Class III in the pay scale of Rs. 290-500. It isstated in that letter lhat in the 33rd meeting of Board of Governors heldon 11-10-1977, itwas approved. Another document has been fïled by the Petitioner Association as a xerox copy of the letter dated 10-3-1993 as Ext. W4, sent by the Senior Administrative Officer to ail the Principals of Kendriya Vidyalayas, wherein it is stated about the nature and duties of Lab Attendants. It is in accordance with the décision taken by the Board of Governors in the meetings. It is not disputed by the I Party/Kendnya Vidyalayas Employées Association.
Xerox copy of letter of Sri A. L.Balasubramaniyam to Dy. Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, New Delhi,
16-02-93
W3
Xerox copy of the transfer order issued by Respondent/ Management
10-03-93
W4
Xerox copy of the circular issued by Repondent Relating to nature of duties of Lab Attendants.
20-08-93
W5
Xerox copy of the time table for 1993-94
19-11-93
W6
Xerox copy of the time table for 1993-94
19-11-93
W7
Xerox copy of the time table for 1993-94
Nil
W8
Xerox copy of the extract of raies relating to Vocational staff and allied rnatters.
For the II Party/Management
Ex. No. Date
Description
Nil
Ml
Xerox copy of the supplementary item No. 17 Regarding need for création of a new cadre Of Lab Attendants
18-03-72
M2
Xerox copy of the Minutes of 18th meeting of the Board of Governors of the Kendriya Vidyalava Sangathan held on 18-3-1972
13-09-74
M3
Xerox copy of the Circular from Kendriva Vidyalaya Sangathan to ail Principals of Kendriya Vidyalayas regarding Cadre of Lab Attendants.
7. Further, it is contended in the Counter Statement of the Respondent/Management. thaï a similar Civil Pétition has been filed by the Lab Assistants in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vide Wril Pétition No. 9271 of 1995. The Hon"ble High Court was pleased to dseliver a judgcment in that case stating that "it is the admitted position that the Petitioners were recruited as Lab Attendants and they are continued to work in those posts. Ail membcrs of that cadre are in the scale of pày of Rs. 775 to Rs. 1025. They hâve, thus no right to claim that they should be givcn the scale of pay sanctioned to a hig'hcr post. The mère fact that duties are similar does not mcan that thèse are the same. The principle of 'equal pay for cqual work" does not debar the state from providing différent pay scalcs for posts in différent cadres. It is the catégorie case of the Rcspondent that the duties performed by the Lab Assistants arc différent from those of Lab Attendants. The différence in the nature of duties may be verv minor.butitisthcrc. That is vital. Consequently. the claim for parity in scalcs of pay cannot be sustained. In view of the abbvc, \\e find no ground to interfère. The Writ Pétition is accordingly dismissed."' This décision of the Hon'blc High Court of Punjab and Haryana in that Writ Pétition is not disputed by the Petitioner Association. It is squarcly applicable to this case and also act as res- judicata for "the claim made by the Petitioner Employées Union in this industrial dispute. Hence. under,such circumstanccs. it can bc held that the relief prayed forby the I Part\/Kendriya Vidyalaya. Employées Association on bchalf of the Lab Attendants is notjustified. On the other hand. it is seen clearly from the available materials that the action or the II Party/Management Kendriya Vidyala> a Sangathan in not giving the scale of pay of Lab Assistants to Lab Attendants is justified. as it is held by the Hon'blc High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the carlicr Writ Pétition ciled above. Hence, the Petitioner Association is not cntitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement on bchalf of the Lab Attendants. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
8 Invicw of the above findings. an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner Union is not entitledto theclairr prayed for in this industrial dispute on behalf of the Lat .2381 New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S.O. 750.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishestheaward(Ref.No.39/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/418/99-IR(D.U)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 32/2000. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 39/2001 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 before this Tribunal on 23-01-2001. On that date, learned counsel for the I Party/Workman alone présent. Though the learned counsel on either side entered appearance before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, the Claim Statement of the I Party/Workman and the Counter Statement of the II Party/Management were not filed before that Tribunal. Even after the transfer of this case to the file of this Court, the counsel for the I Party/Workman who received notices from this Court, neither himself nor the I Party/Workman had chosen to appear before this Court in respect of this industrial dispute and to file the Claim Statement and there was no représentation at ail by the I Party/Workman for this industrial dispute before this Tribunal.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRffiUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 3 Ist December, 2001 Présent: K. KARTHKEYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 39/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.32/2000) (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 Shri Dhayalamoorthy and the Management of the General Manager. Télécommunications, Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Shri A. Dhayalamoorthy : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications,
Chennai.
APPEARANCE:
For the Workman : Unrepresented For the Management : Sri R.Kanniappan
Advocate
2. When the matter is taken up fmally to-day, neither the parties to the dispute nor their respective counsel on reeord présent and there is no représentation at ail on either side. Except filing of vakalat of the counsel for the II Party/ Management on record, no progress has been made so far in this case. Though the matter is pending for the past two years. neither the counsel for the I Party/Workman nor the Petitioner has chosen to file Claim Statement.The II Party/Management also has not filed any statement of objection so far. objecting for the relief prayed forby the concerned workman against themby raising this industrial dispute, though time has been extended for the same till this day on the request of the counsel for the II Party/ Management. The inaction of the I Party/Workman and his non-appearance for ail the adjourned hearings, for the past two years. earlier before the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, then subséquent to the traftsfer of this case before this Tribunal, enable this Tribunal to conclude that the I Party/Workman has no inclination or interest to prosecute this case futher. The non filing of any statement of objection by the II Party/Management to this dispute raised by the concerned workman also warrants this Tribunal to conclude, that no industrial dispute now exists between the parties for adjudication by this Tribunal for the relief mentioned in the Schedule of Référence referred to in the order of the Ministry of Labour as an industrial dispute. Hence, this référence is closed and this industrial dispute is disposed of accordingly.
AWARD
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), hâve referred the following dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L- 40012/418/99/IR(DU) dated 16-02-2000.
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager, Telecom. Chennai, interminatingthe services of Shri A. Dhayalamoorthy, casual mazdoor is justified ? If not to what relief he is entitled ?"
529 GI/2002—33
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 Ist December, 2001.)
" K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer2382 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002
S.O. 751.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No.267/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chennai novv as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/24 l/99-IR(D.U.)]
KULDIP RAI VERM A, Desk Officer taken on file as I.D. No. 303/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 267/2001 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 12-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Paity/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over tHl this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following : —
AWARD
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 3 lst December, 2001
Présent: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 267/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.303 /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 S. Elumalai and the management of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Sri S. Elumalai : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the Gemneral Manager, Télécommunications. Kancheepuram. in terminating the services of Shri S. Elumalai,. casual mazdoor is justified ? ff not to what relief he is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefiy as follows :—
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s Jvl.Gnanasekar,
C.Premavathi & G.Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R.Kanniappan
Addl.CGSC
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L-40012/241/99/ IR(DU)dated21-10-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was The I Party/Workman Shri S. Elumalai (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-05-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put m 153Ô number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-10-1994 and. when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his reengagement. However. he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the2383 Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industriel Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence. the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and an Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 01-05-1984 and his contention abbut continuous working with the Respondent/ Department for a period of 1530 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-10-1994. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires. laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages for a short spell during 1994-1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/ Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989. a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So. 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing sueh type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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. Hencô, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Kannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Managemcnt has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram, in terminating the services of Shri S. Elumalai,, casual mazdoor is justified ? If not to what relief he is enetitled ?" Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issuêd to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the2384 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] RespondeWManagement is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to W W3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the incepùon when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house. requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they vvent to see the Assistant Engineer, and reqested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnessesfor thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not knovv the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signmg the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent; Department. They have also denied the suggestion in the cross examination. that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they •were created by them. They have also denied the suggestion that they have not worked in the Respondent/Tclecom Department forlhe period they have mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side 6f the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr P Chandrasekar has bcen examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. lus his further allégation in the Claim Statement lhat ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 is ab mitio void and against law Smce the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal hc must bc reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the allegéd tcrinination of service in ihe ycar 1995. But it is the contention of the ^.-\\ •..'. ••""•"• !•!.•• ::v. '•'< and also the évidence ofMWl • r -.••.!.. ^ : - i l ^ . r> filed by the Petitioners arc ail false and created by themselves and they have not mentioned anything with regard to availabiîity of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The leariied counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint
them and where they have worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners have not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom E>epartment were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to have been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the depàrtmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW 1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names have not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of Ihe common witness for the Management MW1. no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW 1 that the particulars fumished in the service certificates produced! by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the depàrtmental officiais have been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 have stated in their évidence that they have no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners have worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the depàrtmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves have left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who have been examined as common witness for workmen have admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they have not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who have been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom2385 the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they have engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer. transcribed andtyped by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st December, 2001.)
K. KARTHDŒYAN, Presiding Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W. 1 - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. MageshBabu(Petitioner in I.D. 184/2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh.C.Madurai[SDE(Groups),Kalpakkaml
nParty/Management :
M.W.1 - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman :
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu
II Party/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8 Department hâve left since the work they were attended \\ ère completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this caseby way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original mustcr rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produeed by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really. the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/ Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995 Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW 1 that the work the Petitioners werc doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and ît-is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management deparlment were only dcvclopmcnt work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were donc as project works and on completion of that work. thèse Petitioners have no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners. the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/ Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original mustcr rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners have not proved thosc service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to have furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is availablc in the service certificates. The Petitioners who have been examined as common witnesses for thesc Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also have not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued thosc service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they werc really issued by the officiais of the Rcspondent/Tclccom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not have been failcd to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Slatcmcms. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statcmcnts and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thesc cases have created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not cmploy Petitioners and they were not given independent work. so the question of retrenchment from service docs not at ail arisc. So under such circumstances.
2386 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 8th February. 2002
the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 12-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
S.O. 752.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No.269/2001) of the'Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/209/99-IR (DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERM A. Desk Officer
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001. upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement. additional counter statement. the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side. wiitten arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following : —
ANNEXURE
AWARD
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. CHENNAI
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
Monday. the 3 lst December, 2001
PRESENT . K. KARTH1KEYAN. Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO 269/2001
' " Whether the action of the General Manager. Télé- communications. Chennai. in terminating the services of the workman Shri M.V. Subramani. is légal and justified ? If not to what relief, he is entitled?"
(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.307/99 )
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are bnefly as follows .—
(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.V. Subramani and the management of The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Sri M.V. Subramani : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (] ) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/209/99/ IR(DU)dated21-10-]999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 307/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 269/2001 and notices were sent to the parties on either side. informing them about
The I Party/Workman Shri M.V. Subramani (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 13-02-1985 for digging, drawing wires. laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his supenors. He was paid nosninal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent. and has put in 2145 number of days of service, he had not been regularised The Department of Tele-communication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 15-06-1995 and. when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore. when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/ Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the2387 casual basis as and when required by the department, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law aad as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence. it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribnual may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in ternis of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence. this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/ Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication canbe tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D. No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001 Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1. WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the Xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chennai, in terminating the services of the workman Shri M. V. Subramani, is légal and justified ? If not to what relief, he is entitled?"
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 13-02-1985 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 2145 number of days of service and the alleged terminationof the Petitioner from service on 15-06-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual workers on daily rated wages basis for a period of 114 days only during 1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not anse. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
Point :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve 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.
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination The Casual Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 Petilioner was engaged on2388 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/ Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificate said to hâve been issued by the officiais ofthe Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side ofthe Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original ofthe concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates ofthe Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same'had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. in the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two ofthe departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side ofthe Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners. no question was put to them in tbe cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will nol be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Départir) ent. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said of ail the Petitioners WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception vvhen they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour. Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer. whom they met and asked for work. It is-their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They havc also denied the suggestion in the cross examination. that the service certificate produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side 6f the Respondent/management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 According to the Petitioner. was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommuni- cation as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in lus Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industnal Dispules Act. 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal lie must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in Ihe year 1995 But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail lalse and created bv themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability ôf service certificates in their Claim Statements. The lcarned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed bv the Respondent/ Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointment by the Respondent/Telecom Department and thev were terminated against the provisions of Industnal Disputes Act 1947. According to the Management of2389 Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. 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
Witneses Examinée (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I.D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitionerin I.D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh.C.MaduraitSDE(Groups),Kalpakkam]
nParty/Management : M.W.1 - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V.Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P. Magesh Babu
IIParty/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of MR. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8 period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW 1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work. thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners. the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention, ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service dœs not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 vvill not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances. from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified.
529 GI/2002-342390 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002
the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 09-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
S.O. 753.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Réf. I$o. 240/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
|No. L-4()012/138/99-IR(DU)]
KULD1P RAI VERMA. Desk Officer
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following : —
ANNEXURE
AWARD
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
Monday, the 3 lst Deccmber, 2001
PRESENT:
K. KARTH1KEYAN. Presiding Officer
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications. Chengalpattu, in terminating the services of Shri G. Chittibabu, casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not to what relief, he is cntitled?"
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 240/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Induslrial Tribunal I.D.No.252 /99 )
2 The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
(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. Chittibabu and the management of The General Manager. Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Sri G. Chittibabu . IParty/Workman
AND
-The General Manager, : II Party/Management
Télécommunications. Kancheepuram Disl. Chennai.
APPEARANCE:
For the Workman : M/s. M.Gnanasekar,
C. Prcmavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of povvcrs conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 ofl 947). have referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Ordcr No.L-40012/138/99/ JR(DU)datcd" 13-09-1999.
The I Party/Workman Shri G. Chittibabu (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-10-1984 for digging, drawing wires, lying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1216 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60 as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for confermentof temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However. he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for termirtating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of naturel justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given This référence ha s been made carlier to the Tamil Nadu State Induslrial Tribunal. Chennai, where tt was lakcn on nie as I.D. No. 252/99. Whcn the matter was pending enquiry in thaï Tribunal, the Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour was plcascd lo ordcr transfer of this case froin thaï Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On reccipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has bcen taken on file as I.D. No. 240/2001 and notices were sent to the parties on cither side. informing them about2391 any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail- other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/ Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 01-10-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1216 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-06-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual worker on daily rated wages basis for a short spell during 1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'Grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribnual may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D. No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/ 2001, Sri P. MageshBabu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the Xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the Xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu, in terminating the services of Shri G. Chittibabu, casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not to what relief, he is enetitled?"
Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibife. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners i ko filed into Court individually in their respective caseS-M the service certificates issued to them mentioning t t er service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse daims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to2392 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] WW3 hâve spoken about the service certifïcates they hâve fîled into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioners WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/ Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certifïcates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those mister rolls mentioned in their respective service certifïcates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certifïcates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificate produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are false certifïcates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/ Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certifïcates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certifïcates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and
who in the Respondeni/Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointaient order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certifïcates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certifïcates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentai}' évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certifïcates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certifïcates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibils. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1. no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certifïcates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certifïcates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thesc service certifïcates. Both WW4 and WW.S hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/ Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was complet éd. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the2393 production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service dœs not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. 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 (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.l - Sh.V Santhanam(PetitionerinI.D. 157/2001).
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/2001).
W.W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001).
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom).
W.W.5 - Sh.C.Madurai[SDE(Groups),Kalpakkam].
IIParty/Management :
M.W.1 - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman:
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam.
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj.
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu.
IIParty/Management :
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850.
Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW 1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual , Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as prqject works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8.
2394 THE GAZETTE C)F INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002
S.O. 754 .— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 241/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute berween the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 08-02-2002.
[No. L-40012/131/99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 31st December, 2001
Présent : K.KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 241/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 253/99)
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudicaiton 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 K. Velayutham and the management of the General Manager, Télécom- munications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai).
BETWEEÎN
Sri K. Velayutham : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai
APPEARANCE:
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar, C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl CGSC
The Government 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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/131 /99/IR(DU) dated 13-9-1999.
This référence has been made earlîer to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 253/99. When the matter was 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 241/2001 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 19-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu, in terminating the services of Shri K. Velayutham, casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief, he is entitled ?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Shri K. Velayutham (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-12-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1325 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/ Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor2395 hc was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that îs perennial in nature. Therefore, when ihe work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there îs no reason or justification fordenying the employrfient to the Petitioner No reason was given by the Respondent/Tclccom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follovv the pnnciplcs of natural ]ustice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity beforc his services werc discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service îs in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 Furthcr, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industnal Disputes Act. 1947 Hcncc, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner vuthout notice or compensation îs ab înitio void and the Petitioner îs deemed to be in continuous service and thereforc, îs cntitlcd to bc rcinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages The Rcspondcnl ought to have conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against rcgular Group D post. The Rcspondcnt/Tclccom Departmcnt's action in not doing so îs illégal and arbitrary Hcncc, this industnal dispute has been raiscd against the Rcspondcnt/Tclccom Department claiming the above relief
3 The II Party/Managcmcnt Telecom Department has filed a Countcr Statcmcnt and Additional Countcr Slatcmcnt denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statcmcnt about his appointment as Casual Labour ,ortT-12-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Rcspondcnt/Department for a period of 1325 number ofdays of service and the allcgcd termination of the Pclitioncr from service on 25-6-1995 H îs furthcr allcged that ihe Petitioner was engaged purcly on casual basis for the unskillcd work î e to carry out digging, drawing out wircs, laying posts and for other casual works on daily ratcd wages basis for a short spcll during 1994- 95. The department used to engage persons hkc the Petitioner as and when therc was work. Sincc therc was no work he was not furthcr engaged. Hcncc the question of appointment, termination and continuous service docs nol anse The work donc by the Petitioner was purcly casual in nature and not perennial The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Rcspondcnt/Tclccom Department would takc the Petitioner back to service In 1989, a Schcmc callcd 'granl of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was înlroduced for the Casual Labourcrs who actually worked. The csscntial conditions of the schcmc arc —
1 The casual labour should have been engaged pnorto31.3.1985;
2 Hc should bc currcntly employed on the date of the împlcmcntation of Schcmc i c. 01 10 89;
3 Hc should have put in 240 days continuous service in any onc of the preceding ycars pnor to 01 10 1989, and
4. Therc should not bc a break for a penod of more than onc ycar
The Casua! Labourcrs who actually worked werc askcd to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. Orrverification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the department did not consider the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted false service particulars, with a view tp 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 cligiblc for remstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may tfe pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the lcarned counsel on eithcr side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen likc the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on cither side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Pctitioncr/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I D.No 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No 195/2001, Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No 184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, have been examincd as witncsscs as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 rcspcctively On the side of the Respondent/ Department onc Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness On the side of the Petitioner, the zerox copy of the service ccrtificatcs have been marked as Workman exhibits. On the side of the Management the zerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioncd in the Service Certificates of the workmen have been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The lcarned counsel for the II Party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5 The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the action of the General manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu, in terminating the services ofShriK Vclauthem, casual mazdoor is lcgal and justified? If not, to what relief he is cntitled'?"
Point •—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which arc similar in nature has been conducted Three out of thèse Petitioners have been examincd as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Rcspondcnt/Department as workmen witnesses have been examincd as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 rcspcctively have been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioncd in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen have been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the2396 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 |PAKI-II—Su- 3(iD] availability of senice certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to w ho appoint them and where the> hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from senice -There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to daim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 Accordmg to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked m the Respondent/Department has been clearly given It is their further contention that senice certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged senice in the Telecom Department mentioned in the senice certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus servicecertificatesissuedtothem mentiorungtheirsenice particulars The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industnal dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department îs that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management îs illégal and they must be reinstated m service by the Respondenl/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements They hâve raised thèse claims bascd on the service records They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the senice certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3. they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only It îs their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so m their earher Claim Statements filed before the Régional Comirussioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work It îs their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the penod they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examiried as WW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked contmuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It îs his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 îs ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to
By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the dcpartmcntal officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the senice certificates by the Petitioners are bogus This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the senice certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furmshed in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine When two of the departrnental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the senice certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that the> hâve no powei to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the senice after the work for which they engaged was completed The Petitioners who have been examined as common witness for workmen have admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they have not been appointed2397 is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified Hence. this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not enlitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronouneed by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst Decembcr, 2001 )
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W W.I — Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/
2001)
W.W.2 — Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001)
-,
W. W.3 — Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/ '
2001)
W W.4 — Sh. M Kannappan (Asst. Engineer,
Telecom)
W.W.5 — Sh C. Madurai [SDE (Groups),
KalpakkamJ
II Party /Management
M.WI — Sh. P, Chandrasekar IDE (Légal &'
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. V
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8)— Service Certificates issued to Sh. P
Magesh Babu.
II Party/Management
Ml — Xerox copyof MR. No. 19/05850
M2 — Xerox copyof M.R. No. 06216/8 or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assistmg the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were compîeted and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produccd by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one - and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the defmite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show îhat thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it
529 GI/2Q02-352398 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/129/99/ IR(DU)dated 13-9-1999.
New Delhi, the 8th Febraary, 2002
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 250/99. 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 adjudication. On reccipt of records from Ihat Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 238/2001 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 08-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
S.O. 755.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 238/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-02-2002
[No. L-40012/129/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statemenf, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
AWARD
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAT CUM LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
Monday, the 31 st December, 2001
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
PRESENT : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding
Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 238/2001
(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No.
"Whcther the demand of the workman Sri P. Babu for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu, casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled'"'
250/99)
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-scction 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri P. Babu and the management of The General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai)
BETWEEN
Sri P. Babu
: I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications. Kancheepuram Dist., Chennai
APPEARANCE:
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasckar,
C Premavathi& G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The I Party/Workman Shri P. Babu (hereinafter refers to as Pctitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Managemcnt Telecom Department (hereinafter refers lo as Rcspondent) on 01.03.1985 for digging, drawing wircs, laying posts and for other alhed jobs as directed by his superiors. Hc was paid nominal wages of Rs.7.25 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondcnt, and has put in 1255 Number of days of service, hc had not been rcgularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long penod formulatcd a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Schcmc. The Respondent/Telecom Department failcd to confer temporary status on the Pctitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied cmploymcnl w.c. f. 25.06 1995 and, when his services were terminatcd hc was getling Rs 60/- as daily wages. When hc approachcd the concerned authority, for conforment of temporary status, he was informed that hc will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Rcspondcnt/Telccom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor hc was taken back to duty so far His service was utilised for the regular work that is percnmal in nature. Therefore, 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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial2399 when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 1-3-1985 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a penod of 1225 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-6-1995 . It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a short spell during 1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecome Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed.on the date of the implementation of Scheme i e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve put in 240 days continuous service in any one of the precedmg 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001, Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as M W1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workman exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the demand of the workman Sri P. Babu for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
Point :-
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service2400 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PARI-II—SEC 3(ii)j particulaxs. The common claim made by ail thèse Pctitioners in their respective induslrial dispute against the Rcspondent/Telecom Department îs that the fermination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated m service by the Respondcnt/Management from the date of their respective lermination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements They hâve raised thèse claims bascd on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 toWW3 havespoken about the service ccrtificatcs they have filed into their respective cases In the cross cxamination of ail the Pctitioncr WW1 to WW3, they have admitted that they have given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only It is their further contention in the c\ idenec lhat at the inception when they met the Telecom pcoplc. who were doing the work of the department ncar their housc, requested thosc permanent employées of the Rcspondcnt/Tclccom Department like hneman to give them work and as per their direction they went to sce the Assistant Engincer. and requested him to provide work in the Rcspondcnt/Dcpartment WW1 to WW3 who have deposcd as common witnesses for thèse Pctitioners have statcd in the cross examination that they have not mentioned ail Ihcsc things in their Claim Statements and they have not mentioned so in their earhcr Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioncr of Labour. Chcnnai in the conciliation proccedings They further say that they do not know the namc of the Assistant Engincer. whom ihcy mcl and askcd for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to gct the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service ccrtificates arc truc and correct and their respective mîmes arc available in thosc muster rolls mentioned in their respective service ccrtificatcs Thc> further say m the cross cxanunation that (hey mentioned in their rcspcctnc Claim Statements that ihcy werc given service ccrtificatcs b\ the Assistant Engincci for the days they worked in the Rcspondenl/Dcpartment They have also denicd the suggestion in the cross cxamination. that the service ccrtificatcs produeed by thesc Pctitioners in their respective cases arc ail falsc ccrtificales and they were created by them. They have also demed the suggestion lhat Ihcy have not worked in the Respondcnt/Tclccom Department for the penod they have mentioned by days in Iheir respective Claim Statements. On the sideof tiic Respondcnt/Management the common witncss onc Mr P Chandrasckar lias been examined as MW1 According to the Pctitioncr. lie was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casuai ma/doors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as hc has statcd in his Claim Statcmcnt It is his further allégation in the Claim Statcment that ail of a sudden hc was terminatcd and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department m tcrminating him from service in not /ollovving fhc provisions of the Industnal Disputes Act. 1947 is ah nulio \oid and against law Sincc tlie said action of the Respondcnt/Management is illégal lie must bc reinstated in service by the Respondcnt/Manaji.cmenl from the date of Ihc allcgcd tcrmination of scrv ice in Ihc ycar 1995 But it is the contention of the Respondcnt/Management and also the évidence of MWI that service ccrtificatcs filed by the Pctitioners arc ail falsc and created by thcmsclvcs and they have not mentioned anything with regard to availabihtvof service ccrtificatcs in iheir Claim Statements
The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they have worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 Accoiding to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casuai works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that a!l thèse Petitioners have not worked for 240 days and in the Countcr Statement filed by the Respondcnt/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concernai Pctitioncr had worked in the Respondent/Departmcnt lias been clearly given It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thesc Pctitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they werc created by the Pctitioners themselves and the particulars of the allcgcd service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service ccrtificates said to have been issued by the officiais of the Rcspondent/Department from 1984to 1995 arc ail bogus By sufficicnt documentant évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmcntal officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been cslablishcd that the particulars given in the service ccrtificates by the Pctitioners arc bogus This has bcen cstabhshcd on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service ccrtificatcs of the Pctitioners and brought it to the notice of the Pctitioners that their names have not bcen availablc in the original muster rolis. maintamcd by the Telecom Department The xcrox cop> of the samc had bcen exhibited on the side of ihc Respondent'Management as Management exhibas In the cross examination of the commoii witness for the Management MW 1. no suggestion is put to lurn about ihc work oi the Peutioncr for 240 days m the Telecom Department No suggestion was put in the cioss c.vitninationof MWI lhat the particulars furnished m Ihc soHjee ccrtificatcs produeed by the Pctitioners arc noi bogus but the> arc genuinc When two of rhe departmcntal officiais have bcen examined on the side ol the Pctitioners to speak about the service ccrtificatcs produeed and rehed upon by the Pctitioners. no question was put to them in the cross cxamination about thesr scr\ icc cerlifîcatcs Boih WW4 and WW5 have stak'd i?1 their eudenec thnt they have no power to engage fhesc I\'l!tiont'rs as casuai mo/doors and to disengage them Isc::i the évidence available m (lus case, it is seen tkat thesc Pctitioners have uorkcd foi fcw days by assisling the regniar staff of the Respondent Telecom Department m carrvingout thcdcpartmental work as Casuai Labourers and they ihcmselves have ieft the scivicc aller the work for which they engaged uns conrpieted The Pctitioners who have bcen examined as common \\ ilncss for workmen ha\c admitted that the work will no! bc availablc always and the work is nol pcrcnmal and they have not been appointed or terminated by way of am writtcn orders issued b\ the Rcspondcnt/Tclccom Department From ihc évidence availablc in tins case, it is seen that Pclitioncrs2401 of rctrcnchmcnt from sen ice does not at ail anse So under such circumstances. the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of pnor notice and compensation under section 25F of Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail anse So. under such circumstances. from the available materials it is scen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they have engaged is légal and justified Hence. this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief hc prayed for m his Claim Statement Thus. the point is answered accordingly
6. In the resuit, an Award is passcd holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement No Cost
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transenbed and typed by him. corrected and pronounced by me m the open court on this day the 3 lst December. 2001 )
K KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
WW 1 — Sh V Santhanam (Petitioner m I D 157/
2001)
W.W 2 — Sh S Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001)
WW.3 — Sh P MageshBabu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
WW.4 — Sh. M Kannappan (Asst Engineer,
Telecom)
W W5 — Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups),
Kalpakkam)
II Party/Managcment
M W1 — Sh P. Chandrasekar |DE (Légal and
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
Ml — Xerox copy of MR. No 19/05850
M2 — Xerox copy of MR. No 06216/8 who have bcen workmg as casual ma/doors îcmporanly by assisting the rcgular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left smec the work thés were attendcd were compleled and there was nô further work for îhem to do So from the matenals availablc in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it îs clcarly estabhshed by the Respondent/Managemcnt by production of original muster rolls which have been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioncrs that the Petitioners have never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said penod and have not been paid wages by the department From this it îs seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in lus argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates If rcally, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon b\ the Petitioners are true. they would have been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available m thèse cases, it îs abundantly proved by the Respondent /Department that thèse Petitioners have not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, n îs scen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short penod and they were given wages on daily rated basis It îs.the évidence of M W1 that the work the Petitioners were domg as Casual Labourers was only scasonal work and il was not a continuous one and it îs not availablc ail through the > car It cannot be derued that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers m the Respondent/Management department were only dcvelopment work hke opemng new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners have no work in the department to continue in service It îs the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners. the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not tmc and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be deiiied It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not availablc in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates From this it îs established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners have not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to have furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is availablc in the service certificates. The Petitioners who have been exammed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also have not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not have been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base dunng trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases have created them as the Respondent/Management contends it From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question2402 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 249/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on fileasI.D. No. 237/2001 and notices were sent to the parties on eithcr side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal the on 8-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing S.O. 756 .— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 237/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industria) Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L-4()012/116/99-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement,Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side writen arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/ Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
COURT CHENNAI
Monday, the 3 lst December, 2001
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications. Chengalpattu, interminating the services of Shri C. Mani, casual mazdoor is légal and justifiée! ? If not, to what relief, he is entitled ?" Présent : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by Industrial Dispute No. 237/2001
the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 249/99)
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudicaiton 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 C. Mani and the management of The General Manager, Télécommunications. KancheepuramDist. Chennai]
BETWEEN
Sri C. Mani
: I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist., Chennai
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi and
G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The I Party/Workman Shri C. Mani (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management, Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-10-1984 for digging, drawing wires. laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1206 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/ Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employmentw.e.f. 15-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, ryj has not received any orders nor he was taken back to-duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to 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 Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/116/99/ IR(DU) dated 13-9-1999.
2403date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any qpportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sn V. Santhanam. Petitioner in I.DNo. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj. Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001, Sri P Magesh Babu. Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C Mathurai, have beenexamincdas witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respcctively On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Enginccr Mr P Chandrasckar has been examincd as M W1 as a common witness On the side of the Petitioner. the xcrox copy of the service certificates have been marked as Workman exhibits On the side of the Management the xcrox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioncd in the Service Certificates of the workmen have been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmcn has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Managcment has advanced his arguments
5 The Point for my considération is—
"Whcthcr the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chcngalpattu in terminating the services of Shn C Mani, casual mazdoor is légal and justificd? If not. to what relief hc is entitled?"
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statemenf and Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 1-10-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a penod of 1206 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 15-6-1995 It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a period of 226 days only during 1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecome Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
Point ;-
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
priorto31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme î e 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 penod of more
than one year.
The Casual Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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 donc by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which arc similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thesc Pctitioncrs have been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses have been examined as WW4 and WW5 respcctively Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively have been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xcrox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen have been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thesc documents the other Pctitioncrs also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common clâim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondcnt/Managcmcnt from the date of2404 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective (Slaim Statements. They hâve raised thèse daims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It îs their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like hneman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engmeer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work It îs their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab mitio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995 But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel foi the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service.. There is no appointment order as well as the termination
order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly/ given It is their further contention that service certificates • relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Pelitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintaincd by the Telecom Department The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars funushed in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying ont the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves have left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed The Petitioners who have been examined as common witness for workmen have admitted that the work will not be available always and the "work is not perennial and they have not been appointed or terminated by way of any wntten orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who have been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department have left sinec the work they were attended were completed and therc was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established2405
materials it is seen that the action of the Management of
Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as
casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for
which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence,
this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in
his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered
accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in ûie Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31 st December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.I — Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner inI. D. 157/
2001)
W.W.2 — Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001)
W.W.3 — Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 — • Sh. M. Kannappan (Asstt. Engineer,
Telecom)
W.W.5* — Sh. C. Madurai (SDE (Groups),
(Kalpakkam)
II Party/Management
M.W.I — Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Sanlhanam
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8)— Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
Ml — Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 — Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8 by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they arebogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent /Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the départaient has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. AH thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse thins in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production ofthese certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose ofthese cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So. ùnder such circumstances, from the available
529 GI/2002—36
2406 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH. 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S.O. 757.—In pursuance of Section 17of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No. 236/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L. 40012/115/99-IRDU]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
sent to the parties on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appearbefore this Tribunal on 08-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this the Tribunal, counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, counter statement, additional counter statement. the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Part}// Management and side this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2001 Présent : K. KARTHIKEYAN,
Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 236/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 248/99) (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 R. Loganathan and the Management of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist., Chennai)
BETWEEN
Sri R. Loganathan
: I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/ Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist., Chennai APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar, C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan Addl. CGSC 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 Indutrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial dispute for adjudicaiton vide Order No. L-40012/115/99/ IR(DU) dated 13-09-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 248/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 236/2001 and notices were
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the demand of the workman Shri R. Loganathan for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu, as casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not. to what relief, he is entitled ?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Shri R. Loganathan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engagéd as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 22.2.1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 2370 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long penod formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/ Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w e.f. 20.06 1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authonty, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and 1 he Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2407Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further àbsorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 22-02-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 2370 number of days of service and the alleged terminatipn of the Petitioner from service on 20-6-1995 . It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work Le. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a period of less than 240 daysduring 1995. The départaient usedto engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointaient, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.è.Ol. 10.89; 3. He should hâve 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 fumish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient 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 départaient. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D. No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001 and S/Sri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3,WW4,and WW5 respectîyely. On the side of the Respondent/Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workman exhibits.. On the side of the Management the Xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/Management exhibits. The written arguments of the leamed counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II Partv/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whëther the demand of the workman Sri R. Logonathan for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief heis entitled?
Point :-
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their ser-; particulars. The common claim made by ail tu.-:-" Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against u>c Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the2408 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and m the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in thé Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus.
By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no. suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not brgus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any wntten orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors tcmporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the matenals available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to m service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors onry. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who weredoing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective-service certifïcates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certifïcates They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certifïcates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certifïcates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as WW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked contmuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995 But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certifïcates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the R; -,-•-?,• "\' ••. would further contend that in th. ; - •• . Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 19952409
entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement.
Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the
Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim
Statement. No Cost.
PictatedtotheStenographer.trahscribedand typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTfflKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.I — Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157,
2001)
W.W.2 — Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195,
2001)
W.W.3 — Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitionerin I.D. 184,
2001)
W.W.4 — Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer
Telecom)
W.W.5 — Sh. C. Madurai (SDE (Groups)
Kalpakkam)
II Party/Management
M.W.I — Sh. P. Chandrasekar (DE (Légal &
Commercial))
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam
W2 Séries (3)— Service Certificates issued to Sh. S
Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8)— Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
M1 — Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M 2 — Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8 period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked côntinuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the départaient as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management départaient were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the départaient to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the départaient has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitipners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the départaient. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non-mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/ Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not2410 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 8th Febraary, 2002
S.O. 758— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industnal Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 209/ 2001) of the Central Government Industnal Tribunal cum Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industnal Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, vvhich was received by the Central Government on 08-02-2002.
[No. L-40012/110/99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2001 Présent K.KARTHIKEYAN.
Presiding Officer
Industnal Dispute No 209/2001
(Tamil Nadu State Industnal Tribunal I.D No 208/99) In the matter of the dispute for adjudicaiton under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industnal Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri V Thiruvengadam and the management of the General Manager, Télé- communications)
BETWEEN
Sn V. Thiruvengadam I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, ' II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai
APPEARANCE:
For the Workman . M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C Prcmavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
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 Induatrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industnal dispute for adjudicaiton vide Order No L-40012/110/99/IR(DU) dated 26-08-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D No 208/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D No 209/2001 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 07-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows •—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalputta in terminating the services of Shri V. Thiruvengadam casual mazdoor is légal andjustified? If not, to what relief, heisentitled ?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Shri V. Thiruvengadam (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 19-11-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1075 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a longperiodformulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/ Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial. Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or2411 compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in contihuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefîts including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and Additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 19-11-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1075 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-6-1995 . It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a short spell during 1994-95. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecome Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'Grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient 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 départaient. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001, Shri P. Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/Shri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the zerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workman exhibits. On the side of the Management the zerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri V. Thiruvengadam casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"
Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records, They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 haye spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the2412 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for Iheir considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence thaï at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned soin their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as WW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Tele-communication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is lus further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail ofasuddenhe was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995
and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnishecl in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both W W4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned2413 6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. 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
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.l — Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D.
157/2001)
W W.2 — Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001)
W w 3 — Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001)
W.W.4 — Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer,
Telecom)
W.W.5 — Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups),
Kalpakkam]
II Party/Management
M.W.l — Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)]
Documents Markcd (Common)
I Party/Workman
W ISeries (7) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V. Santhanam
W2Series-(3) — S e r v i ce Certificates issued to Sh. S. Arputharaj
W 3 Séries (8) — Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
M1 — Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M 2 — Xerox copy of M.R. NO. 06216/8
New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002
S.o. 759 .— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the départaient as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily ratedbasis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management départaient were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the départaient to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the départaient has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. AH thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the départaient. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondcnt/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the départaient, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse thins in their respective Claim Statcnicnts. The non- mention of the saine in llicir Claim Slalcmcnts and the production of thèse ccrlifiaUcs witliout an\ base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available matefials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arisc. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engagin.s thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to complciion of woik for which they haye engaged is leg;il ;md juMifiod Ilciux1. this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief" he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
529 GI/2002—372414 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 201/ 2001).of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/84/99-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2001 Présent : K.KARTHDŒYAN,
Presiding Officer
case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 201/2001 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 07-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing "on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side written argumente filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
Industrial Dispute No. 201/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 194/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudicaiton under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Shri V. Venkatesan and the Management, Telecom).
BETWEEN
Sri V. Venkatesan : I Party/Workman
AND
1. The Chief General Manager : II Party/Management Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.
2. The General Manager, Télécommunications, KancheepuramDist. Chennai
3. The Divisional Engineer (Admn) O/o. The General Manager, Télécommunications, KancheepuramDistt. Chennai.
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
" Whether the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Shri V. Venkatesan as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled ?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2A)of Section 10 oflnduatrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial dispute for adjudicaiton vide Order No. L-40012/84/99/ IR(DU)dated 26-8-1999
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 194/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this The I Party/Workman Shri V. Venkatesan (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 10-07-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 2005 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a longperiodformulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/ Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.ei. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conféraient of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re- engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportuniry before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the2415 termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industriel Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore. is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of baçk wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointaient as Casual Labour on 10-7-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 2005 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-6-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a period of less than 240 days during 1995. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service dœs not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecome Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called ' grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient 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 départaient. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D. No. 195/2001 and Sri P. MageshBabu, Petitioner in I.D. No. 184/2001 and S/Sri M. Kannappan and C. Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnessés as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4, and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the zerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workman exhibits. On the side of the Management the zerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/Management exhibits. The. written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is—
"Whetherthe action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Shri V. Venkatesan as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?'
Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnessés hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart fronuthese documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/2416 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 fPART II—SEC. 3(ii)] would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked aïid who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1985 to 1994 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has beén established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned m the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners. no question vas put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in •>:KÙ évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that îlïcse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certifîcates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the department near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as commoti witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination. that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not follovung the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is ab initie void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstatcd in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management2417 Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001).
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman :
W.W.I — Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/
2001).
W.W.2 — Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I.D. 195/
2001).
W.W.3 — Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/
2001.
W.W.4 — Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer,
Telecom).
W.W.5 — Sh. C. Madurai (SDE (Groups),
Kalpakkam).
II Party/Management :
M.W.l — Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal &
Commercial)].
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman :
Wl Séries (7) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. V.
Santhanam.
W2 Séries (3) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. S.
Arputharaj.
W3 Séries (8) — Service Certificates issued to Sh. P.
Magesh Babu.
II Party/Management :
Ml — Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850.
issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1985 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the départaient as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management départaient were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the départaient to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the départaient has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witaesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the conceraed officiais in the départaient. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the départaient, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse
M2 — Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8.
2418 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S.O. 760.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 214/ 2001) of the Central Governmerit Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom. Deptt. and their workman. which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
|No. L-40012/85/99-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/85/99/ IR(DU) dated 26-8-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 214/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 214/2001 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 07-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management and this matter haying stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday. the 3 lst December. 2001
PRESENT :
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 214/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 214/99)
(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 P. Purachirajan and the management of me General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Shri V. Purachirajan : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager : II Party/Management Télécommunications. Kancheepuram, Dist. Chennai.
APPEARANCE : For the Workman . M/s. M. Gnanasekar.
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the General Manager Telecom munications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Sri P. Purachirajan, casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows:—
The I Party/Workman Shri P. Purachirajan.
(hereinafter refers 1:6 as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-03-1985 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs.6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 955 number of days of service he had not been regularised.- The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/ Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employmentw.e.f. 15-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs.1800/- as monthly wages. When he approached the concerned authority, for conferment of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to dufy. The Petitioner was waiting for2419 orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not receiyed any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuons, there is no reason or justification - for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was given by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner withoul notice or compensation is ab initio void and the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 01.03.1985 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/ Department and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25.06.1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a period of less than 240 days during 1995. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are : -
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged prior to 31.3.1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01.10.89;
3. He should hâve 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 vear.
The Casual Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status. On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient 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 départaient. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication canbe tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri MKannappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P.Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advancedhis arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is -
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu, in terminating the services of Shri P.Purachirajan, casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
Point :-
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits.
2420 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The cornmon claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. W Wl to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they haye filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3. they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people. who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like linemân to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to W W3 who hâve deposcd as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer' whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days Ihey worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestioïi in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail falsc certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner. he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the allegèd termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of Ihe Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by
the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and they haye not mentioned anything with regard to availabilityof service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointaient order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connectée! casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in thé Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls. maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve beeri examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been2421 available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/ Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail anse. So under such circumstances. the question of Respondents not following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So. under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department, in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him. corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 Ist December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN. Presiding Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.I - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I. D. 195/2001)
W.W.3-Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asstt. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam]
II Party/Management
M.W.I - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu.
II Party/Management
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
appointée or terminated by way of any written orders issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporàrily by.assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the RcspondcnfManngcmcnt by production of original muster rolls winch lune bccn referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true partieulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent /Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further. it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be deriied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the
529 GI/2002—382422 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002
S.O. 761.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 213/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom. Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/86/99-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the31st December, 2001
PRESENT :
K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 213/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 213/99)
(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 V. Baskar and the management of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram, Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Shri V. Baskar : I Party/Workman
AND
The General Manager, : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram, Dist. Chennai.
APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : SnR. Kaanùppan
Adal. CGSL 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 Industnal Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/86/99/ IR(DU) dated 26-8-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 213/99. 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 adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 213/2001 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 07-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentais évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the demand of the workman Shri V. Baskar for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications. Chengalpattu. as casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled ?"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
The I Party/Workman Shri V. Baskar (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour m the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 14-12-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other albed jobs as directed by lus superiors. He was paid nominal wagesoi Rs 6 50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1168 number of days of service, he had not been regularised The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the départaient for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary Th& I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 15-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authonty, ior conféraient of temporary status, he was mformed that ne will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department reearding his re-engagement. However, he has not recerved anyorders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service2423 was utilised for the regular work that is perennial in nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was give by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in ternis of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/ Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initio and void and the Petitioner is deemed to be continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstead with ail other service benefîts including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has fîled a Counter Statement and an additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 14-12-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1168 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 15-06-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a period of 191 days during 1995. The department used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service dœs not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10- 89;
3. He should hâve 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 vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, 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 benefîts from the department. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the department is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V.Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S. Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/SriM.KammappanandC.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
"Whether the demand of the workman Shri V. Baskar for reinstatement by the General Manager, Télécommunications, Chengalpattu, as casual mazdoor is légal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
Point :—
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On the side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also2424 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common daim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that die termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their fiirther contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom peqple, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour. Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They fiirther say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer. whom they met and asked for work. It is their fiirther évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. They fiirther say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination. that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve not worked in the Respondent/Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner, he was engaged by the Respondent/ Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statemcnt. It is bis further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden they were terminated and the action of the Respondent/ Management Télécommunication Deparimenl in terminating them from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Sincc the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal hc must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and
they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would fiirther contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointaient order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly , given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the départaient and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibitcd on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW 1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners. no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. Fiotn the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they hâve not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders2425 Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they haye engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief he prayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witneses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.I - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner in I. D. 195/2001)
W.W.3 - Sh. P. MageshBabu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam]
II Party/Management
M. W.I - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8 issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as casual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staffof Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls"which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the départaient. From this it is seen as contended by the leamed counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars given • in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work, thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners. the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by cxamining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioncr would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the samc in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purposc of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/2426 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11.1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S.O. 762.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 221/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Tourt. Chennainow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employés in relation to the management of Telecom. Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.
[No. L-40012/96/99-IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/96/99/ IR(DU) dated 26-08-1999.
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal. Chennai, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 228/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to ordcr transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 221/2001 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 08-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, the counsel on either side présent and prosecuted this case further.
When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, additional counter statement the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—
AWARD
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 3 lst December. 2001
Présent : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 221/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 228/99) (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. Moorthy and the management of the General Manager, Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.)
BETWEEN
Shri G. Moorthy : IParty/Workman
AND
The General Manager : II Party/Management Télécommunications, Kancheepuram Dist. Chennai.
The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—
"Whether the action of the General Manager Telecom munications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri G. Moorthy, casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?'"
2. The facts of the industrial dispute as pleaded by the I Party/Workman are briefly as follows :—
Appearance:
For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar,
C. Premavathi & G. Manjula, Advocates
For the Management : Sri R. Kanniappan
Addl. CGSC 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), hâve referred the concerned Industrial The I Party/Workman Shri G. Moorthy (hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) was engaged as casual labour in the II Party/Management Telecom Department (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) on 01-12-1984 for digging, drawing wires, laying posts and for other allied jobs as directed by his superiors. He was paid nominal wages of Rs. 6.50 as daily rated wages. Though the Petitioner has been continuously working with the Respondent, and has put in 1155 number of days of service, he had not been regularised. The Department of Télécommunication in order to absorb the casual mazdoors working in the department for a long period formulated a Scheme known as casual mazdoors (Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation) Scheme. The Respondent/Telecom Department failed to confer temporary status on the Petitioner under the said Scheme, which is illégal and arbitrary. The I Party/Workman has been denied employment w.e.f. 25-06-1995 and, when his services were terminated he was getting Rs. 60/- as daily wages. When he approached the concerned authority. for conféraient of temporary status, he was informed that he will be taken back to duty. The Petitioner was waiting for orders from the Respondent/Telecom Department regarding his re-engagement. However, he has not received any orders nor he was taken back to duty so far. His service was utilised for the regular work which is perennial in2427 On vérification, the service particulars submitted by the Petitioner were found to be bogus and manufactured one. So, the départaient 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 départaient. The alleged work done by the Petitioner is not skilled and perennial in nature. As on date, the départaient is not engaging Casual Labour like the Petitioner for any purpose and also not doing such type of work as done by the Petitioner. 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 départaient, hence, he is not eligible for reinstatement as per the law and as well as Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim pétition.
nature. Therefore, when the work and the necessity to engage the Petitioner continuous, there is no reason or justification for denying the employment to the Petitioner. No reason was give by the Respondent/Telecom Department for terminating the services of the Petitioner and the Respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice. No enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner was not given any opportunity before his services were discontinued. The Petitioner has put in more than a décade continuous service and the termination of his service is in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Further, the Petitioner was not given any notice or compensation in terms of the said provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the action of the Respondent/Department in terminating the services of the Petitioner without notice or compensation is ab initie- void and the Petitioner is deemed to be continuous in service and therefore, is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service benefits including arrears of back wages. The Respondent ought to hâve conferred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and further absorbed him against regular Group D post. The Respondent/Telecom Department's action in not doing so is illégal and arbitrary. Hence, this industrial dispute has been raised against the Respondent/Telecom Department claiming the above relief.
4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the learned counsel on either side represented that the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman in this case along with the similar industrial disputes raised by the workmen like the Petitioner pending enquiry before this Tribunal for adjudication can be tried together jointly and the évidence let in on either side can be treated as common évidence for ail thèse cases. On the side of the Petitioner/Workman S/Sri V. Santhanam, Petitioner in I.D.No. 157/2001, Sri S.Arputharaj, Petitioner in I.D.No. 195/2001, Sri P.Magesh Babu, Petitioner in I.D.No. 184/ 2001 and S/Sri M.Karmappan and C.Mathurai, hâve been examined as witnesses as WW1, WW2, WW3, WW4 and WW5 respectively. On the side of the Respondent/ Department one Divisional Engineer Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1 as a common witness. On the side of the Petitioner, the xerox copy of the service certificates hâve been marked as Workmen exhibits. On the side of the Management the xerox copies of some of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service Certificates of the workmen hâve been marked as Respondent/ Management exhibits. The written arguments of the learned counsel for the I Party/Workmen has been filed. The learned counsel for the II party/Management has advanced his arguments.
5. The Point for my considération is —
3. The II Party/Management Telecom Department has filed a Counter Statement and additional Counter Statement denying the allégations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement about his appointment as Casual Labour on 01-12-1984 and his contention about continuous working with the Respondent/Department for a period of 1155 number of days of service and the alleged termination of the Petitioner from service on 25-06-1995. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was engaged purely on casual basis for the unskilled work i.e. to carry out digging, drawing out wires, laying posts and for other casual works on daily rated wages basis for a period of 240 days during 1994-1995. The départaient used to engage persons like the Petitioner when there was work. Since there was no work he was not further engaged. Hence the question of appointment, termination and continuous service does not arise. The work done by the Petitioner was purely casual in nature and not perennial. The Respondent has never informed the Petitioner that the Respondent/Telecom Department would take the Petitioner back to service. In 1989, a Scheme called 'grant of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers' was introduced for the Casual Labourers who actually worked. The essential conditions of the scheme are :—
"Whether the action of the General Manager Télécommunications, Chengalpattu in terminating the services of Shri G. Moorthy, casual mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled?"
1. The casual labour should hâve been engaged
Point :—
priorto 31-3-1985;
2. He should be currently employed on the date of the implementation of Scheme i.e. 01-10-89;
3. He should hâve 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.
When the matter was taken up for enquiry, as per the request of the learned counsel on either side, a joint trial of thèse 42 cases which are similar in nature has been conducted. Three out of thèse Petitioners hâve been examined as WW1 to WW3 and two officiais of the Respondent/Department as workmen witnesses hâve been examined as WW4 and WW5 respectively. Wl séries to W3 séries, the service certificates of WW1 to WW3 respectively hâve been marked. On ttie side of the Management some of the Xerox copies of the muster rolls mentioned in the Service certificates of the Petitioners/ Workmen hâve been marked as Management exhibits. Apart from thèse documents the other Petitioners also The Casual Labourers who actually worked were asked to furnish the service particulars to grant temporary status.
2428 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]filed into Court individually in their respective cases as the service certificates issued to them mentioning their service particulars. The common claim made by ail thèse Petitioners in their respective industrial dispute against the Respondent/Telecom Department is that the termination of the Petitioners from service by the Respondent/ Management is illégal and they must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of their respective termination from service as mentioned in their respective Claim Statements. They hâve raised thèse claims based on the service records. They were filed into Court in their respective cases. WW1 to WW3 hâve spoken about the service certificates they hâve filed into their respective cases. In the cross examination of ail the Petitioner WW1 to WW3, they hâve admitted that they hâve given their service particulars to the Respondent/ Department as per their direction for their considération to confer temporary status mazdoors only. It is their further contention in the évidence that at the inception when they met the Telecom people, who were doing the work of the départaient near their house, requested those permanent employées of the Respondent/Telecom Department like lineman to give them work and as per their direction they went to see the Assistant Engineer, and requested him to provide work in the Respondent/Department. WW1 to WW3 who hâve deposed as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners hâve stated in the cross examination that they hâve not mentioned ail thèse things in their Claim Statements and they hâve not mentioned so in their earlier Claim Statements filed before the Régional Commissioner of Labour, Chennai in the conciliation proceedings. They further say that they do not know the name of the Assistant Engineer, whom they met and asked for work. It is their further évidence, that they used to get the wages by signing the muster rolls and the numbers of muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates are true and correct and their respective names are available in those muster rolls mentioned in their respective service certificates. Their further say in the cross examination that they mentioned in their respective Claim Statements that they were given service certificates by the Assistant Engineer for the days they worked in the Respondent/Department. They hâve also denied the suggestion in the cross examination, that the service certificates produced by thèse Petitioners in their respective cases are ail false certificates and they were created by them. They hâve also denied the suggestion that they hâve no) worked in the Respondent/ Telecom Department for the period they hâve mentioned by days in their respective Claim Statements. On the side of the Respondent/Management the common witness one Mr. P. Chandrasekar has been examined as MW1. According to the Petitioner. he was engaged by the Respondent/Management Department of Télécommunication as casual mazdoors in 1984 and worked continuously till 1995 as he has stated in his Claim Statement. It is his further allégation in the Claim Statement that ail of a sudden he was terminated and the action of the Respondent/Management Télécommunication Department in terminating him from service in not following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ab initio void and against law. Since the said action of the Respondent/Management is illégal he must be reinstated in service by the Respondent/Management from the date of the alleged termination of service in the year 1995. But it is the contention of the Respondent/Management and also the évidence of MW1 that service certificates filed by the Petitioners are ail false and created by themselves and
they hâve not mentioned anything with regard to availability of service certificates in their Claim Statements. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Management would further contend that in the Claim Statement of the Petitioners nothing has been mentioned as to who appoint them and where they hâve worked and who in the Respondent Department has terminated them from service. There is no appointment order as well as the termination order passed by the Respondent/Management for thèse Petitioners to claim that they were appointed by the Respondent/Telecom Department and they were terminated against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the Management of Telecom Department, thèse people were engaged in the year 1995 and some persons were engaged at the end of 1994 for assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department for laying the cables, and erecting pôles and other connected casual works. It is the spécifie stand of the Respondent/Management that ail thèse Petitioners hâve not worked for 240 days and in the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent/Management in their respective cases, the days for which the concerned Petitioner had worked in the Respondent/Department has been clearly given. It is their further contention that service certificates relied upon by thèse Petitioners as issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department were not issued by the department and they were created by the Petitioners themselves and the particulars of the alleged service in the Telecom Department mentioned in the service certificates said to hâve been issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Department from 1984 to 1995 are ail bogus. By sufficient documentary évidence, the évidence through WW4 and WW5 the departmental officiais examined on the side of the Petitioners and MW1 it has been established that the particulars given in the service certificates by the Petitioners are bogus. This has been established on the side of the Management by producing the original of the concerned number of muster rolls mentioned in the service certificates of the Petitioners and brought it to the notice of the Petitioners that their names hâve not been available in the original muster rolls, maintained by the Telecom Department. The xerox copy of the same had been exhibited on the side of the Respondent/Management as Management exhibits. In the cross examination of the common witness for the Management MW 1, no suggestion is put to him about the work of the Petitioner for 240 days in the Telecom Department. No suggestion was put in the cross examination of MW1 that the particulars furnished in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not bogus but they are genuine. When two of the departmental officiais hâve been examined on the side of the Petitioners to speak about the service certificates produced and relied upon by the Petitioners, no question was put to them in the cross examination about thèse service certificates. Both WW4 and WW5 hâve stated in their évidence that they hâve no power to engage thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors and to disengage them. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that thèse Petitioners hâve worked for few days by assisting the regular staff of the Respondent/Telecom Department in carrying out the departmental work as Casual Labourers and they themselves hâve left the service after the work for which they engaged was completed. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witness for workmen hâve admitted that the work will not be available always and the work is not perennial and they haye not been appointed or terminated by way of any written orders2429 Management in regular course did not employ Petitioners and they were not given independent work, so the question of retrenchment from service does not at ail arise. So under such circumstances, the question of Respondents not following the provisions oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issuance of prior notice and compensation under section 25F oflndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not at ail arise. So, under such circumstances, from the available materials it is seen that the action of the Management of Telecom Department in not engaging thèse Petitioners as casual mazdoors subséquent to completion of work for which they hâve engaged is légal and justified. Hence, this Petitioner is not entitled to the relief heprayed for in his Claim Statement. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.
6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled toi the relief prayed for in the Claim Statement. No Cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed. by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3 lst December, 2001.)
K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined (Common)
I Party/Workman
W.W.I - Sh. V. Santhanam (Petitioner in I. D. 157/2001)
W.W.2 - Sh. S. Arputharaj (Petitioner i" I. D. 195/2001)
W. W.3 - Sh. P. Magesh Babu (Petitioner in I.D. 184/2001)
W.W.4 - Sh. M. Kannappan (Asst. Engineer, Telecom)
W.W.5 - Sh. C. Madurai [SDE (Groups), Kalpakkam]
II Party/Management
M.W.I - Sh. P. Chandrasekar [DE (Légal & Commercial)]
Documents Marked (Common)
I Party/Workman
Wl Séries (7) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. V. Santhanam
W2 Séries (3) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. S. Arputharaj
W3 Séries (8) - Service Certificates issued to
Sh. P. Magesh Babu
II Party/Management
Ml - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 19/05850
M2 - Xerox copy of M.R. No. 06216/8
^ Rcrfl, 11 >W*K1, 2002 issued by the Respondent/Telecom Department. From the évidence available in this case, it is seen that Petitioners who hâve been working as caçual mazdoors temporarily by assisting the regular and permanent staff of Respondent/ Telecom Department hâve left since the work they were attended were completed and there was no further work for them to do. So from the materials available in this case by way of exhibits and évidence, it is clearly established by the Respondent/Management by production of original muster rolls which hâve been referred to in service certificates of the Petitioners that the Petitioners hâve never worked as Casual Labourers under those muster rolls for the said period and hâve not been paid wages by the department. From this it is seen as contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent/Management in his argument that the particulars given in the service certificates produced by the Petitioners are not true particulars but they are bogus certificates. If really, the particulars givcn in the service certificates relied upon by the Petitioners are true, they would hâve been granted temporary status mazdoors for Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department. From the évidence available in thèse cases, it is abundantly proved by the Respondent/Department that thèse Petitioners hâve not worked continuously from 1984 to 1995. Further, it is seen from the évidence available that the Petitioners were engaged by the department as Casual Labourers only for the short period and they were given wages on daily rated basis. It is the évidence of MW1 that the work the Petitioners were doing as Casual Labourers was only seasonal work and it was not a continuous one and it is not available ail through the year. It cannot be denied that the work thèse Petitioners attended as Casual Labourers in the Respondent/Management department were only development work like opening new téléphone exchanges and strengthening the existing exchanges and they were done as project works and on completion of that work. thèse Petitioners hâve no work in the department to continue in service. It is the definite évidence of MW1 that on checking the service particulars given by the Petitioners, the department has found that the particulars they furnished are not true and they were found to be bogus. Ail thèse things cannot be denied. It has been demonstrated before this Tribunal by the Respondent/Management by relevant documents that the names of the Petitioners were not available in the original muster rolls that has been mentioned in their service certificates. From this it is established that the particulars given in their service certificates are false. Further the Petitioners hâve not proved those service certificates by examining the departmental officiai who said to hâve furnished those service certificates. No date of issue of those service certificates is available in the service certificates. The Petitioners who hâve been examined as common witnesses for thèse Petitioners as WW1 to WW3 also hâve not stated in their évidence that the dates on which they were issued those service certificates by the concerned officiais in the department. If they were really issued by the officiais of the Respondent/Telecom Department as a record for their service in the department, the Petitioner would not hâve been failed to mention ail thèse things in their respective Claim Statements. The non- mention of the same in their Claim Statements and the production of thèse certificates without any base during trial of the cases before this Tribunal go to show that thèse Petitioners for the purpose of thèse cases hâve created them as the Respondent/Management contends it. From the available materials, it is seen that the Respondent/
529 GI/2002—39
2430 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]New Delhi, the 1 lth Febraary, 2002 S.O. 763.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(6) of 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/23/98-IR (C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, DeskOfficer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRES1DING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(6) OF 1999 Shri Bataku
: Workman
Vs.
Gevra Project.
: Management SECL
New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002 S.O. 764.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(203) of 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/189/96-IR (C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, DeskOfficer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(203) OF 1997 Shri S. K. Sharma : Workman
AWARD
(Passed on 23 rd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide order No. L- 22012/23/98/IR (C-II) dtd. 27-11-1998 for adjudication as under :
Vs.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., : Management Dipka A. Project, PO-Gevra Project
AWARD
"Whether the action of the management of Gevra Project SECL Distt. Bilaspur (CG) in not promoting Sh.PanchRam S/o. Sh. Bataku fromE.P. Fitter-III to E.P. Fitter-II w.e.f. the date of promotion of his juniors viz., S/Sh Ramgopal Sahu and Harimohan Ram is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled'?"
2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Government of India. Hence. no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI. Presiding Officer (Passed on 23rd day of January. 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 22012/189/96/IR (C-II) dtd. 22-07-1997 for adjudication as under :
"Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh for regularization of Sh. S.K. Sharma, Shovel Operator Cat-D, Deepika Augmentation Project, Gevra Area, as, Shovel Operator Cat. "B" is légal and justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?"
2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Government of India. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
24313. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that . no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002 S.O. 765.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(2O2) of 1997] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/190/96-IR (C-II)]
N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP)
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(202) OF 1997 Shri Guru Sharan Singh : Workman
Vs.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., : Management Deepika Augmentation Project, PO-Gevra Project
and justified. If so, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?"
2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in purçuine him clnim as referred by the Government of India. I Icncc, no dispute cxists bctuccii the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002 S.O. 766.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(211) of 1997] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/191/96-IR (C-II)]
N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(211) OF 97
AWARD
(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 22012/190/96/IR (C-II) dtd. 22-07-1997 for adjudication as under :
Shri RadhaLal
: Workm;:.
Vs.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., : Managemci Dipka A. Project, Post-Gevra Project
AWARD
"Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh MP (BMS) for regularization of Sh. Guru Sharan Singh, Dumper Operator Category "D", Deepika Augmentation Project, Gevra Area of SECL, as Dumper Operator Category, "C" is légal (Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No.
2432 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]L-22012/191/96/IR(C-II)dtd. 22-07-1997 for adjudication as under :
Vs.
Sub Area Manager, : Management S.E.C.L., Rajgamar Colliery, Dist. Bilaspur.
AWARD
"Whether the demand of the Bhartiya Khadan Mazdoor Sangh MP (BMS) for regularization of Sh. Radha lai Dewangan, Dumper Operator Category "D", Deepika Augmentation Project, Gevra Area of SECL, as Dumper Operator Category, "C" is légal and justified. If so, to what relief is the workman entiUed and from which date?"
2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Government of India. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAL Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002 S.O. 767.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(177) of 1994] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer" in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/226/94-IR (C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT/1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRESIDING- OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(RX177) OF 1994
: Union
Secretary, Chhattisgarh Swatantra Mazdoor Union, Baradwar, Dist. Bilaspur.
(Passed on 23rd daiy of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 22012/226/94/IR(C-II) dated 28-09-1994 for adjudication as under :
"Whether the action of the management of Sub Area Manager, SECL, Rajgamar Colliery, Bilaspur, in dismissing Sh. Dilip Kumar Patel, Ex. Line Mistry from service w.e.f. 1-4-93 is légal and justified? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entttledto?".
2. Parties hâve filed written settlement praying for passing award in terms there of.
In the light of seulement^ the award is passed as under :
(i) The workman shall bere-instatedwithoutback wages.
(ii) Befbre reinstatement, the workman shall get himself médical examination.
(iii) For the purposes of pensionary benefits the period of absence from the duty shall be treated continuous service of the workman.
(iv) After completing one year satisfactory service the workman shall be confirmed in service. After the settlement as per Form-H, the workman shall be posted in Raigarh Area.
(v) The workman shall refund the amount of pension received by him during the period of absence from duty shall be paid to the Management.
Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per iules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer2433 New Delhi, the 1 lth Februaiy, 2002 S.0.768.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(201 ) of 1997] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/299/96-IR (C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, DeskOfficer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(201)OF 1997 Président,
: Union Rastriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, (INTUC) Branch : SECL, Dipika Project, PO : Gevra Project, Dist. Bilaspnr
Vs.
Sub Area Manager. : Management S.E.C.L. Dipika Project. PO : Gevra Project. Dist. Bilaspur.
more. He prayed to pass no dispute award in this case. On his prayer no dispute award is passed.
3. In view of the above said facts, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case. The workman has already been promoted by the Management. No dispute award is therefore passed.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002 S.O. 769.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(210) of 1997] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/301/96-IR (C-II)]
AWARD
(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, lias referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 22012/299/96/IR (C-II) dated 22-07-1997 for adjudication as under :
"Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) Br. Deepika Project, for promotion of Sh. Gulab Singh, Clerk Gr. III, Deepika Project of SECL to the post of Clerk Grade II w.e.f. 28-1-1993 is légal and justifîed? If so. to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?".
2. The workman appeared before the Tribunal and stated that no dispute regarding the promotion exists any
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(210)OF 1997 Président,
: Union
Rastriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, (INTUC) Branch : SECL, Dipika Project, PO : Gevra Project, Dist. Bilaspur2434 THE GAZETTE OF1NDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Vs.
Sub Area Manager. : Management S.E.C.L. Dipika Project, PO : Gevra Project, Dist. Bilaspur.
LC/(RX259) of 1997] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/329/96-IR (C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
AWARB
(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Minislry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 22012/30 l/96/IR(C-II) dated 22-07-1997 for adjudication as under •.
"Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) Br. Deepika Project, for promotion of Sh. Kripal Singh, Clerk Gr. III, Deepika Project of SECL to the post of Clerk Grade II w.e.f. 28-1-1993 is légal and justified? If so. to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?".
2. The workman appeared before the Tribunal and stated that no dispute regarding the promotion exists any more. He prayed to pass no dispute award in this case. On his prayer no dispute award is passed.
3. In view of the above said facts, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case. The workman has already been promoted by the Management. No dispute award is therefore passed.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour. Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 11 th February. 2002 S.O. 770.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Acl. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award |Ref. No. CGIT/ ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(259)OF 1997 Shri Ganesh Lai Soni : Workman
Vs.
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., : Management Dipika Project,
AWARD
(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L-22012/329/96/IR (C-II) dated 03-09-1997 for adjudication as under :
"(i) Whether the demand of RKK Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) Br. Deepika Project for promotion of Sh. Ganesh Lai Soni. Helper Cat. II to the post of EPGH Grade E is légal and justified? If so to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?
AND
(ii) Whether the action of the management of Deepika Project of SECL in not allowing Sh. Ganesh Lai Soni, Helper Cat. IL to mark attendance and not allowing him to work from 3-12-95 to 3-2-96 is légal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?" 2. The workman remained absent inspite of service of notice on him. It-appears that he is not interested in pursuing him daim as referred by the Government of India. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour. Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer2435 New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002 S.O. 771.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industnal Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(140) of 1998] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/340/97-IR (C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP)
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(140) OF 1998 Shri Chandra Bhusan Mahato : Workman
Vs.
Gevra Project.
: Management South Eastcrn Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur (CG)
AWARD
(Passed on 2.1 rd day of Jarmary. 2002) The Government of India. Ministry of Labour. New Delhi, lias referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 22012/340/97/IR (M-II) dated 20-07-1998 for adjudication as under :
"Whcther déniai of subsistance allowance to Sh. Chandra Bhushan Mahato for 9 days from 11-7-87 andfrom 18-10-1991 to i 3-7-92 by the mangement of SECL. Gcvra project is justified? ïf not, to what relief is the warkman entitlcd?"
2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Government of India. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in-the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated abave, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the awaxd be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of îndia as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Pr-eskiing Officer New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002 S.O. 772.—rn pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(145) of 1998] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/341/97-IR (C-II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT. 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP)
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(145)OF 1998 Shri Chandra Bhusan Mahato : Workman
Vs.
Gevra Project,
: Management South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur (CG)2436 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2. 2002/PHALGUNA 11. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii>]
AWARD
ANNEXURE
(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002)
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT
TOWN, JABALPUR (MP)
PRESIDING OFFICER . K. M. RAI The Government of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 22012/341/97-IR (CM-II) dated 20-07-1998 for adjudication as under :
CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(260) OF 1997
Shri Ram Sai
: Workman
Ts.
"Whether the demand of Sh. Chandra Bhushan Mahato Secretary of the Union to change the désignation of Sh. Chandra Bhushan Mahato Pitman, Gr. III to MTK. Gr. IH/Clerical Gr. III by the management of SECL, Gevra Project is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., : Management Dhelwadih Project
AWARD
(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002) 2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Government of India. Hence. no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour. New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L- 22012/390/96/IR (C-II) dated 03-09-1997 for adjudication as under :
ncr dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer
"Whether the action of the management of Dhalwadih Project of SECL, Bilaspur, in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Sai, Loader, is légal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date?"
M fccrrï), 11 IM*K1, 2002
2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Government of India. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that
no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1 lth February, 2002
S.O. 773.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(260) of 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/390/96-IR (C-II)]
N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer2437 New Delhi, the 1 Ith February, 2002 S.O. 774.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebypublishes theaward [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(72) of 2000] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplpyers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
[No. L-22012/434/99-IR(C-II)J
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(72) OF 2000 Secretary,
: Union
Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), C/o. SECL Balgi Branch, PO : Balgi Collieiy, Korba(CG)
Vs.
Sub Area Manager, Balgi Project : Management S.E.C.L. PO : Balgi Colliery, Dist. Korba (CG)
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that parties hâve settled dispute between them and Union dœs not press the présent claim as referred. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in this case. No dispute is accordingly passed.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1 Ith February, 2002 S.O. 775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebypublishes theaward [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(73) of 2000] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-02-2002.
AWARD
(Passed on 22nd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L-22012/434/99/IR (CM-II) dated 29-2-2000/7-3-2000 for adjudication as under :
"Whether the action of the management of Balgi Project, SECL in denying promotion to Shri Ram Niwas Ram in Cat.IV w.e.f. 5-12-94 Le. the date from which promotion was given to his junior Sh. Ghanshyam Tripathi is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?".
2. Parties hâve filed written settlement for passing no dispute award in terms there of. This application has been voluntarily filed by the union. In the light of this application, no dispute exists between the parties in this case. Hence, no dispute award is passed.
ç^oirj-îffi- — l\ù
[No. L-22012/435/99-IR (C-ïï)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 1230, WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP) PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGIT/LC/(R)(73) OF 2000
: Union
Secretary, Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (Arruc), c/o. SECL " Balgi Branch, PO : Balgi Colliery,
Korba (CG)
Vs.
2438 THE GAZETTE OFINDIA : MARCH2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]SubArea Manager, : Management Balgi Project, S.E.C.L. PO : Balgi Colliery,
Dist. Korba (CG)
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred tfce présent dispute vide Order No. L-220LV435/VJ/D. (L./i-ti; d&ed 29-2-2ÛO0/7-3-2O00 for adjudication as under :
" Whether the action of the management of Balgi Project, SECL in aenying promotion to Shri Sanad Kumar Verma in Cat.IV w.e.f. 5-12-94 i.e. the date from which promotion was given to his junior Sri. Ghanshyam Tripathi is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?".
2. Parties hâve filed written settlement for passing no dispute award in terms there of. This application has been voluntarily filed by the union. In the light of this application, no dispute exists between the parties in this case. Hence, no dispute award is passed.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that parties hâve settled dispute between them and Union dœs not press the présent claim as referred. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in this case. No dispute is accordingly passed.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the l l th February, 2002 S.O. 776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebypublishes the award [Réf. No. CGIT/ LC/(R)(4) of 2000] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workrarri which was rccerved by trie Central Government on 05-02.2uO2.
Pfo T - v ' O ' . l ' T ^ - IT '—H)]
N.P. KESAVAK, Desk^Jficer
ANNEXURE
BËFORiî THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRiÀL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, 1230 WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP).
PRESIDING OFFICER : K. M. RAI CASE NO. CGn7LC/(R)(4) OF 1999 Shri Chandra Bhusan Mahato Workman Vs.
... .Management Gevra Project, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,
Bilaspur(CG)
AWARD
(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002 ) The Government oflndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L-22012/2 l/98-IR(C-II) dtd. 27-11-1998 for adjudication as under.
"Whether the action of the management of the SECL Gevra Project, Distt. Bilaspur in not giving the weightage to past service and not protecting the basic pay after demoting Sh. Chandra Bhushan Mahto as a Pitman Clerk-III from MTK Gr. III and granting Mm initial basic of Pitman Clerk-III is justified ? If not to what relief Ihe workman is entitled ?" 2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in pursuing him claim as referred by the Govenunent oflndia. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.
3. In the light of the fact stated above, it is held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.
K.M. RAI, Presiding Officer2439 New Delhi, the 14th February, 2002 S. O. 777.—In pursuance of Section 17 ofbe Industfial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), th© Central Government hereby publisfres the Award of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the The Chief General Manager, WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-02-2002.
[Ne. L-22012/580/99-IR (CM-IÏ)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Offieer ' ANNEXURE
BËPORË THB CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSÏRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :
Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Offieer
Référence No. CGIT : 217/2000
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, W.C.L.
AND
SHRt KALLOO PRASAD
AWARD
, Tas Central Gavernmont, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by exercising the powers conferred hy Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and. Sub-seetion 2 (A) of Ssction 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act5 •1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication v^de Order No. L-22012/580/99/IR (CM-II) dâtèd, 28-06-2000 on the folio wing schedule.
SCHÈDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Rawanwara Khas Colliery of WCL, pench . Area,. PO : Dighawani, Distt. Chhindwara (M?) in terminating the services of Sh. Kalloo Prasad S/cr D3enàndàn,; Tramaiér, T. No. 1654 SZy Ul/^WJi-^-41
•©f-ftawaawaî*~KÎias-€effiery of WCL, Pench Area w. e. f. 12-02-99 is jusrified ? If not, to What relief the workman is entitled to ?" In this référence application has been mGved by the counsel for the workman today that the case.be cîcsed as the witness is not avaiîabîe frem the side of workman to file affidavit Tbe ccunsel Shri C. L. Jaiswal has mentîôhed in his application dated 31-01-02 that he had informed the work- man atleast six times that the case is fixed for évidence but neither the "werkman Kalîco Prasad S/o Deonandan tumed up nor he infermed any reasen fer his absence.
The counsel for the workman has therefcre requested that the - case be decided.
The counsel for the management bas also mentioned that thé case be closed for want of prosecutien. In view of the above submissiens cf the parties, it is évident that the workman is himself not interested in preducieg any évidence in support of his claim. In the abeve circumst- ances thé référence is disposed cf for want cf prosecution.
ORDER
The counsel for the workman, Kallco prasàd has moved application on 31-1-2002 that the workman did not turn up for adducing évidence in support of his claim. In view of the above application dated 31-01-02, the ccunsel lias prayed for dispesed of this case.
The référence is disposed of for want of prosecution.
Date : 31-1-2002
B. G. SAXENA,. Presiding Offieer New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 S.O. 778.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No.. 87/97) of the Central Goverament Irîdustrial2440 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l Tribunal Bangalore, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industriel Dispute between ths employers in relation to the management of Bharat Gold Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-1-2002.
[No. L-43012/14/95-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1N- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BANGALORE
Dated : 18th January, 2002
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer.
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT BANGALORE C.R. No. 87/97
I PARTY II PARTY
The Président, The Managing Director, Bhaiat Gold Mines BharatGold Mines Limited, Association, Suvarna Bhavan, No. 545, Near Punjabi Kolar Gold Field-563120, Q uarters, Oorgaum, Advocate A. S. Bopanna.
Kolar Gold Fields-563 120 Advocate K. V. Satyanarayana.
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 dispute vide order No. 43012/14/ 95-IR(Misc) dated 13th December, 1995 for adjudi- cation on the following sdiedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Bharat Gold Mines Limited "is justified in fixing the âge of Superannuation of Shri G. Balaraman, PE No. 067888 at 58 years, ignoring their own circular dated 3O-3-197Ô and also misinterpreting the above circular ? If not what relief Shri Balaraman is entitled f^ and from which date ?" ' ' 2. The first party was working with the manage- ment. Tlhe management fixed the âge of Superannua- tion of the workman at the âge of 58 years ignoring their own circular dâted 30th March 1970 issued bv the management and thèrefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.
3. Parties apoeared and filed Claïm Statement and Counter • respectively..
, 4. The case of the workman is as under :
5. The workman has put in 34 years cf service "'n the Second party concerned companv. InitJnilv he foined the services of the Company in luJv 1961 as an underground workman and ris worked for 8 vears tlhcre.
6. It is the further case of the workman that sub- sequently on 4-9-1969 the second party concerned company transferred the first party workman to surface as a Loco-driver and the workman continusd te serve in that capacity for about 20 years Le. up tb the end of 1989. Thcre wa? another transfer to the Central Transport Department as a transport driver where he accidentally came to know that he will be retiring at the âge of 58 years and an erroneous entry is made by the concerned clerk of the Transport Department instead of 60 years as his Superannua- tion âge.
7. The main contention of the first party workman is that he is entitled to serve up to the âge of 60 years as per Circular No. 2B dated 30th March, 1970 which has been issued bv the Chairman-Cum-Manag- ing Direc^or of the Kolar Gold mining undertaking which was the erstwhile name of the second party company. The circular was re-affirmed by the BGML News Bulletin (Spécial Issue) dated 4-3-1974 which states that ail surface workisen already in service on 28-3-1970 will be allowed to continue in service up to the âge of 60 years in accordance with the rules now in force.
8. The first party workmau became a permaneni surface employée on 4th September, 1969. At the time of the Circular No. 2B dated 30th March, 1970, the first party concerned workman was a surface employée for 6 months and 24 days thus satisfying the condition of being already on surface on 28-3-1970 from which date the rule came into force He made many représentations but nothing has happened. The workman has prayed to pass award in his favour. He wants a direction to the manage- ment to correct the âge of Superannuation from 58 years to 60 years.
9. The case of the management in brief is as follows :
10. It is true that the workman joined the services of the Company on 1-7-1961 as General Labour. It is mainly contended by the management that the firsi party has been transferred at his own request. On the othsr hand the first party requested the second party for his transfer and the second party transferred him to Engineering Department at his request as Diesel Loco Driver and hc was promoted as Trans- port Driver-II Sr. Grade w.e.f. 1-1-80 and was transferred to Central Transport Department and thèrefore subséquent transfer will not alter the âge of superannuation.
11. It is the further ca 2441
mination so far as this workirian is concerned and the management is not justirkd in retiring the work- man at the âge of 58 years.
12. It is seen from the records that management examined MW1, Mr. N. Balasubramany, Manager, KGF. His évidence is that the workman is appoint- ed for underground work and his retirement âge was initially 55 years aed it was revised to 58 years. For underground workman it was not raised to 60 years.
20. The workman has given évidence in détail in support of his case. Nothing is made out from his cross examination to disbelieve him. He categoricaj- ly says that Shri Ismail and Selvaraj who were also transferred likc him retired at the âge of 60 years. The évidence of workman seems to be quite natural and bdievable.
21. I hâve already said that the management has faâed to prove that the transfer of workman was on his request.
13. Ex. Ml is the Service Card. It is his further évidence that during 1969 first party was transferred to Surface from Underground at his request. Ex. M2 is the Circular. He says that according to Ex. M2 the retirement âge of first party was 58 years because he was the employée of the underground The cadre of workman in Underground and Surface is important.
22. During the course of arguments, the workman who was présent in the court has submitted that he is now 63 years old. He was to retire at the âge of 60 years and that stage has passed.
14. MW1 in his cross-examination has stated that on 4-9-1969 the first party was transferred frora Underground to Surface and it is truc that when Ex M2, Circular was issued and the first party has completed service of 6 months and 24 days. He says in his cross-examination that he does not know that one Mr. Selvaraj was transferred from under- ground to surface on 4-9-1968. He does not know few others were also transferred from underground to surface.
23. The learned counsel appearing for the first party workman initially submitted that the workman may be awarded back wages but subsequently he fair- ly and rightly submitted that the workman is entitkd at least for pensionary benefils and other benefits as per rules for 2 years more i.e. up to the âge of 60 years which is the âge of Superannuation of the workman.
15. He further said that he does not know that the case of Selvaraj is similar and he retired at the âge of 60 years along with others.
24. According to the documents filed by the work- man it is also clear lhat the workman who hâve retired at the âge of 60 yeais got some more benefits. Theie is merit in this contention of the workman and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
16. In order to appreciate his évidence let us see the documents relied by the management. It is in évidence that since 4-9-1969, the first party was transferred for underground work and he was in the employée of surface. I hâve carefully perused the employment cards.
The référence is partly allowed. The management is directed to give ail pen&ionary anâ other benefits as per rules for 2 more years treating the retirement of the workman at the âge of 60 years. No other benefits are awarded. Accordingly award is disposed off.
(Bictated to PA transciibed by her corrected and
signed by me on 18th January, 2002).
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 17. Ex. M2 is the circular. According to this Ex M2 ail Surface workmen already in service on 28-3-1970 will be allowed to continue in service upto the âge of 60 years in accordance with the rules in force. With this and the évidence of MW1, I am of the firm opinion that the management is not justified in retiring the workman at the âge of 58 years because •he workman was elready working in surface since 4-9-1969 and the date given in Circular is 28-3-1970. Ex. Wl, W2 and W3 also would go to show that some similar workmen hâve retired at the âge of 60 years.
18. It was vehemently prgued by the management that workman is not entitled to retire at the âge of 60 years because this workman has been transferred by the management on his cwn request from under- ground to surface. Therefon; the circular does not apply to the workman.
New Delhi, the 29th January, 2002 19. During the course of arguments the learned counsel appearing for the management submitted that no such request letter rs filcd. She further fairly con- ceeded that theje^is no riocumentary évidence to estabMsh - that , tfes wqïkman has requested for his transfer and thVmartajjcrnem'has transferred him to surface. She further submittud that few similar workmen,were transferred by the management and not on their request. Ail tbat would hâve been proved by filing documents. But nothing is done. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is discri-
S.O. 779.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubîishes the award (Réf. No.
2442 THE GAZETTE CF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]266/99) of the Central Govemment Industriel Tri- bunal, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute b^tween ihe employas in rela- tion to the management of M/s. Hindalco Ind. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2002.
TNo. L-29011/12/99-IR(M)] E. M. DAVID, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRÏAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT î
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officcr.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) ci the I.D. Act, 1947 Référence No. 266 of 1999
PARTIES :
Employers in relation ta the management of M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. and their workmen.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmen : Shri Rajbansh Singh, General Secretary, BMMS Union.
On behalf of the employers : Shri G. Prasad, Advocate.
STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Aluminium. Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd January, 2002
AWARD
The Government of India, Min stry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1)fd) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the foilowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide tpeir Order No. L-29011/12/99;iS.(M) dated, the 6ih July, 1999 :
SCHEDULE
"Whether, the deniand of the Union to régularise the seven workmen nàmely S/Shri Ram Prasad Oroan, -Ramesliwar Oroan, Biju Oïoaa, Birbal P.rajapa!i, Ka-dane Prajapati, Balchand Prajapati and Biliua Oroan în ser- vice is justiâed ? If yes, ' from what date thèse workmen are entitled to- be regularised in service and with what benefits ?" 2. Tn this feîerence parties involved in Ihe dispute filed a Joint Compromise pétition under their signature. I heard boih the parties on the sai
B. BISWAS. Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 2 DHANBAD
Empioyers in relation to the Management of M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited, Lohardaga.
AND
Their Workmen.
The haumbie joint pétition of Compromise on be- haîf of the parties most respecfully sheweth :—
- 1. That- the parties hâve amicably settled the indus- trial dispute relating to the régularisation of services of Shri Ram Prasad Oroan, Shri Rameshwar Oroan, Shri Biju Oroan, Shri Birbal Prajapati, Shti Kardane Prajapati, Shri Baichand Prajapati and Shri Billua Oroan on the foilowing terms and conditions :—
(i) That the services of above named workmen shall be regularised with effect from 16th January, 2000.
(ii) That the wages of above named workmen shall be fixed as per Wage Agreement dated 18-5-90 and Supplementary Agreement dt. 13-9-99.
(iii) That thèse above named workmen shall bave no other claim whatsoever as against the instant référence.
(iv) That thèse workmen shall maintain good conduct and should they indulge in any mis- conduct in future and if it is proved in a domestic enquiry, the Management shall hâve the right to take disciplinary action as may be necessary.
(v) That the Management may transfer them to other establishment, as and when required, from tirae to time, as per provision of standing orders.
( vi ) That iî is agreed that this is an ovcrall agree- rûent/settlement in full and final seulement of ail Ihe claim of the workmen arising out of the above référence.
(vii) That the parties agreed that the seulement is fair, just and proper, and hâve set their hands after understanding the same.
(viii) That it was alt,o agreed that six copies of this seulement be filed before îhe Hon'ble Tribunal and the Tribunal may be prayed to pass an awa<*d in terms of the seulement.
It is, therefore prayïd that your honour may ba graciously pleaied to accept the seulement * aud pass -an asvard in tftms of the settîe- mettt>nd for this act of kindness the parties shall ever piay.
For th© Workmen : For the Employers r (RAJBANSH SINGH), (N. K, BIRLA), General Secretary, BMMS Union. Agent of Mînes. Witness Witness Rakesh Raajan, Personal Officcr Advocate. Advoeate.
New Delhi, the. 29th January, 2002 S.O. 780.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 qf 1947), the Cen- tral Goyerjomènt herçby publishes the award (Réf. No'. 99|98) of the Central Gowrnnient ' Industrial Tribunal Bapgalore now as abown, in the AnneXnre in the Industrial Dispute between the employer m relation to the management .of Kudreinukh Iron Ore Ço. Ltd. and their workman, wîjich w,as, feceived by the Ceirtr%l G©y,erjM"(?Ht on 28-1-2002.
. [No. L-260i2|7î98-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under:Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL: GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BANGALQRE
"SHRAM SADAN"
Dated :• llth Janaary, 2002
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB., Presiding Officer.
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, Bangalore
C.R. No. 99| 98
I PARTY
Smt. B. S. Jyothi Ramesh FD-4, HAL, Township, Opp. HAL Staff Collège, Vimanapura P.O., Bangaîore-560017 Advocate-Ganesh Bhat Y. H.
II PARTY
The Dy. General Manager (P) KudseîBtikh Iron Ore Company Ltd
Advocate-K, Kasîuri.
M4S
AWARD
1.. The'Centrai Govefnment by exercising the .powers conferred by clapse (d) of sub-secîion 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Acf, 1947 has referrpj this dispute vide order No. t-26012/7/ 98/ÏR(M) dated-26th November, 1998 for adjudica- tion on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action ot the management of Kudreraukh Iron Ore Compaay Ltd., Kudremukh in discharging the services of Snit. B.. S. Jyothi Ramesh, Ex-Technical Assistant Grade II, Kudremukh Iron. Ore Company Ltd. is justified ? If not, to' whc:t relief the said, employée is entitled ?" 2. The first party was working with the Second Party management as Technical Assistant Grade-II. She was discharged from service and therefore, this Indastiral Dispute' is rajsed.
3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Staîeraent and Counter respectively: "
4. In order to dispose ofî this référence, few ., facts, ar-e necessary and they are as under :.—
•5. It is the case of the first party that she was working as Teohnical Assistant tirade H in the pro- cess control laboratory of the Second Farty àt " Kudreiaukh since last 8 years. The second party is an undertaking of the Govt. of India haiving its factory at KudKBiukh at Chickamangalore District and regis- tered office at, Bangalore.
6. It is the- fûrther case of the first party that her husbapd who was eariler an employée of the second party at Kudremukh voluntarily resigned from the émpïoyiKcnî (îf îhc second parly and joined the services at- M/s. î-îh;dustan Àcronuutics Ltd. after serving for about 15 jCdis wi;h tlic Second Party Management. First ..party was visiting Bangalore regularly and she fell sick and therefore she remained absent and she applied for leave. The détails are given in para 4 of thé Claim Statement.
7. It is her further case thait.prior to her visit ta Bangalore the appiicant had applied for earned leave from .25-5.-96 to 14-8-96 fer a period of 70 davs and HPL from 16-8-96 to 24-8-96 foi a period of 80 days and the saiid leave was sanctioned by the sanctionirig authoriîy of the second party. She again fell sick aui côntinued to suffer from ilî health and she sought for extension of leave upto 3'0th September 1996 covering HPL and LWP and undertook to fumish the neces- sary médical ceraflcaîe at the lime of joining duty. S"he could not recover from her ill heaîth and sent further ieave application requesting the management to grant leave up to 23-9-96. But the management asked hér to report for duty. Accorèing to the Cî&im Statement she again continued to be sick and she applied for leave' but it was not sanctione"d. Provi- sions of standing orders are also stated in para 4 of the Claim Statement.
8". It "h lier fûrther case that: she submitted an ex- pC"î;.2îî^lî-Yi5"'tri^"cîtiïr|ê::'sîm aatf"the EriqH;ryi'Orlcer co??ï.hir'.c"c c^.q""-ry agéittst hér. " The 'enquïry "îs net2444 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART Iî—SEC. 3(ii)J proper and détail allégations are made in para 5 of the Claim Statement. Regarding enquiry it is said that no opportunity was given to her to défend herself during the enquiry. The enquiry is bad in the eye of lajw.
*
9. It is her further case that the second party offi- cers are vindictive against the firsl party and there is victimization. First party for thèse reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in her favour.
10. Against this the case of the management is as under :—
11. It is true that the first pari y joined the second party company as Junior Assistant Grade II.
12. It is the further case of the management that the husband of the first party was working with the management and he has resigncd after 15 years of service.
13. It is the further case of the management that the first party was sanctioned leave from 25-5-1996 to 24-8-1996 for the reasons of family problems. She was due to report for duty on 26-8-1996 and instead of reporting for duty she had requested for extension of leave up to 30-9-96 on the ground of ill bealth. She was informed telegraphically that leave will not be sanctioned. Letters were also sent to this eflect. Détails are given in para 4 of ths Counter. She was advised to report for duty but shs did not report. She was also advised to report for médical examination latest by 5-10-96.
14. The case of the maagement is that iniîially she applied for leave on acount of family problems and subsequently on ill health and therefore the case of the first party is not correct. In view of her long absence without sanction of leave will amounts 10 misconduct as per the provision of the Company's certified Stapding Orders and therefore charge sheet was issued and enquiry was held.
15. Regarding enquiry it is stated by the manage- ment that ail the allégations made by the first party are not correct and the enquiry is vajid and proper and full opportunity was given 1o her to défend herself but even she avoided to attend the enquiry. Détails are given in the Counter regarding enquiry. First party working in a production départaient which is an important thing in achieving ihe companies objective and when first party did not participated in the enquiry, the enquiry officer was compelled to conduct exparîe enquiry after giving sufficient time to the first party and the enquiry is correct.
16. The main contention of the management is that the first pairty brought pressure from outside for her transfer to Bangalore office and there was no équiva- lent post at Bangalore and therefore her request was not considered and so she intenticnally remained absent aad failed to attend enquiry. Therêfore, the action of the management is correct.
17. It is seen from the records that the management examined MW1 to prove the Domestic Enquiry. Aeainst this workman got examinée himseîf as WWÎ. MW1 has given detaiîed évidence about the ënquiry conducted by him. According to MW1 he gave time and adjourned the enquiry but tne first party did not co-operate during the enquiry. First party gave évi- dence saying that the enquiry is not proper and no opportunity was given to her etc.
18. It is in the' cross examination of WWl that many adjournments were given on her request. It is ajiso in her évidence that leave was not sanctioned.
19. It is seen from the records that this tribunal by its- order dated 15th October 2001, passed orders holding that the Domestic Enquiry is fair and proper. Thereafter the first party requested to permit her to. examine further on victimizanon and she was permitted to do so. She has stated that she was discharged from service and there is a victimization and unfair labour practice on her because some others' who were unn authorisedly absent for 30 days were not discharged from service. She has produced Exi M33.
20. Thereafter the management examined MW2, Shri G. V. Srinath and according to his évidence Ex. M8 is. the statement prepared by the Accouts Department and Personal Department giving dates of unauthorized absence of employées as shown in : Ex. M8. It is also in his évidence that for short absence minor punishments were proposed on them. This is ail the évidences adduced by the parties.
21. I hâve heard counsels appearing for the parties in détails. I hâve perused the vritten arguments filed by the management. I hâve considérée! the décisions relied by the management.
22. In the instant case it is clear that Domestic Enquiry is held as fair and proper. Now the enquiry is held as fair and proper we will hâve to see whether the action of the management is proper. Further we hâve to see whether the punishment imposed is pro- portionate or harsh.
23. I hâve carefully perused the enquiry pro- ceedings. According to fhe documents produced during enquiry, it is abundantïy clear lhat the first party without the sanction of lsave remained absent throughout and she did not join at ail. Even during enquiry she has not co-operated the management and went on sending leave applications. It was also in- formed her that leave is not sanctioned but she failed to join duty. First party said in her cross examina- tion that on 12-2-97 she replied ail the letters of the management and she could not attend the enquiry because of ill health. She also says in her cross examination that she was not admitted as in-patient.
24. Man may speak lie but the circumstances will not speak lie. It is clear from the material beforc me that her husband was working at Bangalore and first party requested for transfer to Bangalore and the management could not consider her request becausç there was no équivalent post at Bangalore and there- fore, she without following any discipline remained absent unauthorisedly for a long period that too with- out sanction of leave.
25. She also admits in her cross examination that she has not produced any documents to show îBaî ths leave was sanctioned.
.2445
also a(rgued that there is victimization and unfair labour practice because some other employées who remained absent were imposed minor punishments and they were not discharged from service.
33. In this regard I hâve consider the évidence before me and I am of the opinion that some officiais remained absent for a short period and the manage- ment has imposed minor punishmenîs for their ab- sence. Absolutely there is no évidence on behalf of the first party to believe the case of victimization. Mère saying that there was victimization and unfair labour practice is not sufficient to prove this aspect.
26. Ex. 27 is a note sheet given by Dy. Manager (Vigillançe), M. R. Manohar. First party was sub- jected for vérification with the Doctors of Govt. Secré- tariat Dispensary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. Accor- ding to this Ex. 27 two Doctors hâve stated that they hâve issue médical certificates to first party on 24-8-1996, 23-9-1996, 23-10-1996 and 22-11-1996 respecively and she was ailing from Low back ache and Pelvic inflamatory disea-se. They hâve further sta- ted that there was no dispensary record to show that first party had undergone any treatment. In other words it is clear from this that the first party has not undergone any treatment at ail.
27. According to Ex. 27 Doctors hâve further stated
34. The learned counsel appearing for the manage- ment has relied AIR 1976 Suprême Court page 98 and submitted that there is not victimization at ail and in the instant case DE is held as fair and proper and therefore there is no merit in the contention put forth by the first party. I hâve read the above décision carefully. It is held in the above décision of the Hon'ble Suprême Court, of India that ;
that they hâve issued certificates by oversight and they hâve stated that in future first party will not be enter- tained by them. AH this would go to show that the first party wainted transfer to Bangalore becai.se her hus- band was working at Bangalore but that was not considered and therefore, she remained unauthorisedly absent even wifhotit observing required discipline and agaiinst the service rules. She has not even taken pains considering the effect of her remain ing unautho- risedly absent. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the second party that first party was worldng in a production départaient and her un- authorized absence has affected the production work of the company and therefore this is not a fit case to take any linient view considering her request under vSection 11 A of the Industrial Dispute Act for any light punishment.
28. In support of this argument she relied the
following décisions :
(1) 2OOO(5)SC 65 Syndicale Bank V|s Joint Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and others.
"Where there is no defect in procédure in a domestic enquiry against an employée, the Tribnual while granting or withholding per- mission under Section 33 does not sit as a court of appeal, weighing or re-appreciaîing the évidence for itself but only examines the linding of the enquiry offieer on the évi- dence in the domesîic enquiry as it- is, in order to find out either whether thérê is a prima facie case or if the findings are perverse." * "It is further held in the above décision that ordinarily a person is victimized, if he is made a victim or a scaps goat and is sub- jscted to persécution, persécution or punish- ment for no real fault or guilt of his own, in the manner, as it were, of a sacrificial" victim." Types of victimization are also stajted in the above décision.
(2) 2001—1 LLJ SC page 174 between Punjab and Sind Bank ajid Others and Sakattar Singh.
(3) 1999(1)LLR page 232.
29. In the above referred Bombay High Court case the workman was a labour and he was a habituail absentée from work. It was held that the dismissal was justified. She further relied 2001 LLRPage 1180 and LLR 1994 (Kamataka) Page 3461.
35. Keeping in mind the principles held in the above décision, I am of the opinion that there is no victimization at- âll. I hâve given my best consi- dération on the material before me and I am of the opinion that the first partv workman without sancion of leave remained unauthorisedly absent for a long: period and she never bothered to report for dutv even after majny request made by the management to report for dutv. Therefore, this is not a fit case to invcke the provisions of Section 11A of the ID Act. 30. I hâve read the above décision very carefully. In my opinion in the instant cass first oar'v remained absent for a long period and she refused to report dutv v,hen management requested her to ioin dutv. I hâve already said that she has also not particïpated in the enauîrv proceedinps and remained absent on the ground of family problems and ill-health.
36. Further keeping in mfnd the principles he'd in ILR 1994 (Karnataka) Eshwaracaar Vs. Executive Engineer (ElecMcal) Pape 3461. I am of the dnîninn that ends of justice will meet if the order of dis- charge stajnd modified as one of termination w.e.f. date of discharge.
31. It is çlear from the records that the first party has not proved that she was unable to leave Banrralore on account of ill health because she has stated in her cross exam'nation that she was never an inpatient in any hospital.
32. The learned counsel appearing for the first party has areued tha+ in the instant case inifiaJlv leave was sanctioneH and thereaffer the management has not sanc'ioieH the ïen.ve wi*hout ?nv fond Tea?or"! and hâve d:scharped the, first party from service nnd there- îots, the action of the management is not correct. She
37. In the above décision of the Karnataka High Court it is held that the order of dismissal does aopsar to be too harsh in so far as the petitioner woûld be deprived of whaitever benefits mig,ht hâve accmed.to fiim by virtue of his earlier service and mor^ îmnor- tantlv it may act as a bar for re-empiovmcnt ei^wherp and in thèse circumstahees. the o^der of dism^sal shail s'and modified to one of terminntion from "ervîce with effect from same dpte and the pétition was partly allowèd.
:44É:..- TI-IE •i.i.ZETTE Or :N13ïA-:-MABi^.:2,4^2^PH^-I-,Ql3>;A 11, 1923 [PAKI_ II—SEC. 3(ii)] 3"8ï"T5e learned counsel appsânïig fer {lie manège- - ment said thaï she has nothing to say in the instant case if the order of discharge is modifier! to one of termination. With this fair subraission cf the leamed counsel and âccording to' the mateiral before me I am of the opinion tfaat ends of justice will meeî if the order of discharge is raodified to lhat of termination so that the first party will be entitled for few benefits for her past service. Accordingly I proesed to pass the following order :
ORDER
The référence, is partly stëowed. The: order of dis- charge is modified to one of termination from service with effect from the date of discharge from service. Accordingly award is passed.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on llth January 2002).
V. N. KULKARNI, Prtsiding Officer New Delhi, the 30th January, 2002 S.o. 781.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- trai Government herey publishes the award- (Réf. No. 86/90) of the Centra! Government ïndustrial Tribimal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown tu the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplcycrs in relation to the management of Naîional ïnsurr.vice Companv Limited :md their workrtian, which was received by thé Central Government on 29-!-2002.
[No. L-17012/2/89-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BFFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL. PRFSIDING OFFÎ- CER CENTRAL GOVERNMFNT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 86/90
AnH .S'aijît C/o Chafidhry Ishwar Doss Saini, H. No. 3,5/221 Nsar Giiradwaras, Mohaïïfi Sarriia Pathankot, —Appîicarit.
Versus
The Régional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. S:C.O.. 337-340 Sector-35-D, Chandigarfi. •
— Respondent.
APPEARANCES :
For the Workînan : Shri K. S. Kapoor.
"For the Management : Shri Patdeep Bedi.
AWARD
(Passed on 3-1-2002)
The Central Govt. vide Gazette notification No. .L-17O12|2|89-IR Bank-I daied 3rd of October, 1989 hasreferred the foUowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of National Insurance Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Anil Saini, a daily rated workman at their Ohamba branch w.e.f. July, 1987 is légal and justified and if not what relief the workma-n is entitled?" 2. The appîicant filed daim statement in which lie has pleaded that he has worked wïth the manage- ment at their Chamba Branch w.e.f. 24-12-1985 to 30-6-1987 on the pay of Rs. 600/- per month. He has claimed that his sei"vices were terminated on 30-6-1987 without paylnent oï retrenchment com- pensation and notice and notice pay etc. He has prayed for reinstatement of his services with full back wages and other attendant benefits.
3. In writtea statement the management plesded that applisant remained in employment of the manage- ment in clérical cadre w.e.f. 10-12-1985 to 19-7-1986 and worked for 126 days only. It is denied that appîicant worked in différent names. Later on th-î workman was appointed as an agent and he was paid commission, as per the work procured by faim. The applicant worked with the management only for. 126 days and provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act are not attracted in his case. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the référence.
- 4. The appîicant filed rejoinder in which the con- tents of the claim has been reiterated. In replication the factum of being an agent wïtlh the management ha's been admitted.
• 5. Both'parties hâve fikd théir affidavits. Bat the workman choose not to put himseîf for the cross- examinatjon by the management. He has also not fiîed any documents in support of his claim. The witness of the management K. L. Bason appeared as MW and the rep. of the workman çross-examined foirn.
• 6. T hâve heard both the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. In this case, the workman has not entered into .the witness box. No documents has been filed m supeort of his case. It is the admitted position thst workman Jias worked with the management w.e f. j?4-10-1985 to 19.-7-1986. Thus he has not completed 240..days of service with the management to-attraet the provisions of Section 25-F -of thc Industrial Dis- putes Act, 1947. After this period he was a licenced agent with the company and he was paid his commis- sion as per the work procured by him. Thus be is not a workman under the définition of the I.D. Act, 1947. The allégation of the workman that he wor- ked under the différent names has not also been proved by thc workman by any évidence. The argu- ment of the applicant that the management has also violated the provisions of Sec don 25-H and G of the I.D. Act 1947 also docs not carry any wcight as no name cf any junior has been given. The name' of any person appointed after termination of his service is aho not given by applicant. So, the mana- gement can not be held to hâve violated the provisions of the Industria] Disputes Act, 1947.
8. In view of the above, I find no ment in ihe j claim of tîie applicant and the action of the manage- ment cf National Insurance Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Anil Saini, a daily rated workman" at their Chamba branch w.e.f. July 1987 is legaî and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief. Central Govt. be informed.
Chandigath.
S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 31 st January, 2002 S.O. 782.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute's Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Réf. No. 8 of 1994 (C)] of the Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute be- tween the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-1-2002.
[No. L-12011/13/94-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
(Labour Court, Ernakulam)
(MonJay. thc 8th day of October, 2001) PRESENT :
Smt. N. Thulasi Bai. B.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer.
Industrial Dispute No. 8 of 1994 (C) 529 GT/2002—42,
°447
BETWEEN
The Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Offic^ Anandhi, Chittoor Road, Pulleppady, Kochi 682035.
AND
The General Secretary, Indian Bank Employées Association (Kerala), 41 [ 1757, Paramara Buildings, Opposite Town Ha!i, Cochin- 682018.
2. Sri M. Sathyadas, Agricultural Assistant. Indian Bank, Thorapalayam Branch. Palakkad District. (No. 2 is impleaded as per order in M.P. 4 3 / 9^ daied 9-9-1998).
REPRESENTATIONS :
M/s. Easwar and Mani, Advocate, Ernakulam, Kochi-35.
. . .For Management.
M/s. H. B. Shenoy and Asok B. Shenoy, Advocates, Vatsal, Krishnaswamy Road. Kochi-35.
. . .For Union.
Sri A. Jayasankar, Advocate. Kochi-17.
. . .For Workmau.
AWARD
This is a référence made by the Government or India as per letter No. 12011/13/94-IR (B-1I) dated 27-9-94 in respect of an Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workman represented by the General Secretary, Indian Bank Employées Association, Paramara Building, Opposite Town Hall, Cochin. The dispute referred is that "Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank, Cochin in posting Shri M. Sathyadas as Agri- cultural Assistant at Thorapalayam Branch supeved- ing the seniority of eligible workmen in that Branch is justified ? If not, what relief is the affeeed work- man entitled to ?"
2. Pursuant to notices issued from this court both the union and management entered appearanec. Union filed a claim statement and management filed courr cr. Thereafter union filed rejoinder.
3. In the claim statement filed by the union follow- ing claims are seen raised :—The Management bank has several Gramodaya Kendras so as the increase their agricultural lending. Each Gramodaya Xcndj-a Co-ordinates the agricultural lending and recovery actî- vities for four or five nearby branches of the bank. In each branch covered by the Gramodaya Kendra, an Agricultural Assistant is posted from among the clérical workmen of the bank purely on the basis of seniority. The post of Agricultural Assistant carries a spécial allowance in addition to the normal pay. Agri- cultural Assistant in a branch is being posted on the basis of seniority from among the clérical workmen of that particular branch and when suitable candi- dates are not available in that branch, on the basis of seniority from the clérical stafï of that particular2448 JTHE GAZETTE OF IMDJA : MARCH 2, 2002/ PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PARI I I —S I X. 3 ( i i )| tural Assistant. As Sri Sathyadas was receiving the allowance of Agricultural Assistant without perform- ing the duties, he was transferred to Randalumoodu branch of Kollam District when a post of Agricultural Assistant arose there. Subsequently when vacancy ol Agricultural Assistant arose in Thorapalayam brancb as per the norms and guidelines and after reaching an understanding with the fédération, Sri Sathyadas was transferred to Thorapalayam branch of the bank. The transfer and posting was with the consent of the Employées Fédération concerned. The seniority aîone is not a criteria for the appointment as an Agricul- tural Assistant. There are other qualifications and conditions for such appointment. There were no daim by any senior clerks for the post of Agricultural Assis- tant to which Sri Sathyadas was appointed. The union in the présent case is projecting an issue which is not in existence dut to inter-union rivalry, thereby there is no bona fides for the dispute raised by the union. So according to the management the claim of the union is liabîe to be dismissed.
5. Union filed a rejoinder traversîng the contentions raised in the written statement and reiterating the averments in îhe claim statement. Thereafter Sri Sathyadas referred in the dispute was impljadcd as an additional party at the instance of the union. zone. The management bank has stipulated ihe rules l'or sélection and posting of Agricuitural Assistants by various cireuiurs, that is circulars duted 24-3-1984, 14-12-1984 and 5-12-J987. As per the above c-rcu- i.irs the Zonal Managers are aulhorised to make the posîings for Agricuitural Assistants, in the branches under them. If a suitablo candidijuc from branch ih not wilîing to take up the assignment, the Zonal Manager shoukl take s*eps to fill the post by calling for application from the workman working in the branches under the zones and sélect the candidate on îhe basis of service senioriîy. In August 1992, the post of Agricuitural Assistant in Thorapalayam brandi of the management bank filî vacant on the promotion of Sri M. Rajan, the then Agricultural Assistant. As per the above referred circulars the senior most clerk in Thorapalayam branch was to be posteJ and if tuiîable candidate from the branch was no! availabb or willing the management was bound lo call for application from workmen working in the branches cl' his zone, and to sélect the candidate on the basis of service seniority. Instead of complying with the above Rules, ihe management posted Sri M. Sathyadas who was working at Palakkad, as the Agriculture! Assistant in Thorapalayam Branch, in violation of the circulai" The action of the management in posting Sri M. Sathyadas as Agrieultural Assistant at Thorapalayam branch superceding the seniority of the workman at the branch and in the zone is totafly illégal and unjusî. By Ihe impugned posting the management has aiso violated the aceepted transfer norms. So the union prays for declaring the action of the management in posting Sri Sathyadas as an Agricultural Assistant at Thorapalayam branch, superceding the seniority of exigible workman in that branch, as illégal and unjust and also for decîarine that the senior most clérical workman in Thorapalayam branch is entitled to be posted as Agricultural Assistant "m the bianch.
6. Additions! party filed a written statemetv rtùsing the following claims :—According to . the additiona! party the dispute is frivolous, illogical and not main- iainabïe. The post of the agricultural assistant is in the clérical cadre .which cames-a spécial allov anca.- The qualifications for holding the post is fixedas minimum eligible service of two years. If the senior most clerk/ shroff is aiready drawing a higher spécial allowance, then the ne-xi senior clerk should be recommended The emloyee shouîd use two wheelers whenevei neces- sary to visit the farmers to collect rcquk>iie data and money from the bonowers thereby he should hâve a valid two wheeler diriving licence. The additional party was working in the Palakkad branch of the management bank. He had a \ol;d two wheeler driv- ing licence from 1990 cnwards. When a vacancy of Agricultural Assistant arose during 1990, the additional party sent an application through proper channel. As he was the only candidate fulfilling the requisite q u a- lifications for holding the post, his name was recom- mended by the branch manager. Considering the appli- cation he was provisionally appointed as the Agri- cultural Assistant as per order dated 4-4-90. At that time he was 3rd in the seniority and one Ramachan- dran was the senior most. Against the appointment of the additional party Sri Ramachandran filed O.P. be- fore the Hon'ble High dourt which was disposed directing the management to consider the claim of Sri Ramachandran. Thercafter Sri Ramachandran was appointed as an Agricultural Assistant and the post- ing of the additional party was cancelled. Against such cancellation the additiona! party and union made représentations to the management and the manage- ment after considering the circumstances allowed (he additional party to draw spécial allowance due on the post of Agricultural Assistant, though he was not dis- charging the duties as such. It was agreed to post the additional party as Agricultural Assistant whenever a 4. The management filed a counter raising the follovïng contentions :—Sri Sathyadas referred in the dispute is not a member of the Indian Bank Employées Association. But hc is a member of Indian Bank Emp- loyées Union which 's a recegnised union and the former is not a recognised union. As !he workman involved in the dispute is not a member oi the union raised the dispute, the union is not entitled to mamta;n this dispute before this court. Sathyadas has not raised any objection against his transfer to Thorapa- layam branch. No workman has raised any objection agamst the transfer or posting of Sri Sathyadas and the présent dispute is raised by the union due to trade union rivalry. Sri Sathyadas was working a clerk in the Palakkad branch of the bank. When a post of Agricultural Assistant arose in that branch he was appointcl there. One Ramachandran subsequentïv filed O.P. 4037/90 before the Hon'ble His* Court of Kerala challenging the appointment of Sri Sathyadas as tho Agricultural Assistant. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the above O.P. Sri Rama- chandran was appointed as Agricultural Assistant by removing Sri Sathyadas from that post. Since Sri Safhyadas was assigned the post cf Agriculturol Assis- tant on a permanent basis by mistake, as a spécial case he was allowed to reçoive the allowance of Agri- cultural Assistant considering his représentation, though he was not performing the duties of Agricul-2449 post arises in the nearfay branch. Accordingly the additional party was accqmmpdated in the Ihorapa- layam brandi of the management bank on 26-8-92 and the additional party is working in the post since that date. Management lias full discrétion and jurisdic- tion in the matter of posting the additional party as an Agricultural Assistant. The claim of the union that the post of Agricultural Assistant is filled up from the clérical staff purely on the basis of seniority is not correct. Union has no spécifie case regarding the emp- loyées whose claims hâve been supereceded on the posting of the additional party. So the additional party prays for dismissal of the claims raised by the union.
7. Evidence adduced from boîh sides which consists of the testimony of additional party as WW1 and management witness as MW1 and Exts. Wl to W12 and Ml to M6.
8. Thus the points arise for détermination are :
(1) Whether the posting of Sri M. Sathyadas, Agricultural Assistant at Thorapalayam branch superceding the seniority of eligible workman in the branch is justifiable ?
(2) If not what relief the affected workman is entitled to ?
9. Points.—While considering the dispute referred in the présent case the iirst and most important as- pect to bc made mention is that the posting of Sri. M. Sathyadas as Agricultural Assistant at Thorapalayam branch is not challenged by the above said Sathyadas or his union. But the Indian Bank Employées Asso- ciation, the union involved in the présent dispute, challenges the above posting on the allégation that it has affected some workman in that branch of the bank. The management and Sri. Sathyadas the employée involved in the présent référence, supported the action of the management in posting Sri. Sathya- das as Agricuftural Assistant a,t Thorapalayam branch of the management bank. Though the allégation of the union in the référence is that the above posting of Sri. Sathyadas has eil'ecled superceding the senio- rity of some eligibie workman in the Thorapala- yam branch, who are such workman affected by the kosting is not referred in the référence or in the claim statement filed by the union. The so-called work- man stated to be affected by the posting has not turn- ed up to support the union in that respect. The spécifie case of the management and Sri. Sathyadas, the workman involved in the référence, is that senio- rity alone is not the criteria of the posting as an Agricultural Assistant. It is their further case that the post of Sri. Sathyadas as Agricultural Assis- tant in the Thorapalayam branch was in compliance of some seulement entered into between the other unions and the management in settling the carlier disputes arose in the Cochin Division of the bank. It was pointed out by the union's counsel that Exts. M4 to M6 corresponding Ext. W8 séries aïe the circu- lars issued by the management bank in respect of the pesting of a cîerk as Agricultural Assistant. Ext. Wl is the first c'rcular dated 24-3-84 by which senior most cierk Shroff who has a minimum service of 3 \ears should be recommended by the branch Manager for the post of Agricultural Assistant. If the senior most clerk is already drawing s higher spécial allow- r.nce then the next senior clerk should be recommend- ed. If the branch Manager is not recommending the senior clerk ne should give spécial reasons in that respect. The Agricultural Assistants hâve to use two-wheelers whenever necessary to visit fanners to collect a requisjte date or meney from the borrowers. Ext. M6 is the subséquent circular dated 14-12-1984 which mades some changes to the qualifications fixed in the post of Agricuîtural Assistant as per Ext. M5. Ext. M4 is the circular dated 5-12-87 which made turther modifications regarding qualifications for the post of Agricultural Assistant. Considering the oral évidence of the management witness as MW1 and the workman as WWl and Exts. M4 to M6, it car) be found that the management was with in its powers in the matter of posting Sri. Sathyadas as the Agri- cultural Assistant in the Thorapalayam branch of the management bank and nobody had challenged the above posting and nobody raised a claim for the post of Sri. Safhyadas. It is évident from the written statement of the management and the oral évidence of MW1 that the management had made the posting of Sii. Sathyadas in seltlenieiii: of some earlier dis- putes arose in the Cochin Division of the Bank and the Management has ample power and discrétion in making such arrangements l'or the proper functioning and administration of the branches. In the absence of any personnel grievances on the part of the parti- cular workman or employées of the bank, it camiot be found that the action of the management in post- tng Sri. Sathyadas as Agricultural Assistant at the Thorapalayam branch of the management bank is not justifiable and the sfi'ected workman, if any, is not entitled to get any relief as per the référence. Points are answered accordingly.
In the resuit, an avvard Is passed finding that rhe action of the Management of Indian Bank, Cochin in posting Sri. M. Sathyadas as Agricultural Assistant at Thorapalayam branch superceding the seniority of eligible workman in that branch is justified and the so-called siïected workmen are not entitled to get any relief.
Dictated to the ConridenJal Assistant, transcribed rp.d typsd out by lier, corrected by me and passed this the 8th day of October, 2001.
F.niakulam.
N. THULASI SAI, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of Management :
MW1.—Sri. Subramanian Pillai.
Wimess examined on the side of the Workman :
WWl.—-Sri Sathyadas.
Exhibits marked on the side of Management :
Ext. Ml.—Photostat copy of Représentation dated 23-7-92 submitted to L, G. Govinda- krïshnan to Chief Officer of the manage- ment Bank.
Ext. M2.—Photostat copy of letter dated 27-7-92 send by Thorapalayam branch of management bank to Chief Officer.
2450 THE GAZETTE OF 1ND1A : MARCH 2, 2002/FHALGUNA 1 1, 1923 |PART II—SEC. 3 OUIExt. M3.—Photostat copy of letter dated 13-8-92 sent by Fhorapalayam branch ot Mar.autment Bank to Ernakulam Zonal Office!
Exi. M4.—Photostat topy of Circular No. PRNL
19387 datcd 5-12-87.
New Delhi, the 6 h February, 2002 Ext. M5.—Photostat copy of Circular No.
PRNL 55^84 dated 24-3-84.
E\t. M6.—Photostat ccpy of Circular No.
PRNL 246,84 da'e'd" 14-12-84.
E\h;b:lr maikcd on thc :-idc oi the Workman :
E\f. Wl.—Photo ccpy o'i order by the manage- ment No. PRNL 55|84 dated 24-3-84.
S.O. 783.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT-2/130/98) of the Central Government indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labou^ Court. Mumbai No. II as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the managemen of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was receivcd by the Central Government on 4-2-2002.
EXL. W2.—Copy ot the order issued by the
management dated 26-2-1990.
[No. L-12011/57/97-lR(B-II)]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ' Ext. W3.—Copy of application dated 3-3-90
submitted by Sri. Sathyadas.
ANNEXURE
Ext. M4.—Copy of vider dated 8-3-1990 issued
by the Management.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
Ext. W5.—Copy of letter dated 4-4-90 issued by the management to Sri. Sathyadas.
S. N. Saundankar, Prcsiding Officer.
. Référence No. CGIT-2/130 of 1998 Ext. W6.—Copy of lutter dated 1-9-1990 from ihe workrmn Sri. Sathyadas to the Manage- ment.
Employers in relation to the management of
Syndicate Bank.
Ext. W7.—Copy of ïetter dated 3-9-90 from the Fédération of Iudian Bank Employées Un!cns to the management.
Ext. W8.—True copy of Circular No. 55185
dated 24-3-M.
The Depuiy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, B5/E, Mater Towers. 2nd Floor, Cufïe Parade. Colaba-400005.
Ext. W9.—True copy ci Circular No. PRNL
AND
246 84 dated 14-12-84.
Ext. W10.--Office copy of letter dated 2-9-1992 '-ent by the union to Management Bank.
Their Workmen, Thc General Secretary, Bank Karamchari Sena Mahasangh, Shiv Sena Bhawan, R. G. Gadkari Chowk, Shivaji Park, Mumbai-400028.
Ext. Wl!.—Office copy of letter dated 15-10-1992 send by the Union to Manage- ment bank.
APFEARANCES :
Ext. W12.—Letter No. L-12012i368j92-lR
For the Employer : Shri R. N. Shah, Advocate.
For thc Workmen : Shri Jaiprakash Sawant,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated, 7th December, 2001 (B-1I) duted 22-10-98 sent to Union by 'Government of Isidia, Ministry of Labour along with Award dated 1-2-1996 in I. D. 17 93 on the file of thc Industrial Tribunal, Aiappuzha.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-12011'57/97-IR(B-II), dated 18th September, 1998, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1 ) and Sub-sectiou (2A) of Section 10 of thc Industrial Disputes Act hâve re- ferred thc following industrial dispuie to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whcther the action of the management of the Syndicate Bank. Zonal Office, Mumbai for 2451' non-regularising the services of the workmen (list of the workmen enclosed) as per the guidelines ol' the Approach paper, 1990 is justifiée! ? If not, to what relief the work- men arc entitled ?"
Name of the workmen
J. Sh. Promod K. Savant. 2. Sh. Harichandra Babu Arekar. 3. Sh. D. S. Ramane. 4. Sh. Jagadish Temkar. 5. Sh. Pundaiik N. Shinde. 6. Sh. Sanjay Pednekar. 7. Sh. Chandrakanl Mohite. 8. Sh. Vithoba Govind Bhor. 9. Sh. Bhujendranath J. Ludbe.
2. The nine attendants as atovo mentioned in iho iist enclosed with the schedule, werc appointed in the sub-staff cadre, of the Synd.cate Bank. It ij contended by the union vide Statement of Claim (Exhibit-5) that thosc attendants were sponsored by the Employ- ment Exchange, Mumbai and that they were appoint- ed in the permanent post, i'rom the year 1986. It is contended that attendants were appointed against the permanent vacancy anJ were attending the work ol permanent nature, fhey are in continuous employment however, they are not made permanent right from the dates of their appointment i.e. the ycar 1986, or even after the comple.ion of probation period of six months, entitling them to receive the privilèges of per- manent employées, which according to the union, amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the bank. It is contended that, instead of making the a'.- tendants permanent the management in the year 1989 empJoyed nine rank outsiders in permanent post of attendants ignoring the claim of the workmen under référence. It is contended that as per the guidelines of approach paper, 1990 the bank is under obligation to appoint attendants against permanent vacant posts, . however the bank did not Scî as per the approach paper. The union therefore contended, to direct the bank to régularise the services of the workmen under référence giving the status of permanent workman from the date of their appointment i.e. 1986 with conse- quential benefits.
3. The Management Syndicate Bank, resisted the claim of the union by filing Written Statement (Ex- hibit-7) contending that the Mahasangh has no locus standi to represent the workmen, as it is not registered Trade Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is further the contention o£ the management that, as per the guidelines in the approach paper of 1990 the temporary employées engaged in the bank betvveen 1982 to 1989 are to be considered for employment in the ternis of the Government Circular and that candi- dates who worked for 240 days or more in a consécu- tive period of 12 menths during the period between 1982 to 198e? and the candidates who worked for 90 days or more during that period, but, who were not empanellcJ above are to be absorbed in the panel Iist in permanent vacancies of attenders by giving pré- férence to candidates empaflelled referred to above and in pursuance of the bank circular of the year 1999, the bank in the mat ter of absorption of temporary at- tendants entered into a seulement with the Syndicate Bank Employées Union. The panels were mamtaincd distrietwise. It is contended that as per the circular of the Reserve Bank of lndia and the Government the réservation of SC/SI candidates is to be maintained ft is contended the . '*. .' '• •' . ''.: is determined en the basis of BOD " " . . . > . • • • • .• • "Tiber correspund- ing to the number of clérical sîaiï in the Brandi. It ù contended bank is having surplus permanent attenJ,:n';s in its employment in Mumbai Zone, lî is contended ;V attendants under référence werc appointed purely as lomporary attendants against the leave vacancies ot permanent attendants and they were not appointed in permanent post. It is the contention of ihe management ihat surplus attendants were deputed in place of twelve clérical vacancies created due to promotion and that nine rank drivers werc uteomed in the cadre of attendants. It is contended that the ca^e cf the work- men will be taken up according to relative seniority in panel to bz prepared as per the policy guidelines, when- ever vacancies arise. Consequently they praved to ii;s- miss the claim of the union.
4. By way of Rejoinder (Exhibit-8) it is contended that Mahasangh is a trade union, registered under the Act. The workmen were not appointed against leave vacancy, consequently reiterating récitals in the State- ment of Claim, the union denied the contentions ia the Written Statement.
5. During the pendency of the référence it is see:i from the record workman named in the list D. S. Ramane died and his wil'e as légal représenta ave has been brought on record vide purshis (Ex.-37). It is further seen that workman Vithoba Bhor was regula- riscd vide order dated 28-2-2000 (Exhibit-35), there- fore his claim does not survive.
6. My Learned Predecessor framed issues (Exhibit- 10) Mr. Kotnis, General Secrctary of the Mahasangh filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhi- bit-18) and the affidavit of one of the workman Mr. Jagdish Temkar (Ex.-28) and closed évidence vidf purshis (Ex.-29). Mr. Balakrishna Nayak, Dy. Chief Manager filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Chief, on bchalf of the management (Exhibit-30) and closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-31) workman filed writ- ten submissions (Exhibit-39) with copies of ruliags Exhibit-41 and that management filed written submis- sions (Exhibit-40).
7. On perusing the record as a whole, hearing the counsels ai length and the written submissions I record my findings on the foilowing issues, for the reasotis stated below :
Issues Findings 1. Whether the Sangh can represent Yes.
the concerned workmen ?
2. Whether the management of the
Bank h ad rcgularised the servi- Workman - ces of the temporary attendants Bhor as per the scheme ? has been régula rised.
7452 THE GAZETTE Ci' 1NDIA : MAKCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—5>£C 3UUJ3. Whether the action of the management Yes. of Syndicate Bank for non-regularising the services of the vvorkman as per the guidelines of the Approach paper 1990 is justified ?
4. If not, to what relief the As per order workmen are entitled to ? below.
REASONS
S. At the outset the Learned Counsel Mr. R. N. Shah for the management on the basis of the Written Statement contcnded that, the Bank Karmachari Sena Mahasangh, which espoused the cause, has no locus standi te represent the werkmen under référence, as. it is not registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The Union's General Secretary, Mr. Kotnis filed a registration copy of îhe union with list Œxhibit-39). This clearly mentions the Mahasangh which espoused the cause has been duly registered under the relevant Act. In view of this, I find no substance in the con- tention of management that the Mahasangh lias no locus standi to represent the workmen under référence. Consequently issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative.
9. Admittedly workmen under référence were ap- pointed as attendants. According to the Mahasangh those were appointée! on interview since the year 1986 against the permanent vacancies and their work is of permanent nature. Management negatived the same contending that, attendants were appointed in the leava vacancy and that they worked intennittently. Appointaient letters issued by the management bank of the year 1986 show the attendants were appointed against the leave vacancy. Though clear eut names of the permanent employées not mentioned, it is in some letters seen from Ihe appointaient letters in the year 1993 they were appointed against the persons named thercin. Howcver, it is to be noted that appointment orders of the year 1998 filed with list (Exhibit-13) do not show the names against whom they were appointed. Infact, appointment orders of the attendants under référence show they were appointed on temporary basis. One of the attendants under référence Jagdish Temkar clearly admits in cross-examination, para 6 that they used to work intermittently. This statement if looked coupled with the documents show, the attendants were appointed initially against leave vacancy and later on. on tem- porary basis, as clearly seen from the documents filed with list CExhibit-13).
10. The référence pertains fo régularisation of • service of attendants. According to the union as per ihe guidelines contended in the approach paper of 1990. service of the attendants need to be regula- rised. This approach paper of 1990 filed (Exhibit- 19) speaks on absorption of lemporary employées engaged bv the bank. The temporary employées who worked for 240 davs or more in a consécutive neriod of 12 months and those who worked for 90 days or more but less than 240 days in 12 consécu- tive months, are to be absorbed phase-wise. lt further speaks that, temporary employées are to be cîassified in panel and the first panel candidate- are to be given préférence for absorption and later on employées of second category panel. One of the.
workman Temkar admits in cross-exarnination. para 7 tlhat in the light of the approach paper, panel was prepared and their naraes were included in the panel, and tttiat as per the availability of the jobs the senior members of the panel were absorbed vi?. Banc. Devre, Karkate etc. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel Mr. Shah submits inviting attention of this tribunal to the Written submissions (Exhibit-10) that, pending référence attendant Mr. Vithba Bhor has been absorbed and since attendant Ramane expired remaining 7 attendants would be abserbed in a phase- wise manner on availability of vacancies as per seniority. If we go through the approach paper in the light of thèse submissions, and the fact that one of the attendants was absorbed as per seniority and that workman Temkar states that panel was pre- pared as per the approach paper and their names hâve been included, hardly can be said that the management bank is at fault in connection with regularising the services as per the guidelines of the approach paper.
IT. The Learned Counsel, Mr. Sawant urged with force inviting attention of this tribunal to Exhibit-39 and the documents filed with list (Exhibit-11) that, the bank in tlhe year 1989 made permanent 9 atten- dants _ from the category of drivers ignoring the seniority of the attendants under référence. Schedule of référence pertains to régularisation of service saf attendants as per the guidelines of the approach paper, 1990, therefore point as regards 1989 as urged by Mr. Sawant., is beyond scope, consequently argument does not hold water.
12. It is st-en from the record bank had regularised the services of one of the attendants under référence Mr. Bhor in the year 2000, and that bank conceded to régularise the services of the remaining attendants as per seniority. Since the management regularised the 'ervices according to the seniority in the panel lisl, as per the approach paper, and that, deceased Ramane had not reaclied the seniority question of giving effect of monetary benefits to his wife as L.R., does not arise. The bank is justified in not regularis- ing the services of ail the attendants under référence. At the most the bank management can be directed to régularise the services of the remaining attendants as per the approach paper, 1990 as and when vacancies arise. Consequently issue Nos. 2 & 3 are answered accordingly and hence the order :—
ORDER
(1) The action of the management of the Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Mumbai, for non-regularising the services of the workman as per the guidelines of the Approach Paper, 1990 is légal and justified.
(2) The bank is directed to régularise the services of the remaining 7 attendants viz. S|Sh. Pramod K. Sawant ; Harichandra Babu Arekar ; Jagdish Temkar; Pundalik N. Shinde ; Sanjay Pednekar ; Chandrakant Mohite ; Bhujendranath J. Ludhe as per the guide- lines of the Approach Paper, 1990, as and wfoen vacancies arise.
S. N. SÀUNDANKAR, Presiding Officèr -2453 New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002
"Whether the claim of Sh. Gulab Chand s!o Sh. Kalu Lai, Ex-casual worker, LIC of India, Division Ajmer Branch, Kota that he has worked with the management frqm 9-5-1990 to 4-12-1995 on, daily wage basis and was paid by the LIC through différent names, is correct and whether the management' of LIC Divisional Office, Ajmer is justified in terminating the servi- ces vîf the disputant w.e.f. 5-12-1995 is légal and justified ? If not justified what relief is the disputant concerned entitled?" S.O, 784.—In pursuance .of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. Nô. 32 97) of the Cen- tral Govt. Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Jaipuf as shown in the annexure in the Indu^rial Dispute between the employer s in relation to the management of LIC of India and their .workman-, which \va_s received by tre Centra] Government on 4-2-2002.
LNo. L-17012'43'96-IR(B-ID]
C. G A N G A D H A R A N, Under S?cv.
M54 T1IU OAZriTTr, ()i INDÏA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 1 I, 1923 [PART U - S E C. 3(ii)l 2455529 GI/2002—432456 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PARI tt-SBC. 3 0 01 *hown in ths annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vijaya Bank and their wdrkman, which was receiv- ed by the Central Government on 4-2-2002.
[No/ L-1201 l!258|2000-IR(B-n-)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAI GOVERNMENT TNDUSTRTAL TRIBUNÀL-CUM-LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN". III MAIN, III CROSS, H PHASE. TUMKUR ROAD. YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE
Dated : 25th January, 2002
PRESENT -.
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB,
Presiding Cfncer.
CGIT-CUM-Labbur Court, Bangalore.
C.R. No. 15|2001
I PARTY .
Thc'Reg!onal Sécréta ry, Vijaya Bank Woikers, Organisation, Putfur Reaion, Puttur-574201. Karnataka.
II PARTY :
Ths Régional Manager, Vijaj'a Bank, Rek'ronïil Office, Puttur-574201 Karnataka.
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-sçction, 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12011]258| 2000[IR{B-II) dated 16th February, 2001 for adju- dication on the fpllowing sçhedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the aciion of the management' of Vijava Bank, Régional Office, Puttur is justified in refusing payment of one half of the scale wages with proportionate ànnual incréments lo Shii V. Gopalakrishna Part Time Swecper, VijavD Bank, Vittal Branch from, 27-5-1996? If not, what relief the said workman is 'entitled to ?" New Dc!hi: the 6th Fcbruary, 2002
2. First party workman is working with thë secbh"d pirty marragement. The management has refused .paymeni of onc and half cf the scale wages with pro- portionate annual incrément to the workman and 'therefôrj Industrial Dispute is raised.'
3.,It is seen from the records that since the beginning oi this case flrsi party has not appeared and has not filed any Claim Statement. Therefore, S.O. 785.—In pursuanec of Section 17 of the IndiKtrial Disputes Act. 1947 (l'4 of 1947), the Centrol Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 1512001) of the Central Government Indusirial Trlbunal-cum-Labour Court Bangalore as2457 I am of the opinion that the first party workman is not interested in going on this dispute.
4. No purpose will be serve'd in adjourning the case when the first party hiraself is not attending court. Therefore, I pass the following Order :
GRBER
The référence is rejected.
(Dictated to PA transcribe by her corrected and signed by me on 25th Jamiary, 2002).
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officei New Delhi, the 6th February, 2002 S.O. 786.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. 112|99) of the, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangaîore as shown in the Anuexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of Syndicale Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-2-2002.
[No. L-12012|150|99-ÏR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
"SHRAM SADAN", III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated .: ,30th January, 2002 PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri V. V. Kulgarni B. Corn. LLB, Presiding Officer CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, BANGALORE
C. R. No. 112[99
I PARTY :
The Secretary, Syndicale Bank Employées Union, Post Box, No. 743, Gr. Floor 10, Homji St. Fort, Mumbai-23.
II PARTY :
The Dy. General Manager, Syndicale Bank, Zonal Office, Maker Towers, 'E' Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Plot No. 85, . Mumbai-400005.
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercisinjï the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L-12G12|150|99-IR(B-II) dated 29th September, 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :—
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Syndicat© Bank, Mumbai by terminating Shri K. Srinivas Pai from the services of the Bank is le.aal and justified? If not, then "vîiat relief the workman. is entitîed to?" 2. The first party was working with the management. His services were terminated by the management and therefore, Industrial Dispute is raised.
3. Notices were sent to the partie s. It is seen from the records that the first party even after service of notices hâve not appeared before this Tribunal. Second Party appeared and file Vakaiat. Throu?h out the First party union and the workman an not présent.
4. It appears that the first party Union and the workman are not interested in this dispute. Therefore foîîowing order is passed.
ORDER
The référence is rejected.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her correct- ed and signed by me on 30th Jamiary, 2002).
V. N. KULRARNL Preàding Officer2458 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDJA : MARCH 2, 2002/ PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 6cb Fcbruary, 2002 S.O. 787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 17|97) of the Central Govf. Tndustrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the anne- xure in ihe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-2-2002.
[No. L-12O12|257j94-IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, "SHRAM SADAN" III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE Dated : 21st January 2002
PRESENT :
Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni, B.Com, LLB.
Fresiding Officer.
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
C.R. No. 17J97
I PARTY
Shri Siddarajachari, C|o Shivanna, Chinnangadi Alain Road. Satanur Post, Kanakapur Taluk, Bangalore Dist. Advocate-S. B. Mukkann.ippa.
II PARTY
The Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, D.A. Cell, Circle Office, M.G. Road, Baiagalore-1 Advocate-P. S, Saukar,
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of ihe Section 10 of the Indusîrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. 120I2|257| 94-IR (B-Il) dated l'2th January, 1995 for adjudica- tion on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Capara Bank, Bangalore in terminating the services of Shri Sidriarajaclhari, Daily Wage^ Workman w.e.f. April 1993 and not em- panelling him for permanent absorption in ternis of the Àpproach Paper circulated by^ the Ministry of Finance in 1990 is justiried i If not, to vhat relief is the said workman1 entiiled ?"
2. The first party was wofkinj; with the Second Farty. He was tenninated without regularising him and therefore Industrial Dispute is raised.
3. Parties appeared and filed Claim Statement and Counter respectively.
4. The case of the first party in brief is as follows :
5. It is the case of the first party that he was ap- poinled by the second party w.e.f. 5-9-88 on daily wages. He worked for 19 days to the first instant. In 1989 he has worked on daily wages for 162 days and in the year 1990 he has worked on daily wages for 213 days and he has worked as coolie for a period cf 35 days. He has been working continuously till he was removed from service w.e.f. April 1993.
6. In fact the management should hâve regularised the services of the first party but they hâve terminated the first party and the same is not correct. Mandatory provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Dispute Act are not followed. First party for thèse reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award' in his favour.
7. The case of the Second party in brief is as follows :
8. It is true that the first party was taken on v ork w.e.f. 5-9-1998. He was doing Coolie work. He has noê worked for more than 240 days continuously at any time and the question of termination and com- pliance of provisions of Section 25 does not arise at ail.
9. Il is further contended by the management that first party was engaged for a fixed terni on temporary basis as a Coolie on daily wages, it wouîd not create the relationship of Master and Servant between the parties. The daily wagers are to work in the leave vacancies of the regular staff as well as whenever there is any tempora,ry increase ïn the work load. The Claim of the first party workman is not correct.
10. The first party was never engaged as a daily wager nor he was empanelled as daily vrager. As per the prescribed rules and procédure he was called for an interview .during 1989 to conslder fer empanelment in the daily wagers pan?l sud sce limit '.vas fixed aï2459 18. One thing is clear from the documents of the bank itself that the first party started working with the bank from 5-9-88 and he has continuously work- ed as discussed tarlier.
22 years. The first party workman had exceeded the prescribed âge limit so lie was not considered. Management for thèse reasons and for some oiher reasons has prayed to reject the référence.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the manage- ment has vehemently airgued that the workman has not worked continuousîy for more than 240 days in any year and he is not entitled for any regularization etc.
11. It is seen from the records that on behalf of the management V. Mumyappa, Sr. Manager was examined. According to his évidence the workman has taken as Collie on daily wages wheneyer the regular employée was on leave. He has not evcn a regular daily wages worker. He was only a Coolie.
20. In support of this argument the management
relied the following décisions :
(1) 1999 (III) LLJ (Sup) 320(SC)
(2) 1992(4)SCC99
12. It is his further évidence that in 1989 first party was called for interview but he could not be included on dajly wager because âge limit prescribed as 22 years has exceeded. Various documents are marked in his évidence and he has also sîated the dates, on whicn the workman worked in each year.
(3) 1997 LLR 54(P&H)
(4) AIR 1997 SC 3657
(5) AIR 1977 SC 1267
13. Against this we hâve the évidence of WW1. According to his évidence he has deposed détails of the dates on which he has worked. According to his évidence he has been working as Daily Wager since 5-9-1998.
21. I hâve read the above décisions carefulîy. Facts of îhe case are quiîe différent from the facts of the above décisions. Considering the facts of the présent case I am of the opinion that the management can include the name of first party workman and can regularize his services as Daily Wager if he fulfills the other required conditions.
22. It is seen from Ex. Wl that soms other vorkmen were included in the Daily Wagers Panel. Taking al! this into considération I proceed to pass the following Order :
ORDER 14. I hâve heard the counsels appearing for the first party and second party. I hâve perused ail the material. It is true that the first party was called for an interview. It is clear from Ex. W2. Ex. W3 is. the letter given by the Senior Manager to the Divisional Mapager, Canara Bank to the effect that Mr. Siddaraja- chari has been working there as Daily Wager since November, 1988 and tlhe Senior Manager has re- commended to include his name in the panel of the daily wagers of the said bank. In vievr of this Ex. W3 I api of the opinion that the évidence of MWl that the workman has worked only as Coolie cannot be believed at ail.
The référence is partly aîiowed. The management is direcîed to include the name of the first party work- man in Daily Wagers Panel if he fulfill.s the required conditions. Accordingly référence is disposed off.
(Dicta,ted to PA transcribed by her corrected and
signed by me on 21st January 2002).
V. N. KULKARNI, Presiding Officer 15. According to MWl he says that workman was not engaged as Daily Wager but the letter Ex. W3 is contradicîory to the évidence of MWl and it is established with this Ex. W3 that the first party was taken as Daily Wager. The Managers whenever the first party workman has worked hâve recommended to incîude the name of the first party workman in the Daily Wagers List.
16. We are also having Ex. W7 which clearly.shows the dates on which the workman has worked in the bank. We are haiving Ex. W8. This is a letter from the Manager, Canara Bank addressed to Senior Manager, Canara Bank Staff Section. According to Ex. W7 and Ex. W8, workman has worked as Da;iy Wager, and in addition to this according to Ex. W-8 he hais worked for more than 35 days during the year 1990 as coolie and for more than 65 days as Coolie during 1991. He was also engaged as Coolie during the year 1992.
New Delhi, the lst February, 2002 17. If we considered this, it is clear that the work- man has worked for more than 240 days continuously before he was refused work. Management has not clearly established that the first party was called for interview because no document is filed in this regard and further the management has also not established that according to prescribed ruîes the âge limit was 22 years and the first party has exceeded the ace limit. . AH -thaï has to be proved- but the manage- ment lias not proved anything properly.
S.O. 788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indusfria Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmen bereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 217/94/246) of th< Centra! Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court (No. I] Déaabad, as shev/n in the Aimexure in the ïndustriaî Dispute between. îhe employers in relation to the management of M/s2460 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/ PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)] BCCL and their workman, which was received by tbe Central Government on 31-1-2002.
[No. L-20012/338/93-IR(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD
In the matter of a référence U/S. 10(l)(d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Référence No. 217 of 1994
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L. Headquarter, Koyla Bhawan.
AND
Their Workmen.
PRESENT :
Shri S. H. Kazmi, Presiding Office-.
APPEARANCES :
For th" Employers : Shri S. N. Sinha, Advocate. For the Workmen : Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate. STATE : Jharkhand
INDUSTRY : Coal Dated, the 23rd January, 2002
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/338/93-I.R.(Coal-I) dated 25-8-1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred 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 ad- judication to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of B.C.C.L. Headquarter, Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad in denying the placement of S/Shri Sibi Nonia and Raman Nonia in Cat. IV and service linked upgradalion in Cat. V is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?'
2. Preciseiy, the- case of the concerned workmen is th&t both the concerned workmen, named, Sibi Nonia and Raman Nonia were working as Cat. IV workmen from the yea>- 1977 and later they were transferred to Bhuli Township in the year 19S9 and w"re rJaced in Cat. II by an Offiœ Order issued by rbe Personnel Directorate of B.C.C. Ltd. Headquarter, Koyla Bhawan, comrnanicated thrôugh a letter issued by tile Personnel Manager, Kusunda Area. It was stipula) ed in the said letter thaï they will bs placed in the initial basic of Cat. II scale of wages without protection of wages. ]t has, bsen said that Ihis reversion or demotion was ordered illegally without sefvin.e any notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Industrial dispute was raised thereafter before the A.L.C.YC), Dhanbàd against the saidactlon of the manage- ment and during the conciSiation proceeding the management placed the concerned workman in Cat. V scale of wages tncluding upgradation under S.L.U., but sometime thereafter the said office order was withdrawn 'by the management and a fresh office order was issued to place the concerned work- œan in Cat. III including S.L.U. The pending conciliation proceeding, however, faiîed subséquent to whiçh the dispute was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. It has also bsrn said that the action of the management in denying place- rsseit of fhe concerned workmen in Cat. IV and service linked upgradation in Cat. V and reverting to Cat. III with S.L.U., is not justified.
3. The management, on tne other hand; fias corne or,t with the case as disclosed in its written statement that both as disclosed in its written statement. that both the concerned woïKmen were working at Kusunda Couiery as crusner Attenaant and Carboniser Attendant respectively in Cat. IV. As they were declared surplus at Kusunda Area they were translerred to Katras Project Area where there was require- ment of Cat. IV workers. At that time, it has been said, the concerned workmen represenled the management that their wives were working in the eollieries of Kusunda Area and are residing at Bhuli Township and as such they should be transierred to Bnuli Township even on lower post and lower category and it would be acceptable to them in their own interest and the interest of their families and the same is economical also as it will help them in avoiding them to keep two seperate establishments. It is said, that their request was given due considération and it was decided that they might be posted at Bhuli as Pump Operator at the initial of the basic pay, subject to the condition that they accept Cat. II at the initial of the scale as Pump Operator, on their posting at bhuli. As they were agreeable, it is said, the original transfer order dated 20-4-89 through which they were trans- fcrred to Katras Project Area was partially modined vide office order dated 4-7-89, haying clear eut stipulation that they will be paid initial basic pay of Pump Operator and they will not claim pay protection. Accepting the amendment oider, it is said, the concerned employées took release from Kusunda Area and reported for turther assignaient of duty as Pump Operator at Bhuli Townshîp in Cat. IL Further the'case is that as far as upgradation of the ctmeerned employées from Cat. IV to Cat. V is concerned the order was issued due to wrong information furnished to the sanctioning authority and subsequently on getting the correct information that thèse employées are not in Cat. IV but in Cat. II the order was rectified vide letter dated 26-2-92 allowing them upgradation from Cat. II to Cat. III. As such, it has further been said, there was nothing wrong in action taken by the management.
In parawise comments made to the written statement also apart from denying the stand taken by the workmen, it has been said, that there was no question of giving any notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the concerned workmen as the transfer was made in the year 1989 on their own request and upon the acceptance of the ., conditions by them.
4. It is, thus, obvious from the stands taken by the res- pective sides that the main controversy involved is, whether, m the circumstances of the présent case, at ail a notice under Section 9 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was required to be issued or served upon the concerned workmen prior to their transfer effected in the year 1989 whereby they were put in Cat. II instead of placing them in Cat. IV. Although another grievance which has also been raised by the concerned workmen is that in the years 1991-92 the coucerned workmen were rightly placed to Cat. V and so the order mads to that effect ought to hâve not been rectified or modified subsequently by the management.
5. IÛ course of arguments also it was vehemently urged on bshalf of the concerned workmen that the action of the management amounted to demotion of the concerned work- men from Cat. IV to Cat. II without issuing any chargesheet or conducting any enquiry and further the réduction of the caîegory was made without following the mendatory provision of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has a)so been argued that at no point of time the concerned workmen ever came out with the request to transfer them back to Bhuli Township keeping in view their inconvenience and they consented for being placed them even in lower category i.e. Cat. II in the initial pay scaie of Pump Operator. According to the submissions the concerned workmen had protested and had fiîed représentations also before the manage- ment against its aforesaid action.
From the side of the • management, on the other hand, the submission has been made that there was not
'-'fi,-' In Frppart_ of their respective stands- ît appsarï.îhot two wltnesîs! weré~exâihfnéï"on BéHaîf of fhe manajjoraent and 24*1 one witness was examined on behalf of the concernée! work- men. Besides the oral testimony Exts. M-l to M-2/1 sre the documents filed and exhibited from the side of the manage- ment which are office orders of différent dates. No any document has been filed on behalf of the concerned workmen.
7, Although no any document has been filed on behaîf of the management to show that the concerned workmen had made request and .agreed to be transferred to Bhuli on the conditions, that they would be pîaced in Cat. II and wouîd be getting the initial pay scale of that category without any claim for pay protection, but it appears that both the witnesses of the management who happen to be the officers of the manage- ment hâve consistantly supported the aforesaid stand taken by trié management. MW-1, R. R. Rai seems to hâve stated that he wa* posted at Recruitment Section at Koyla Bhawan from 1984 to 1994 and he was dealing with the natter regard- ing transfer of workmen from one place to another. He has said that in the year 1989 the concerned workman was transferred from Kusunda Area to Katras Proiecî Area but they did not join their new place of posting and filed pétition showing some familv problem and had requested for transfer to Kusunda Area. He has also said that upon manaçemenfs plea that there was no requirement in Cat. IV in Kusunda Area and there was surplus work force in the said collierv, the concerned workmen represented for piacins them in lowcr cateuory nearby area and only thereafter the order dated 3-7-89 was issued under his signature. He has proved the said order which has been marked Ext. M-l. He has al?o said that on issuance of this order the concerned workmen joined their new place of posting and no obiection was ever raised by them pjior to raising the dispute before the A.L.C.(C) in Augûst, 1992. He has proved two office orders marked Ext. M-2 and M-2/1 also and has said that earlier an incorrect order (Ext. M-2) was issued which was subsequentlv modified hy subséquent order (Ext. M-2/1). Likewise MW-2 T. P. Jha. yet another officer of the management has said in his évidence that both the concerned workmen were transferred from Kusunda to Katras area but instead of ioining there, thev fiîed représentations for transfer to Bhuli Township as their wives were worirîne in Bhuîi. According to Mm, thev even oflfered to go to Bhuli in lower categorv ^nd so accord- insly thev were transferred to Bhuli Township. Fnrther he has said that unon issuance of transfer order (Fxt. M-l ) the concerned workmen did not file any protest pétition against their transfer in lower category. He has also said that both the workmen were upgraded later on. but stibseqtient!v a révocation order w.as issued vide Ext. M-2/1 which, according to him, bears his signature.
8. Out of the documents filed on behalf of the management, as mentioned above, Ext. M-l is modified office order by which the concerned workman wôre transferred to Bhuli. Having gone through the contents of the same it appears that it stands mentioned therein that the concerned workmen are being transferred to Bhuli Township instead oï Katras Project Area to work as Pump Operator and thereafter it is mentioned that they will be paid the initial basic pay of Pump Operator and they should give an undertaking that they will not daim pay protection. Tfaough the reason for modification has not been mentioned in the said order but from the contents of the said order particularly the mention as regards the payment of initial basic pay of Pump Operator and further the cleaf stipulation to the effect that the concerned wôrkmên should give an undertpkjsg that they will not claim for any pay protection, it can well be gatbered thaï modification in the earlier ordet must hâve been made keeping in view the request, consent and acceptance of conditions by the concerned work- men, as has been suggested on behalf of the management. The afforesaid stipulation made in îhe said order certaitily supports the stand taken by the management. Had this arrangement been not made with the consent and agreement of the concerned workmen they would hâve certainly raïsed the protest at that very time itself, if by way of the said order they were demoted to Cat. II and their category was reduced without their consent and that too without making any complinnce of statutory reauirements. But instead of that they joined the:r flace of r"osting at Bhuli and went on workîns there in Cat. II till the time of even raising the induslria! dispute i.e. for more than three years. This conduct on the part of îhe concerned workmen further indicates that earlier arrangement was made with their consent and upon their reouest and subsequentïv onlv when a wrong order was passed putting them in Cat. V instead of putting them in Cat. Iï which order was subsequently rectified, they raised the dispute and clairned for their placing in Cat. IV and service linked upgradation in Cat. V. It has been siibmitted on behalf of the concerned workmen lhat in the year 1989 itself they had made the nrotesî and had filed renresentation, but nfrthing has been put forward in course of the présent proceed'ng to substantiate tbe said stand taken. There is nothinc to show that at any point of time till the year 1992 when the dispute was raised before the A.L.C.fC) anv protest or objection wns raised by the concerned workmen before any of the authorifies of the management. Therefore, in view of such cîrcnrnstcuicp"> even in absence of anv document filed on behalf of tbe management in that regard and despite the de-nial to that effect made bv one of the concerned workmen in his évidente, it can well bs taken or pathered that modified office order Œxt. M-l) as regards the transfer of the concerned workman to Bhuli was passed only upon taking into considération tbe reauest made by the concerned workmen and vnon rnn"enf a"_rî accentance of the conditions for beins r>li>c?d in C;*i. n without anv claim for nav protection and thev were "îit i!i Cat. II .is dnn'ng the relevant period. accord'ng to >hp m;.*">ri- ment. Cat. TV post was not vacant or availpb'e at PrmK TU'- • in nnt-shpll on the basis of aI1 the aforesaid it can safelv bs cohclûded that the consent of the concerned workmen was •"V" .rmich there and onlv ujxm the:r request and conc-r
.9. If has hee-~ rti-enn.--;is!y urged on behalf of the concernée!
On the other hand, rhe onîy wHness examined on behalf of the workmen who hapens to be one of the concerned workmen has denied the statement made on behalf of the management by savine that he and another concerned work- mnti had not made sny représentation tn the management that the'
workmen that asMiming the stand taken by the management as regards the encerned emnlyees to be true, even th'en t'^î action of the management irt reducing the category of thé concerned workmen and rmtting" them' in reduced wases, is illégal and void abinitio for non cornpliance of Section 9 A. of the -Industrial Disputes 'Aet. It has been contended thaï in terms of Section 9A which is a mandatory nrovision no such notice is requiFed only if- the change is effected under an1,' seulement or award 'and as in the instant case there is no question of any seulement or award, irrespective of c->i>sr-it. agreement or undertaking said to hâve been eiven bv t^. concerned workmen. the compliance of Section 9A onsht to hâve been made and as the same admittedlv lias not been compiied with the entire action of the management becaines bad and illégal.
Considering the oral testimony of the witnesses produced from either side there does not seem any justifiable reason as to why the reliance should not be placed upon the state- ments of those two witne*ses of the management who are not only the two high officiais of the management, rather they were also very much in the helm of affairs durin? the period when transfer and posting of the concerned workmen vere mode vide office ovder passed in that mwrd. As noticed above, thev both hâve consistantly stated about the reauest made by the concerned workmen for their transfer to Bhuli even on lower category keening in view their inconvenience nnd about their consent for drawing initial pay scale of Pump Operator and for not claimw pay protection. They plso seem to hâve categorically clarified that as the office order Œxt. M-l).was wrongly passed placiag the workmen in Cat. V the sorne was subsequently rectified by another office order (Ext. M-2/1),
I hâve no hésitation in observing at the very o'itset that the atoresaid submission made on behalf of the concerned workman is devoid of any substance. No doubt, Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is a mandatory provision which is necessarily required to be compiied with prior to change or any service condition, but at the same time essence, spirit2462 THE GAZHTTH OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/ PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SSC. 3(ii)l object and applicafaiîity of the said provision should also be cleariy construed and kept in minci while putting forward any argument on the basis of the said provision. As it is quite apparent, the whole object of Section 9A is to prevent unilatéral action on the part of the employer changing the condition of service to the préjudice of the workmen and as such. as per the settled principle, the requirement of notice to the workmen would arise only if they are likely to bs effected preiudicinlly. It is thus cleir that applic?tion of the provision of Section 9A is fhere only in those cases in winch the v/orkman concerned is likely to be effected and the change of service condition is to the préjudice of the workmen. This application is quite aparently not of gênerai nature rather in the nature of cases as referred above. Thersfore, such being the position under law. if the chanse in condition of service is bemg made upon the request and consent of the workmen then in that event tliev cannot be said to be the workmen preiud'cialîy affected by such change and such change of condition of service cannot be said to hâve been mads to the préjudice of the workmen. As such, no question prises of serving notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act upon such workmen upon whose reciuest and consent some order has been passed as regards the change in condition of service. In the instant case, as such. this argument îs not availab'e to the concerned workmen that prior to affect any chanee notice Under Section 9A. of the Industrial Disputes Act oucht to bave been served upon them. This npart, they can a]so not take anv help of any order putt-ng rretn in a wrone category which was later rectified by anolher order psssed in that regard puttine the concerned workmen in prôner cateeory i.e. in Caterory-III, as admittedly pursuant to their transfer to Bhuli thev went on contînuouslv working as Catesorv-II workmen and it is not their ca"e that thev were ever piaced in Cateeorv-V and worked as such on the stren.eth of wrontï office orde>" which stood rectified later on.
10. Thus. in view of considérations and discussions made above on the basis of materials on record it is tinalîy con- '•'uded that the daim of the concerned workmen has no le^s to stand and they are not entitled to the relief as prayed for.
11. Thus. the award is rendered as hercunder :
The action of the m^naçeraent of M /s. B.C.G. L. Head- onarter, KOVIP Bhawan, Dhanb?d, in rien vin <; the ^'pesment of the concerned vorkmen, Sibi Nonin and Raroan Non;a in Category-IV and service linked uncradat'on in Cate™or"-V is iustified and the con- cerned workmen. as such, are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
However, tberc wouM be no order as to cost.
S. H. KAZMI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 1 st February, 2002 S O. 789 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industiral Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby pub1ish.es the Award (Réf. No. 14/91/219) of the Central Government Industrial Tribbrt'ai'Labour Court (No. I) Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in ths Industrial Dispute between tïie employers in relation to the management of M/s. IIJCO £r.d their worl.rran, which was received by the Central Government on 31-1-2002.
[No. L-20012/59/90 -IR(C-I)]
S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,
DHANBAD
In the matter of a référence U/S. 10(i) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Référence No. 14 of 1991.
Parties : Empîoyers in relation to the management of Noonodih Jitpur Colliery of M/s. IISOO Ltd.
AND
Their Workman
Présent Shri S.H. Kazmi, Presidïng Officer.
Appearances :
For the Employers : None.
For the Workman : None.
State : Jharkhand. Industry : Coal Dated, the 21st January, 2002
AWARD
2. By order No. L-20012/59/90.IR. (Coaî-I) dated, the 17th September, 1990 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (i) and sub-sec. (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of Noonodih Jitpur Colliery of M/s. Indian Tron & Steel Co. Ltd. in refusing the request for a job by Smt. Isha Khatoon, Dépendent wife of late Shri Rustam Khan an ex-employee of the said colliery in terms of para 10-4-1 of the National Coal Wage Agreement-II is justified" If not, to what relief she is entitled."
2. In the présent référence case as the notifi- cation of the Central Government by which the pré- sent dispute has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication has already been quashed or set aside by the Hon'ble High Court \ide Order dated 17-1-1998 passed in C.W.J.C No. 1086/91(R) nothing is there to be done in the présent référence but to pass a 'no dispute' award and as such it stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble2463 High Court.
2. In such circumstances I render a'No dispute' award in the présent référence case.
S.H. KAZMI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 S.O. 790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act,, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 2/93) of the Central Government Indistrial Tribunal II, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 1-2-2002.
[No. L-20012/83/92-IR(C-I)] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri B. Biswas
Presiding Officer,
In the matter of an Indstiral Dispute under Section 10(i) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
Referenc No. 2 of 1993 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the manag- ment Bhowra Coke plant of M/s. BCCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : None.
On behalf of the employers : Shri H. Nath,
Advocate,
State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal.
Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd January, 2002 529 ÇI/2Q02—44
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec- tion 10(1) (d) of I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012 (83) /92 I.R. (Coal-I) dated the 23rd February, 1993.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bhowra Coka Plant under Bhowra Area of BCCL in not regularising and placing S/Shri S.N. Bauri and Mathura Belder presently desi- gnated as Haulage Operator in Cat. IV and Gasman in Cat. V as Chargman in Gr. 'C is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman are entitltled ?
2. The concerned workman according to their W.S. in brief is as follows :
The concerned workman in their W.S. submitted that they were working as permanent workman at Bhowra Coks Plant as Haulage Driver and Gasman. They submitted that as per circular issued by the management they appeared in an interview for the vacant post of Chargeman in Technical and Super- voisory Grade-C on 17-2-83. They submitted that as per interview they were selected as chargeman in Technical and supervisory Grade-C and the same was communicated by the order dt. 3-3-1983 and accordingly in pursuance of the said order of the superior authority the concerned workman started performing the job of Technical and Supervisory Gr. C. But curiously enough the management only paid the concerned workman wages of Cat. IV to S.N. Bauri and Cat-V to Mathura Beldar in viola- tion of the aforesaid order of promotion. They submitted that original désignation of S.N. Bauri was Haulage Driver and that of Mathura Belder was a Gas Man But inspite of giving promotion the management did not even change their désignation. They alleged that the action of the management in not paying the wages of Technical and Supervisory Grade-C and changing the désignation as per pro- vision order dt. 3-3-83 was arbitrary and illégal and against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly they submitted their représentation before the management for changing of their désignation, wages as per order of promotion but that did not yeild any resuit. Accordinly the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute before the ALC (C), Dhanbad demanding régulari- sation of their service in Grade-C as per aforesaid promotion order but that conciliation failed and ultimately the présent référence was made.
2464 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3;P , • • - '• v u b m i t i i: i t h at ' . h .; r o j a c t i on of t he r e-
, •
. - . ;' n v . de by t he c o n c ^ r ' u ^d w o r k m en f or
n - , '• ;- J - ' i ' ii to h ' j h er p o st w a s. r . o i f h c/ a r b i t r a r y,
; .. • . I .- :
u \ V G . <; r . g a i i i 3t t he p : i n c i p lo of n a t u r al
, _ .• ;. . A - . 'i " r f ' i . j iy i he m a n a r - . m c nt h as p ' a y ed
;• i -i . -• ' •' : . i. A w a rd r e j - : c : i ng t he c l r . im of t he
ç- • •; \ , / - / " l c m a n.
2455ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMRNT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1. DHANEAD
In the matter of a référence unc'er Sec. 10(î)(d)(2A)
of the Industriai Disputes Act, 1947
Référence No. 220 of 1994
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of
Swang Washery of M/s. C.C. Ltd.
AND
Their Workmen.
PRESENT :
Shri S. H. Kazmi,
Presiding Officer.
APPEARANCES :
For the Employeis : Shri D. K. Ver-na, ^dv^ate. For the Workmen : Shri R. K. Misjta,
Concerned vorh.iaa. of the said Coke Plant. Inspite of sending the case of the concerned to the D.P.C. for considération of their promotion to the post of Chargeman, the D.P.C. did not consider thcir case as the concerned workmen had no requisite qualification for promotion to the , posts of Asstt. Foreman/Chargeman and for which their cases could not bi considered in absence of requisite qualification. To counter the submission made by the Management in the letter marked as Ext. M-2 the concerned workmen hâve failed to produce a single scrap of paper. They also did not consider necessary to adduce évidence to rebut the claim of the management. As such after careful considération of ail the facts and circumstances I find no scope to ignore the submission made by the management under which circumstances the case of the concerned workmen could not be considered for promotion to the post of chargeman. I consider that the submission made by the management stands on cogent footing and there is no reason to believe lhaî why the management passed any arbitrary and illégal order against the concerned workmen refusing their claim for promotion. Accordingly the concer- ned workmen are not entitled to get any relief which they hâve prayed for.
State : Jharkhand Indus i:ry : Coal
Dated, the 22nd January. 2002 An Award is passed accordingly.
AWARD B. BISWAS, Presiding OS&cer
By Order No. L-20012(155)/94-I.R. (Ce? H) dated 26-8-1994 the Central Govern/ucnt i,\ the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of tne p :• .vers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (!) r..ii Sub- section (2A) of Section 10 cf the Industifcl Durcîtes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudi- cation to this Tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management oi Swang Washeiy of M/s. CCL. P.O. Swang, Distt Bokaro in disiJssing Shri R. K. Mishxa, Foreman Incharge w.e.f. 18-3-93 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" New J. i . tic 5 i "ybnary, 2032
S.O. 791 . i pursua /;e JX Secuon 17 of the dustria IDispute Act, 1947 (14 or i9^7), the Central overnment hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 20/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tri- unal-I, Dhanbad now as shown in the Amiexurc n the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CCL and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 1-02-2002.
f No. L-20012/155/94-IR (C-l)] - . S. oUPTA, Under Secy.
2. Piecisely, the case of the concemed workman is that the concerned workman was a permanent employée in Swang Washery of M/s. C.C. Ltd. situated within the premises of Swang Coliiery. It is said that initially the said washery and the coliiery was under the ownership, management and contra] of National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. and subsequently it was changed into Central Coaî- fields Ltd. w.e.f. 1-11-75 as a subsidiary to Coai India Ltd. Though the company's name was changed there was no change in the service condition oï the employées. However, it has been said that îha concerned workman was an active trade union leader and he was Branch Sécréta ry of Swang Branch cf Rashtriya Coliiery Mazdooi Sangh and bdng a trade union leader he used to repiesent before theTHE GAZETTE OF INDTA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ii)j anagement various grievances of the workmen of the washery for which the management was annoyed with him and wanted to terminate bis service by any means. Duiing the year 1992, it is said, that the concerned workman raised industrial dispute fo
regularising workers engaged in slurry handling at the washery and thus two such cases were referred by the Central Government for adjudication before Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad for which the management became very much anno ' yed with the concerned workman. It has also been said that as the management wanted to terminate the service of the concerned workmtm between 30-1-93 and 17-3-93 foui charge sheets were issued against the concerned workman pursuant to which ne submitted his explanation before the compétent authoiity. Subséquent to that, it has been said, that the management neither intimated the workman about their reaction to the replies nor intimated the workman about any steps contemplated by the management. No any enquiry was held in the charges as levelled and the management dismissed the concerned workman by letter dated 173-93 w.e.f. 18-3-93. Later the industrial dispute was raised before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Cen- tral), Hazaribagh before whom no conciliation could be airived at and thereafter finally the dispute was refeired to the Tribunal for adjudication. It has been said that the entire action of the management is arbitrary, illégal and is an act of unfair labour practice.
brought to the notice of the management that the concerned workman committed further acts of mis- conduct in January, 1993 and February, 1993 and on receipt of such reports of commission of such alleged acts of misconduct by the workman concerned he was issued with four other chargesheets dated 31-1-1993, 12-2-1993, 17-2-1993 and one another chargesheet of the same date i.e. 17-2-1993. The concerned workman submitted his replies to ail those chargesheets except the chargesheet dated 12-2-93. The management thereafter decided to hold an en- quiry fïnding sufficient grounds for the same. Shri G. K. Choudhury, the then Dy. Personnel Manager (IR CO. & W), Central Coalfields Ltd. posted at the Head Office at Ranchi was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who held the detailed enquiry and in course of the enquiry despite having full knowledge about the same the concerned workman did not choose to appear and ultimately the said enquiry was held ex-parte. During the enquiry the évidence was led by the management both the oral as well as docu- mentary and subséquent to that having found the materials against the concerned workman the en- quiry report was submitted and on the basis of said enquiry report the concerned workman was dismissed from service. It has been said that each and every act of misconduct proved against the concerned workman is so serious that each one by itself would justify his dismissal and as revealed from the pro- ceedings of the domestic enquiry the concerned workman was actuated by malafide and malicious intention against the management and he also operated with ulterior motive. He indulged in ex- tremely serious acts of misconduct which were de- detrimental to the interests of the company and also against the public interest at large, as such, it has been said that the action taken by the management in dismissing the concerned workman is fully justi- fied.
In parawise reply to the statements made in the written statement also it has been denied by the management that it was annoyed with the workman concerned because he was representing various grie- vances of the workmen of the washery and for that reason it wanted to terminate his service. It has also been averred that the concerned, workman on the contrary, was mis-using his position as a union functionery and indulging in misconduct.
4. Before proceeding to make discussions over the materials on record so as to find out whether the action of the management requires any inter- férence or not, it is pertinent to be mentioned at the outset that during the pendency of the présent proceeding by order dated 6-2-2001 after hearing both the sides on prelirninary issue/point, the domes- tic enquiry lias already be 11 held 1o be fair and proper 3. The management, on the other hand, has corne out with the case, as disclosed in its written statement that the concerned workman was pre- viously employed as Foreman Incharge in Swang Washery of C.C. Ltd. and he was governed by the ( ertified Standing Orders which are applicable to il c establishments of National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. (Coal Mines). The name of the said National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. was changed to Central Coalfields Ltd. w.e.f. 1-11-1975 following the reorganisation of the Coal Tndustry in the Central Public Sector and the establishment of Coal India Ltd. Despite such change the work- men of Swang Washery continued to be governed by the aforesaid Certified Standing Orders. Further, it has been said that it came to the notice of the mana- gement that the workman concerned, R. K. Mishra, Foreman Incharge, was involved in a number of cases of serious misconduct which attracted the différent provisions of S.0.17(i) of the aforesaid Certified Standing Orders. The first case of the acts of misconduct came to the notice of the manage- ment in January, 1993 pursuant to which he was issued with a chargesheet dated 28-1-93 and he was also simultaneously put under suspension pending enquiry. Thereafter, it said. that it was further2467 pursuant to which the case was fixed for hearing on merit under Sec. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. As it is apparent from above and also in view of the documents relating to the enquiry proceedings (Ext. M-5) on the alleged charges of misconduct specified in the certified standing orders of the com- pany, altogether nve chargesheets were submitted against the concerned workman which are as here- under :
(i) SGW/PO/Disciplinary/93/497 dated 28-1-93 (ii) SGW/PO/8/93/575 dated 31-1-93
(iii) SGW/PO/Disciplinary/93/500 dated 12-2-93 (iv) SGW/PO/8/93/894 dated 17-2-93 (v) SGW/PO/8/93/895 dated 17-2-93
Though the concerned workman furnished his reply or explanation as far as the charges levelled in four chargesheets out of the above are concerned, it stands undenied that as against the aforesaid charge- sheet dated 12-2-93 he did not file any reply. Earlier the spécifie and consistant stand of the concerned workman was that no enquiry at ail was held and no intimation as regards any such enquiry was ever rnade to him but as those assertions hâve already been negatived while passing order holding the en- qniry to be fair and proper and which order was never challenged in any superior forum available, the same are not required to be looked into and considered afresh, though even at this stage the con- cerned workman has sought to reagitate those matters as well. At this stage the only considération which is required to be made is whether the order of dismissal suffers from perversity or not a nd whe- ther the materials available on record were sufficient to warrant or justify the extrême punishment by way of dismissal.
6. It appears that out of the aforesaid charge- sheets one was dated 28-1-93 which contains al- together nve charges. Out of them the charge no. 1 was with respect to threatening, and abusing one of the authorities of the management on 14-1-93. The said authority, namely, K. K. Singh, the then Project Officer of the concerned washery seems to hâve been examined in course of the enquiry during which he appears to hâve given the détails as to in what manner the concerned workman alongwith 200 outsiders allegedly reached to the gâte of the concerned washery armed with various weapens and he started raising slogans and herling filthy abuses against him and also as to how they forecibly entered into the washery after over-powering the security personnels posted there. He has identified and proved two documents oné îs a report dated 14-1-93 submitted to him by the Security Qfficer and another was an F.T.R. dated 15-1-93 lodged to the local police by the Security Officer. He also seems to hâve said about the con- cerned workman that he had always been a trouble monger and in the past also he had been proceeded with disciplinary proceeding for committing various misconducts.
The charge no. 2 was with respect to wilfully damaging the work in progress on 30-12-92 by creatin" nuisence within the premiscs of the concerned washery° It appears that for proving the said charge the ma- nagement examined one C. K. Tiwary, Sr E F (E & M). In hi s statement before the Enquiry Officer he has narrated about the occurrence and has statcd as to in what manner the concerned workman along- with 40 outsiders assembled near the gâte of the wa- shery armed with several weapons raised slogans gave threatening to the regular employées and as à resuit of such situation the work progress in the concerned washery was badjy affected/disrupted. One more witness who happened to be a worker working as Fitter Category-VI was examined who also corroborated the aforesaid happening on the alleged date and stated that the entire scène was charged with fear and coercion which affected the work of the concerned washery.
For the Charge No. 3, it appears that one witness was examined by the management who stated about irregular attendance of the workmen by the concerned workman and forcefully signing of the attendance register despite having remained absence from duty He has stated that on 30-12-92 also aJthough he marked his présence in the attendance register dur.'ng 7 AM to 3 PM but during this period he arranged assembly of outsiders inside the concerned washery. In this regard he has referred to a report of the Secu- rity Officer.
As against Charge no 4 which relates to deli- beraie refusa] to accept the officiai communication, yet another witness, named, C.S. Raju, U.D.C. work- ing in the concerned washery was examined by the management. According to him, he used to main- tain the attendance of the employées who were sus- pended, and further according to him, on 20-2-93 he was to hand over the letter of the management dated 19-2-93 to the concerned workman but when he wanted to do the same the concerned workman refused to accept and similarly the refused totake a letter dated 22-2-93 also on 24-2-93. He has proved the Peon Book (ME-4) in which mention as regards the refusai was made. •
For Charge No. 5 which was with respect to create communal disturbances in the concerned washery by making propoganda against .the Sr. Personnel Officer of the said washery and sending wrong information to the higher authority in that regard, it appears that for proving the said charge2468 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART 11—SEC. 3(ii)] two documents were pioduced from the side of the management, one was two pamphlets [ME-5(i) & (ii) respectively and the another was enquiry report in proof of the fact that the concerned officer was not at ail involved in communal disturbances (ME- 5(iii)].
It is thus obvious from the above that witnesses were examined and the documents were produced by the management to prove the aforesaid charges and it succeeded in bringing home those charges against the concerned workman. Having gone through the statements of those witnesses or the documents there does not appear to be anything on the basis of which the same can be viewed with sus- picion or out of which any malafide or unjustified action on the part of the management can be ga- thered.
7. Out of the above, the second chargesheet dated 30-1-93 contains the two charges. The charge no. 1 was with respect to refusai and threatening given by the concerned workman to the Peon, named, Sitaram Rai who want to deliver the chargesheet/ suspension letter dated 28-1-93. For proving this charge it appeais that the management examined the said peon working in the concerned washery who supported the facts relating to the said happenings. He has proved the letter contained in the closed envelope, Peon Book and his report to the Project Officer which were marked ME-6(i), (ii) and (ii) respectively.
Likewise for charge no. 2 which related to forcible entry into the washery premises made by the con- cerned workman alongwith about 200 outsiders on 28-1-93 at about 6-30 p.m. and threatening the emp- loyées working in the plant and as a result of which the compâny sufCered a heavy fmancial loss amount- ing to one lakh, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the management and both of them were officers of the concerned washery, the naine of one is K.K. Singh an.d another was named S. P. Verma. According to both of them, they were on duty on tbe alleged date of occurrence and on that day the concerned workman alongwith several outsides torcibly entered inside the washery carrying lethal weapons and shouting slogans and asking the opera- tors on duty to stop their work else they will be physi- cally prevented. They switched ofif the contiol switch resulting into stoppage oi entire opération. Accordiog to him, they were also searching him out for assault. They further said that the concerned workman and others over-powered the workmen on duty and only when the Project Officer with local police came to the washery the mob disperse d and plant restarted. Particularly when therc is nothing to rebut those statements, the statemonts of those responsible officers of the management can on be taken to be true. Thek statements do not seem to be of such nature which could reflect their vindic- tive or biased attitude.
8. Charge-sheet No. 3 dated 12-2-93 contains altogetber five charges. It is reiteiated as it has already mentioned above that as against this charge- sheet no îeply was submitted by the copeerned work- man.
Out of those charges as contained in said chaige- sheet, the charge nos. 1 and 2 are with îespect to the occurrence which had taken place on 5-2-93 at about 10-30 A M. It has been alleged therein that the con- cerned workman alongwith ten outsiders unautho- risedly forcibly entered the office room of V. S. Prasad, Sr. Personnel Officer of the concerned washery and tried to forcibly snatch away officiai papers from his cuslody and when he failed to snatch the same he threatened him of dire conséquences and asked the outsiders who were alongwith him to note down the name of the said officer in the 'hit list* with a view to intimidate him. During the course of proceeding it appears that though the said officer, V. S. Prasad could not appear for his statement due to his illness but his report submitted to the Project Officer on the alleged date of occurrence was filed and prover by the managements représentative which was maked ME-7.
For proving charge no. 3 which was with respect to the incident in course of which the concerned workman alongwith 10 to 12 persons threatened C. K. Tiwary, Sr. E.E. (E & M), Sawang Washery with dire conséquences at. the gâte of the washery workshop, it appears that the concerned officer, C. K. Tiwary himself was examined on behalf of the management in course of which he gave out the détails as to in what manner he was bsing threatened by the concerned workman and others.
As far as charge nos. 4 and 5 are concerned those are with respect to the incident which had taken place on 8-2-93 and 9-2-93 respectively and it has been alleged that the concerned workman alongwith 150 to 200 persons moved around the concerned washery plant unauthorisedly exploding explosives with a view to creatc panic and to intimidiate to the workman présent and also having been armed with lethal weapons i.e. Lathi, Bhala, Bows and Arrows etc. entered the concerned washery premises on 9-2-93 un- authorisedly and forcibly and again moving around,ex- pled ing explosives with a view to intimidate and create panic. In support of this charges it appears that three witnesses were examined on behalf of the manage- ment who were theSecurity Sub-Inspector, chargeman werkmgin the concerned washery and another work- man of the^ 6aid washery who also- happeas to be lythe Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh2469 Sawang Washery branch, respectively. Ghuran Mian the said Security Sub-Inspector seems to hâve given the détails about the occurrence which taken place on 8-2-93 at 1 PM at the concerned washery gâte. He has stated about the bursting of crackers, bursting of explosives. He has stated about un- authorisedly entry of the concerned workman and others alongwith lethal weapons inside the Wash- ery premises, bursting of the explosives by them and also about the panic created due to that reason inside the Washery. He has proved the FIR which was lodged with local police for the said incident and the same was marked ME-8. For the incident that took place on 9-2-93 also he has given the eye witness account and has stated the répétition of same type occurrence by the concerned workman and others inside the washery. The second witness is Nandlal Sah, Chargeman of the concerned washery. Accord- ing to him, he was also on duty at the rime of the incident and he had witnessed the entire happenings. He has also said that due to violent situation he had others were confined in their duty place, as the mob was violent and could hâve attacked them for one or other reasons. About himself he says that he is also an Executive Member of Sawang Branch of R.C.M.S. The third witness, namely Mukhdeo Pandey has also given the eye witness account of the occurrence that took place on 9-2-93 and while giving détails he has stated that besides saving been armed with Garasa, Bhala, Arrows and Bows etc. the concerned workman and others had also ex- plosives with them which they indiscriminately used for the purpose of terrorising the entire workers.
Considering the nature of their statements there does not appear to be any reason as to why they should not be believed and so it is évident that in an explicit show of high-handedness the concerned work- man went to the extent of bursting explosives inside the washery premises alongwith others apart from having been armed with other lethal weapons with a view to terrorise the workers on duty and to create panic. Thèse proved charges quite obviously are also of very serkms nature which cannot go un- noticed.
10. Now, the last chargesheet is yet another chargesheet which was submitted on the same day i.e. 17-2-93 and it is contained in the charges mention- ed therein that on 17-2-93 at about 3-30 AM. the concerned workman alongwith 150 outsiders came inside the washery premises having been armed with Bhala, Gadasa, Lathi etc., over-powered the Secu- rity Personnel on duty, entered the plant and forced the employées on duty to leave the duty immediately and they were physically driven out of the plant. Thereafter, it is alleged, they took out the fuse from. O.C.B. -Control Room due to which entire prod"ctioçi was stopped and subséquent to that the concerned workman and his associâtes went to the Weigh Bridge and after driving out the employées on duty they locked that room and took away the key along- with them. They also alleged to hâve exploded explosives inside the washery plant. For proving thèse charges it appears that xme Mahadeo Das, Data Entry Operator, was examined on behalf of the management. According to him, he was on duty at the time when the said occurrence took place. He has given the détails as to in what manner the concerned workman and others extended the acts of vandalism inside the washery premises and the Weigh Bridge. He has also said that after the said incident he reported the matter to the Project Officer of the concerned washery on phone as also in writing. He has proved the said written information which is marked Ext. ME-10. Besides this witness, it appears that three other witnesses were also examined on behalf of the management for proving the aforesaid charges and they ail happened to be Munshi, Head Security Guard and the Project Officer respectively of the concerned washery. The Munshi and Head Security Guard hâve clàimed themselves to be eye witness to the said occurrence and hâve stated that they were on duty at that time. They hâve given the détails as to in what manner the concerned work- man and others created the havoc and panic inside the washery and weigh bridge and as to in what man- ner the entire functioning of the washery came to a grinding hait due to the said reason. Augustin Lakra a Munshi of the concerned washery has also claimed to hâve sttbmitted the report before the Project Officer of the concerned washery in regard to the said occur- rence. He has proved the said report which is mark- ed ME-11. Thèse witnesses with the help of the documents proved by them quite obviously hâve succeeded in establishing those charges as against the concerned workman and their statements cannot be discredited on any ground whatsoever.
9. The 4th Chargesheet dated 17-2-93 relates to an occurrence which almost is of similar nature as charge nos. 4 and 5 as contained in the earlier chargesheet in as much as this charge is also with respect to unauthorised entry inside the washery plant, explodhig explosives, raising of slogan etc. having been armed with lethal weapons. As regards this occurrence which took place on 16-2-93 the aforesaid Guran Mian was examined who sta^ed that his statements given in référence to charge nos. 4 and 5 of Chargesheet dated 12-2-93 holds good in respect of this charge aîso.
11. Precisely in view of ail the aforesaid, irré- sistible it can be found that the management succeeded in establishing those charges as agaiast the c&aeerned workman with the help of materiaîs pat fbrwarrf on?47M TMI;. GAZETTE DP 1NPIA I M A R CH 2, 2OOQ/HHAU3UNA 11, 1923 [ P un H ^ S n v. 3(ii)] its bchalf which rcmained vnrebu'tcd bccau.se of non- production of any matcrials whatsoever on behalf of thc conccrncd workman in coirse of the cnquiry precert'.ing*-. C o i v q r m t ly Ihe report submiltcd pu'"sm.rt lo holding of enquiry (Ext. M-6) and the c:\hr passcd on thc bnsis of that marked Ext.M-6/1 i>.nd M-7 do not suffer froir. any infirmity or illcga- lity whatsoever.
ment in course of the enquiry, two witnesses nairuTy, Nandlal Sah and Mukhdeo Pandey hâve claimed thcm>c)vcs not only thc wo.kmcn workir.g in the con- ccrncd washery ;";'.ther v.t thc s>amc tune, according to tir m, they arc Executive Member of Sawang Branch of Rashtriya Cullicry Mazdoor Sangh, (ihc same union with which the concerned workman claims himself to be associatcd) and Asstt. Secretary of R.C.M.S. Sawang Branch respectively. Significantly in their statements made they hâve statcd in so many words that such violent démonstration was being regularly arranged by R.K. Mishra, the concerned workman, who was Secrctary of the R.C.M.S., Sawang Branch, withov.t any résolution being passed by the Branch Executive Committee. Nandlal Sah also scems to have statcd that the entire Committee was opposed to such activities of R.K.Mishra as nonc of thc employées was supporting his activities and his so callcd demand of giving employm^nt to the outsiders. Such statement made by thèse witnesses further go to show réputation which the concerned workman used to hold amongst the other office b--a- rers of thc sam; union and the eirr>1oyjes engaged in thc washery and as such it is fu'ther indicative of the manner in which the concerned workman \iscd to conduci him,clf from lime to tim:.
As far as the quantum of punishment awarded to the concerned workman is coacerned, taking into account far reaching conséquences and gravity of the aforesaid proved charges against him, the same also, in my view, does not require any interférence.
13. Thus, in view of the discussions made above on the basis of materials on record it is finally con- cluded that the dismissal of the concerned workman by the management from his services cannot be held to be illégal or unjustified.
14. The award is thus rendered as hereunder :
The action of the management of Sawang Washery of M/s. C.C. Ltd., P.O. SaWang, Dist. Bokaro, in dis- missing the concerned workman, R.K. Mishra, Foreman-Incharge, with efïect from 18-3-1993 is justified and the concerned workman, as such, is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
However, the/e would be no order as to costs. S. H. KAZMI, Presiding Officer 12. Althov.gh certain documenis filcd on bohalf of the concerned workman arc those filed in connec- tion with preliminary issue relating to the fairness of the enquiry, put even if those documents are to bc co- sidered at this stage also it appears that most of those documents, such as, Ext. W-l L-tter to the A.L.C.(C), Hazaribagh by the concerned workman, Ext. 6,W-6/l, tbe two gênerai appeals issued by (lie union, Ext. W-7a letter "ent by thc concerned workman to S.D.M., Bermo at Tenughat, Ext.W-10 a letter sent to thf Project Off'cer by ihc concerned v/orkman and Ext .W-l 3 a copy of thc order of the District Magis- trate (Law), Boka.ro are for the pu pose of showing that thc corcerned workman wr.\ i.n office b;arcr of Sawang Washery B-arch of Rr.shtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sc.ngh ar.d in that capr.city f.-om t'me to t!mo he hr.d b;en raising grievances against thc acîion of the management iiu'horitics or the maragement and also used to raise demands on behalf of Ihe workers of thc concerned washery and so it is for th?t reason the management became annoyed and WÛS hdl-bcnt lo terminate tho service of thc concerned workman which it did ultimatcly. Assuming those documents to to be genuine and authentic, in my view, it would b; too much to conceive, specially considering the afore- said materials brought by the management in course of ihe enquiry, jhat merely due to the reason that the conccrrcd workman being an office b:arer of the imion med to raise grievances against the management, the management became annoyed and sacked him ulîimately. Being an office bearer of the union or a trade union leader does not mean that the person concerned is immune from discipline and good con- duct and can get away with gross instances of mis- conduct and indiscipline on his part mc-rcly by taking 2471
Mcw Delhi, ihe 5th February, 2002 S.O. 792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the ïndusmal Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governmeut hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 2/1991) 'of the Central Goveinment Industrial Tribunal II Dhanbad as shown in the Annexuve in the Industrial Dispute between the cmplo>ers in relation to the management oi' BCCL and their workman, vvhich was received by the Central Govern- ment on S-2-2002.he submitted his explanation, the management wiîh- •out considering the same started a domestic enquiry against him and thereafter the said enquiry officer submitted report finding lr'm guilty and on the basis of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority dis- missed him from service with effect from 1-11-89. The concerned workman submitted that such order of dismissal was illégal and arbitrary and also against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly he has prayed for passing an Award directing the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other benefits.
[No. L-2OO12/285/9O-IR(C-r>] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT Shri B. Bisvvas, Presiding Officer,
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1) (d) of I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 2 OF 1991 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the Management of Kooridih Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES : On behalf of the workman : Shri O.P. Verma,
Advocate
On behalf of the employers : None. State : Jharkand Fndustry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd Jamiary, 2092.
AWARD
The Govi. of India, Mini.,try of Labour, in exer- cise of the pDwers com'eiYed on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012(285)/90-I.R. (Coal-I), dated, ihe 18th December, 1990.
SCHEDULE
"Whcthcr the action of the Management oi Kooridih Çollety in Govindpur Ârea No. III of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the workman Shri Kirtan Jaina No. I w.e.f. 1-11-89 ïs justified? If not. to what relief the said workman is en- titled ?"
2. The crise oi' the concerned workman accor-
ding to the W.S. in briel is as follows :—
3. The management on the centrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejo^nder hâve denied ail the claims and allégation which the concerned w\ rkman asserted in his W.S. Tije management in the W.S. submitted that actual name of the concerned is Harkhit Jaina son of Khali Jaina of village Erendra, District Ganjam, Orissa. But concealing his name he assuming the name of Kirtan Jaina No. 1 sen cf Chaow Jaina of the same village entered into the service cf the mana- gement in place of genuine workman named Kirtan Jaina son of Chaow Jana. They submitted that as per the settlement dt. 13-11-85 between the manage- ment and the union namely R.C.M.S. it was decided that Kirtan Jaina No. 1 was to be given emplcymtrt as Badli Miner/Loader and acccrdingly the ce r.cerr.ed workman was given the appointment letter dt. 1 ,'2-9-86 as he identified himself as Kirtan Jaina No. 1 son c f Chaow Jaina. However, in the said letter c f uppoint- ment it was stipulated that genuinity of the persen concerned will be verified through pelice Vérification and in case it is found that he was not the real work- man named Shri Kirtan Jaina No. 1 he should be removed from his employment. The management alleged that at the time of his entry in the service the concerned workman falsely declared in severa] documents that he was the real Kirtan Jaina Ne. 1 son of Chaow Jaina and accepting his déclaration in good faith-the management allowed him to join his duty as Miner loader and thereafter sent particulars for Police Vérification. On Police Vérification it was found that the concerned workman was net the real person and his name was actually Harl hit Jaina son of Khali Jaina and he managed to erter into the services in place of a real workman. Accor- dingly the management issued a charge'heet dt. 22-7-88 chàrging him for commission cf mijccr.duct of fraud and dishonesty in connection with mar-ace- ment's business and for cemmitting the m'sccnduct of giving false information at the time of his emp- loyment. The concerned workrru.n subm'tted his reply denying the allégation levelled agî^nst him ai d asserted that he was the real Kirtan Jaira. Tbetc- after a domestic enquiry was started against him by the Enquiry Officer as per r rder of the marage mes t and in course of the enquiry the E.O. e>âmirecl différent witnesses including the deferce witne^s. Thereafter on completing the enquiry the E.O. sub- mitted, his report finding the concerned workman .gliilty of the miscenduct. As the allégation brought against the concerned workman was very serious in nature the disciplinary authority accepting the report The concerned workman in h's W.S. submitted thet he- was appointed in the post of Miner/Loader by the management in pursuance of a Xripartite Settlement before the ALC(C), Dhanbad and accord- ingly he was posted at Kooridih Colliery. The con- cerned workman submitted that such appointment was subject to Police vérification. He submitted thàt ithereafter the .management sent lys' credentials to S.P. Ganjam Orissa fer the- purpose of Police véri- fication relating to the antécédents of the concerned workman and also for the identification. He alleged that the Police without m^king pioper enquiry sub- mitted a report and rn ihe basis of that report the management issued a Charge sheet to the conoernr-d workman under clause 17(i)(o) of the Model Stand- ing Order with the allégation of impersonation. He submitted that though on receip." of the charge sheet 5?0 GI'2002—452472 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J submitted by the E.O. dismissed him from service with eifect from 26-10/1-11-89.
4. ït h the spécifie allégation of the management that the concerned workman by way cf impersoni- fication got the service of one Kirtan Jaina knowing fully we!l that lie was not Kirtan Jaina and thereby practiced fraud against the management. Accordingly the management submitted that the concerned work- man is net entitled to get any relief, which he has prayed for.
5. The points fer décision in this référence are ;
"Whether the action of the Management cf Kooridih Colliery in Gcvindpur Area No. II cf M/s. BCCL in dismissing the werkman Shri Kirta-n Jaina No. 1 w.e.f. 1-11-89 is justified ? If net, to what relief the said Workman is entitled ?"
DECISION WITH P BASONS
6. From the record it transpires that befere taking up hearing on merit this Tribunal heard the instant référence case en preliminary point te assess if the do mastic enquiry held against the concerned werk- man by the E-O. was fair, preper and in acee rdance with the principles cf natural justice. By Order No. 63 dated 26-7-2001 that issue on preliminary point was decided and it was held by the Tribunal that the enquiry held by the E.O. was fair, proper a.id in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Naturally when this issue has already been decided at this stage there is no scope at ail to discuss the same issue further. Hère the point fer consi- dération is whether the charge brought against the coricerned workman by the management has been established or net and if so whether the order cf dismissal passed against the concerned werkman was légal valid and accerding to the principles of natural justice.
police vérification shculd be made against the cor- cerned workman in crder to ascerlain the genuinity of the persen concerned and other credentials. The management submitted that thereafter they sent a vérification roll to S.P. Ganjam, Orissa against the concerned werkman. The management further sub- mitted that on receipt of the Police veri&cation report they came to know that the actual name cf the cen- cerned workman was Harkhit Jaina st n of Khali Jaina of village Erendra, District Ganjam, Orissa. Accordingly on the basis cf that Police report the management drew conclusion that the cencerned workman by false impersonatien got his'appeint- ment as Miner/Loader urider the management and accordingly the management issued a charge-sheet against him. Against that charge-sheet the concerned workman submitted his reply and as the said reply was not satisfactory the management started ddmestic enquiry against the concerned werkman. It has been further submitted that the concerned werkman participated in. the domestic enquiry and adduced évidence on his part. But as he failed to establish falsity of the report submitted by the S.P. Ganjam, Orissa the disciplinary authority accepting the report submitted.by the E.O. dismissed him from service. It is the contention cf the concerned workman that the managements décision to send the vérification roll to the.S.?. Ganjam for police vérification was not proper and for which the same should not be accep- ted. But before claiming so the concerned workman before the E.O. has failed to preduce any cegent document to show that he was the genuine person i.e. Kirtan Jaina No. 1 son cf Chaow Jaina and not Harkhit Jaina son cf Khali Jaina. Dvring hearirg en preliminary point the management examined MW-1 but the concerned workman inspite of getting opper- tunity did not cross-examine him. The concerred workman also d'd not cem-ider necessary to examine himself as witness at the time of preliminary hearing in order to .establish that he was genuine Kirtan Jaina son of Chaow Jaina. In course of hearing also the concerned workman did not consider neces- sary to preduce any cogeint paper to show that he was Kirtan Jaina and not Harkhit Jaina. The con- cerned workman has also failed to assign reasen why the management did not act properly in sending the vérification roll to S.P. Ganjam, Orissa fer his police vérification particularly when in the appejnt- ment letter the management reserved the right cf vérification of the credibility cf the concerned work- man. I consider that the management hp.d absolute right to verify any credentials of any workman by appropriate authority lest they are to face any hazard in future. As such I do not censider that the manage- ment has committed any illegaîity in sending the vérification roll to S.P. Ganjam, Orissa fer Pclice vérification. No évidence is .fertheeming before 7. Considsring the W.S. submitted by the con- c;rned workman as well as the management I find ne dispute to hold that as per Tripartite agreement thî management decided to give employment to one Kirtan Jaina son of Chaow Jaina as Miner/Loader. It L also admitted fact that as per the said settle- medt the concerned workman got emplcyment as Miner/Leader in view of the appointaient letter issued by the management. The said appointment letter was issued in the name of Kirtan Jaina son of Chaow Jaina of Village Erendra District Ganjam, Orissa. The management submitted that he iden- tified himself as Kirtan Jaina and also in support of his claim submitted différent documents namely affidavits etc. certificate issued by the B.D.O. & Mukhiya. The management submitted that on goed faith accepting those documents they issued the appointment letter subject to the condition that a2473 this Tribunal on the part of the concerned wcrkman- that the police report which was submitted bythe S.P. Ganjam was false. As such after careful con* sideration of ail the facts and circumstances carefully I find sufficient reason to believe that the ccrccrned workman by false personification got the appoint- ment letter from the management and thereby com- mitted serious misconduct. I hold that the charge which wâs framed against the concerned workman absolutely based on cogent ground. I further hold that the management did not commit any mistake in dismissing the .concerned workman from his service on the grounJd of misconduct. Accordingly there is no scôpe to show that by dismissing the concerned workman, the management has committed any ille- gality. There i& also no reason to believe that the décision of the management was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. In the resuit, the fcllowing Award is rendered :—
"The action of the Management of Kccridih Colliery in Govindpur Area Ne III cf M/s. BCCL in dismissing the workman Shri Kirtan Jaina No. 1 w.e.f. 1-11-89 is justified. Conse- quently, tbe concerned wcrkman is not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 S.O. 793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (M- of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. 2011995) of " the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 2, 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 1-1-2002.
[No. L-2OO12!426!93-1R(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
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 1 0 ( l ) ( d) of die I.D. Act, 1947.
Référence No. 20 of 1995 PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of M|s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
AND
Their Workman
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workmen.—None.
On behalf of the employers.—None.
STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal. Dated, Dhanbad. the 21st January, 2002
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 1 0 ( l ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012(426) |93-I.R.(CoaH), dated, the 8th February, 1995.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Block-II Area of Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, P.O. Nawa- garh (Dhanbad) in denying to pay ail the légal dues of Shri Tapeshvvar Singh, Looseman|Si$nalman for the period from 17-7-1990 to 9-6-1991 is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?" 2. The case of the concerned workman ac- cording to the W.S. in brief is as follows :
The concerned workman in his W.S. sub- mitted tha" in the year 1987 while the manage- ment issued service excerpt to him he came to know that his date of birth îherein was record- ed as 15-7-30 wrongly and accordinglv he requested the management by submittïng ap- plication dt. 23-12-89 to correct his date of*474 llllï GAZETTE OF 1NDJA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA II, 1923 'PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J birth. But the management did not pay any heed to his request, He further submitted that the management recorded his date of birth differently in différent records. He sub- mitted that when that gross discrepancy in relation to his date of birth recorded in diffé- rent registers maintained by the manage- ment it was incumbent duly of the manage- ment tosend himto the Apex Médical Board to get his âge assessed aceurately according to the procédures of médical jurisprudence and also in compliance of the provision of Imle- mentation Instruction No. 76 of JBCCL But • knowing fully well of ail the facts and circum- stances the management illegally superannuat- cd hini with effect from 17-7-90 and withheld his pay till 9-6-91 legally and arbitrariiy. He submitted that the managements refusai to issue pay order for the period from 17-7-90 to 9-ô-9! on the principle of 'No work no pay' was totally devoid of any reason. Aceordingly the concernée! workman per- sonally and aîso through union submitted re- presentatiom before the management for issue of pay order to hini for the period mentioned above. But as the management refused to issue any pay order for the said period he submiued application through the union be- fore the ALC(C), Dhanbad for conciliation but as the said conciliation failed due to 'he adamant attitude of the management the présent référence was made.
assessed his âge as 58 yeart on that date. Aceordingly as per report of the Apex Médi- cal Board the concerned workman was allowed to résume his duty on 9-6-91 subject to the contention that he would not be allowed to get any wages for the period of his idleness as he did not raise any dispute during îhe period of his employment. The management submitted that the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register was according to the déclaration of the concerned workman and he authenticated the document without making any challenge at the time of ".Titing parti- culars against his name in the specified column. The management further submitted that as per certified Standing Order the date of birth recorded in the service sheet becomes conelusive and bindiftg for deciding tbe date of superannuation. Althoitgh there was no scope for reviewing îhe date of birth recorctad in the Form B Register of the cwnpaov whioh is maintained US 48 of the Mine^ Act 1952 read with ruîes 77 of the Mines Rules. 1955, the case of the concerned workman was considered purely on sympathette ground and he was given the employment on tîv basis of assessment of his âge by the Apex Médi- cal Board. Tt was the responsibility of the concerned workman to get his date of birth corrected at the earliest possible opportunity at the time of his appointaient. Once the date of birth is recorded in the Form B Re- gister the satne becomes binding for deciding the time of superannuation. The case of the concerned workman. the management sub- mitted was sympathetically considered after his ^uperunneation and • he was allowed to ioin his duty as per report of the Apex Médical Board but for that reason he is not entitled to draw any wages for the period from 17-7-90 to 17-6-91. Accordingiy the management hâve . prayed for passing an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.
4. The points for considération in tins
référence are :—
3. The management on the contrarv after tiiing W.S.-cum-rejoinder hâve denied ail the claims and allégations which the concerned workman asserted in his W.S. The manage- ment submitted that at the time of getting entry in the service the concerned workman Jiscîosed his date of birth as 15-7-1930 and aceordingly it was recorded in the Form B Register. The concerned workman was there- afrer superannuated from his service with eiî'ec< from 17-7-90. Thcy submitted that after- the date of superannuation the concern- ée! \\'orl;man submitted his représentation to the effect that due to certain misfakc the date of birth in his Form B Register was vronglv recorded as 15-7-30 and accordinglv bc prayed for setting his âge assessed by the Apex Médical Board. On the basis of that représen- tation through the union the management considered his prayer and sent him to the AD-;X Médical Board for his médical examina- tîon and détermination of his ase. Tbcy sub- mitted tha" the Apex Médical Bonrd exarnin- ed the concerned workman on 13-5-91 and
"Whether the action of the management of Block-11 Area of M s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited. P.O. Nawa- earh Dhanbad in denving to pay ail the légal ducs of Shri Tapeshwar Singh. Looseman'Signalman for the period from 17-7-1990 to 0 6-1991 is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled7"2475 DECISION WITH REASONS
5. Considering the W.S. of both sides l find no dispute to hold that the concernée! workman was an employée under the management. I also fmd no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was superannuat- ed from his service with effect from 17-7-90. I also find no dispute to hold that the concern- ed workman-was allowed to résume his duty on 9-6-91 on the basis of médical report submitted by the Apex Médical Board. It is .ilso admit- ted fact that the concerned workman was out of employment from 17-7-90 to 8-6-91. It is the claim of the concerned workrnan that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the Form B Register as 15-7-30 and he came to know about wrong recording of his date of birth while service excerpt was handcd over to him on 16-5-87. He further submitted that his date of birth in différent régisters maintained by the management variée! and accordingly he submitted représentation for correction of .his date of birth. He also sub- mitted représentation through his union with a prayer to send him to the Apex Médical Board for détermination of his âge but the management without considering his prayer superannuated him with effect from 17-7-90 and thereafter allowed to join his dutv on 9-6-91 and according the concerned workman submitted that he is entitled to dra'w waacs for the peried from 17-7-90 to 9-6-91. The concerned workman is silent in his W.S. under which circumstances the manage- ment allowed him to join his duty on 9-6-9 î inspite of his superannuation with effect from 17-7-90. The management submitted tbat after the date of superanuation the concerned workman through his union submitted repré- sentation for détermination of his âge through the Apex Médical Board. The management furrlvr submitted fhat relyinsr on thaf représen- tation on svmpathetic ground. they send the concerned workman fo the Aoex Médical Boird for détermination of his âge and the concerned workman was examined bv the Médical Officer of the Apex Médical Board on 13-5-91. The mpineement further sub- mitted that îhr A*vx Medinl Bon M deter- mined the âge of the concerned workman as 58 years as on 13-5-91. The management disclosed that paying full respect to the déci- sion of the Aoex Médical Board thev allowed the concerned, workman to join hK diiîy with effect from 9-.6-91 subject to the condition that he would not be enti'led to. claim anv wages for thé period from 17-7-90 to 8-6-91. The
management submitted that the concerned workman at the earliest opportunity had the scope to submit représentation for rectifica- tion of his âge but he did not do so. They submitted further that the information entered in the respective columns of respective regis- ter was duly authenticated by the concerned workman but at that time the concerned workman did not raise any dispute relating to his date of birth. His case was considered purely on sympathetic ground even after the date of superannuation when he submitted his représentation through the sponsoring union. Accordingly during the period when the concerned workman was not in service was not entitled to get wages of the same because of the fact that he had to remain idle for the said period due to his own fault and not due to the fault of the management. Now considering the submission of both sides ac- cording to the W.S. it is clear that the concern- ed workman remained idle without any wages from 17-7-90 to 9-6-91. Now it has to be îooked into for whose fault the concerned workman remained idle during the said period. It is the contention of the concerned workman that immediately after receivmg ser- vice excerpt in the year 1987 he submitted re- présentation for rectification of his a?e but the management did not pay any heed to his reauest. On the contrary the management submitted that on compassionate ground the concerned workman was sent to the Apex Metfcai Board for détermination of his âge when hc submitted représentation ?47Ô THE GAZETTE 01 INDIA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—ShC 3(ii)l who was actually guilty for the sanse. Spéci- fie submission of the management is that his case was sympathetically considered after the date of his superannuation ;md they allowed the concerned worknian to ioin his duty on 9-6-91 as the âge was determined by the Anex Médical Board as 58 years as on 9-6-91 i.e. on the date when he was examincù by the Médical Board being sent by ihe management after his superannuation. The management submitted further that they allowed the concerned workman to join his duty subject to the condition that he would not be entitled to get any wages during the period of his idleness. It is fact that from 17-7-90 to 8-6-91 the concerned worknian re- mained idle and did not give any service to the management. In natural course he is not. entitled to get any wages for the Raid idle oer'or? ii" }t h not establi^hed that his renain- !.pg Ve for the snid period was due to the fault of the management and not due tu his own fr''H. T'i- roncemed workman had the ample scone to c"tnb-i^.h this allégation bi't lie has !" ".Q-it-ih^f fa;Vd to prove ro. Accordmgiy : f'cr coriàd^ring ;vlî the facts and circum- st;mces T hold that the concern workman is not ent:fVd to cet nnv relief which he has prayed for.
An ATvord is passed accordingly.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 5th February, 2002 S.O. 794.—In pursiiance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Rel. No. 511995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II Dhanbad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the emplo- yers in relation to the management of BCCL and fheir workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 1-2-2002.
[No. L-20012/428/93-IRCC-T)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL 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.
Référence No. 5 of 1995
PARTIES :
Eniployers in relation to the management of Block 2 Area of M/s. BCCL's Bcnedih Colliery and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman : None. On behalf of the employers : None. State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal. < Dated, Dhanbad, the lst January, 2002
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act. 1947 has referred the following dispute to ihis Tribunal for adjudication \ ide their Order No. L-20012/428/93-I.R. (Coal-I), dat.J. the 28îh December, 1994.
SCHEDULE
"Wliether the action of the management of Block II Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Nawa- garh, Dist. Dhanbad in refusing to accept the date of appointaient of Shri K. K. Tewary, Sr. Overman, Benedih Colliery as October, 1954 is justified ? If not, to \vhat relief is the concerned workman entitled to?"
2. In this référence both the parties appeared be- fore this Tribunal and filcd their respective W.S. But subsequently they abstained from appearing be- fore this Tribunal and taking any steps although registered notices were served upon them. lt reveals from the record that the instant référence is pend- ing since 1995 and it. is of no use to dratr the same any more fer taking steps by Mie parties. Under such circuumstances, a 'No dispute' Awfcrd is rendered and the référence is disposrd of on the basis of "No dis- pute' Award prcsumîng non-existence of any indus- trial dispute between Ihe parties presently.
B. BISWAS. Presiding Officer2477 iNo. L-20012(ll)|94-I.R.(Coal-I), dated. the lst March, 1995.
SCHEDULE
New Delhi, the 5îh February, 2002
"Whether the action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery Area No. VII of M|s. BCCL in "not providing employment to dépendent of Shri Sovi Yadav, U. G. Trammer Bhaga- band Colliery as per clause 9.4.3 of the NCWA-IV is just, fair and légal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. The case of the concernée workman *JC-
cording to the W.S. in brief is as follows : —
S.O. 795.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industriel Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heréby pub- lishes the oward (Réf. No. 44;95) of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal II Dhan- bad 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 1-2-2002.
[No. L-20012|ll|94-IR-(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
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.
Référence No. 44 of 1995
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the manage- ment of Bhagaband Colliery of M|s. BCCL
AND
Their Workman
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the Workman.—Nonc.
On behalf of the Employers,—Shri H.
Nath, Advocate.
STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Coal.
Dated Dhanbad, the 22nd January, 2002
AWARD
The concerned workman in the W.S. sub- mitted that he was working under the management as underground trammer sLtce 3-12-61 to the entire satisfaction of the management. He submitted that as per NCWA tliere is provision for empîoyment of the dépendent of the worker v/ho was declared permanently disabled due to in jury or disease and as a resuit of which mcimibent lost his service. He subm!t"ed that on the basis of the above provision of NCWA several dependents of the employées who were declared unfit due to injury or disease hâve been provided with employaient bv the management. He disciosed that in dircharge of his duties under the management he be- came disabled permanently due to bis illness and he was forwarded to the Ap?x Médical Board for his médical examination to that effect on 12-2-90 by order of the management. After his due examination by the Médical Officer of the said Apex Médical Board he was deciared unfit for the job due to loss of his one eye and also due to his suffering frotn Ostea-Arthritis. He submitted that on the basis of the said report given by the Apex Médical Board the manac-"r:ie"t declared him unfit and terminated him from service with effect from 27-3-90. He d?sc1os-d lhat according to clause 9.4.3 (i) of NCWA-IV one of his dépendent is entitled to °;et em- ployment and to that effect he submitted re- présentation to the management but îhc management refused to considor the praver. Conséquent to that refusé '.he concerned workman through union mis?d inHir-Hai dis- pute before the ALCfC) for conciliation which ultimately resulted référence to this Tribunal.
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order 2478 T HE G A Z E T TE OF 1NDIA : M A R CH 2, 2 0 0 2 / P H A L G U NA I I, 1923 LPART I I —S E C. 3 ( i i )j 3. The management on the contrary after filing W.S.-cum-rejoinder hâve denied ail the claims and allégation which the concerned workman asserted in the W.S. The manage- ment admitting the fact of termination of the services of the concerned workman due to his permanent physical disability owing to his aiJment as per the report of the Apex Médi- cal Board submitted that as per prevision o! clause 9.4.2 any dépendent of the concerned workman is not entitled to get the benelit of employment in place of his iather as the con- cerned workman at the time of his ternr.r.ation was more than 58 years of âge. Accordiagly the management submitîed that the claim of the concerned workman is vague and for which he is not entitled to get any relief which he has prayed for.
4. The point for considération in this ré-
férence are :•—-
"Whether the action of the management of Bhagaband Colliery Area No. VII of Mis. BCCL in not provid- ing employment to dépendent of Shri Sovi Yadav, U. G. Trammer, Bhagaband Colliery as per clause 9.4.3 of the NCWÀ-IV is just, fair and légal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
DECISION WITH REASONS
clause.II speaks in case of disablement aris- ing out of gênerai physical debility so certified by the coal company concerned, not arising out of injury or disease as in Para (i ) above, the concerned employée will be cligible for the benefit under this clause if the employée is upto the age of 58 years. Therefore the différence of clause (i) and (ii) shows clearly that while employment to one dépen- dent of a worker can be given if the workman looses his service due to permanent disability arising out of permanent injury or disease, while clause II speaks disablement arising out of gênerai physical disability so certified by the Coal Co. It is the contention of the con- cerned workman that the Apex Médical Board declared him unfit due to loss of his one eye and also as he was suffering from* Osteo-arthritis. He further submitted that on the basis of that report issued by the Apex Médical Board the management terminated his service with effect from 27-3-90. Accord- inedy it is the claim of the concerned work- man that the management is liable to give employment to one of his dépendent whiie the management submitted that as the con- cerned workman was above 58 years of age at the time of his permanent disablement dec- lared by the Apex Médical Board he is not entitled to get any benefit as per sub-clausc (ii) of Clause 9.4.3 of the NCWA. It has not been explained by the concerned work- man how hc lost his one cye i.c. whether it was due to his ailment or due to injury bu: il can be said safely that Osteo-arthutis is a disease which led him to permanent physical disablement. Therefore, accordinç to oub- clause (i) of clause 9.4.3 as orteo-arthritis has to be considered as a disease, restriction of age relating to employment to one dépendent according to sub-clause (ii) is not applicable in sub-clause (i) of clause 9.4.3. The manage- ment on the contrary in the W.S. categoricaîiy denied the fact relating to the sufferings of the concerned workman by osteo-Arthrities. The management submitted that he was dec- lared unfit by the Aoex Médical Board on the çround of loss of one eye enmeiented Right cye with Caterathrities. The concern- ed workman had ample scope to estabJish his claim by adducing évidence and relyiair on codent médical board report. The record will speak clearlv that inspite of givine ççverai • chances the concerned workman has failcd to apncar before this Tribunal in the matfcr of takir.e up hearing of the case. He aïso did not consider necessarv to as'sipn-rèason for his non-appearanec before this Tribunal. As 5. Considering the W.S. submitted by the concerned workman and the management I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was underground trammer under the management. It h also admitted position that the concerned workman was terminated from hjs service by the management before due date of his superannuation. Il has bcen agitated by the concerned workman that a-, per the provision of clause 9.4.3 any of his dépendent is entitled to get employment in his place on the ground of his permanent dis ability. The management on the contrary categorically denied the claim of thte con- cerned workman. The management referr- ing to clause 9.4.3 (2) submitted that at the time of his termination from service the con- cerned workman was above 58 years of a.ae and for which he is not enti-led to get any benefit which he has claimed for. Clans,; 9.4.3 ( 1 ) sneaks that -Jisablement of the worker concerned should anse from in jury or disease be of permanent nature resulting info loss cf employment and it should be so certi- fied by the Coal Company concerned, whiie2479 facts disclosed in the W.S. cannot be consi- dered as substantive pièce of évidence tliere is no reason tp draw a conclusion in favour of the concerned workman just reiynj" on the facts disclosed therein. The concerred workman had got ample scope to e"mblish his own claim butvhe 1ns misused the same. Accordingly al this stace T do not %d ;inv scope to cive ary relief îo the concerned work- man ci'.'cording to his prayer. In the rcsult, the following Award is rendered :—
"The action of the management of Bhagaband ColHcry Area No. VII of M|s. BCCL in not nroviding em- ployment to dépendent of Shri Sovi Yadav, U. G. Trammer. Bha.
B. BISWAS, Prcsiding Officer New Delhi, the 20lh February, 2002
S.O. 796.—Whereas the Central Govcrnraen wag of the opinion thàt an Industrial Disputes existec between the management of Air India and tbeir work men;
And whereas the Central Government was of the opinion that the above wcntloned dispute involvcd s question of national importance and should be adjudi- catcd by v National Industrial Tribunal;
And whereai the Central 'Government, in exercise of powers coaferred by Section 7B of tbe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 j, constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministxy of Labour Ordôr No. L-11013|l|934R(Misc.) dtd. 19-1.04993 with headquarter.-, at Bombay and appointed justice R. G. Snidhakar as its Presiùing Officer and in'exer- cise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 1A, oï Section 10 of the ^aid Act, referred the said Indus- trial Di pute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication;
And whereas another National Industrial Tribunal was constituted with heaxiquarters at Bombay with justice R. S. Verma
And Where?-; ïhe above mentioned Industrial Dis-
pute is stUl pending final détermination;
New, therefôrc-, a NatioiXiI Industrial Tribunal is
constituted;
With hcadquarter at Bombay with justice S. C. Pandey as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with the direction that2480 THE GAZETTE OF INDiA : MARCH 2, 2002/PHALGUNA 11, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 (in- justice Pancky shall prececd in îhe matter from the stage it was left by justice R. S. Verma and dispose of thc sanic according to law.
[Fiic No. L-nO13ii!93-lR(Misc.)|[R(C-I)] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
New Delhi, the 20th I-Ybruary, 2002
S.O. 797.—Whereas ihc Central Government was of thc opinion lhat an Industrial Dispute existed between the management of Indian Airlines and their workmen;
And whereas the Central Government was of the opinion thaï the above menttoned dispute should bc adjudicated by a National Industrial Tribunal;
And whereas thc Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7B of the Industrial* Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L-11011|3|89-IR(Misc.) dtd. 7|9-12-1990 with headquarters at Bombay and appointed justice S. N. Khatri as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 1A of Section 10 of the said Act, referred Ihe said Industrial Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudica- tion;
And whereas another National Industrial Tribunal was constituted with headquarters at Bombay with justice R. G. Sindhakàr as its Presiding Officer, vide this .Ministry's Order No. L-1101l!3|89-IR.(Misc.'> dated 12! 13-8-1993 a*i
And whereas another National Industrial Tribunal was constituted with headquacters at Bombay with justice R. S. Verma as its Presiding Officer vide this Ministry's Order No. L-l 1011/3/89-IR (Mise.) (Coal-I) 4ated 11-9-95 and the above said Industrial Dispute rèferred to the said National Industrial Tri- bunal for adjudication with the direction to pro- cesd with the matter from thc stage at which it was left by the previous 'îicunibenl;
And whereas tbe above inentjoned Industrial Dis-
pute is still pending final détermination;
Now, therefore, a National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with headquarter si Bombay with justice S. C. Pandey as its Presiding Officer arid the above said dispute is referred to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication wiflr tk direction tbai2481 New Delhi, the I5th February, 2002 ..notice Pandey shall proceed in the matter irom the stage it was left by Justice R. S. Verma and dispose ci" tha same according to law.
[File No. L4101i|?[89-IR(Misc.)|IR(C-I)]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
S. O. 798.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) cf Section 1 of the Employées' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints ihe lst March, 2002 as the date on wlùch the provirions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which hâve already been brought into forcé) and Chapter V and Vï (except sub-section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 Which hâve already been brought into force) of the said Act shall corne into force in the following are&s in the State of Haryana namely:
District
S. Name of Revenue No. Village
Had Bast No.
1. Kachrauli
Panipat
1
2. Simla Mnlana
2
Panipat
3. Azizula pur
5
Panipat
4. Chandauli
6
Panipat
5. Kutani
8
Panipat
6. Faridpur
17
Panipat
7. Raja Kheri
25
Panipat
8. Binjhol
28
Panipat
9. Sewah
Panipat
32
33
10. Barauli
Panipat
11. Babarpur
34
Panipat
[No. S-38013/3/2002-SS. I]
K. C. JAIN, Director Printed by the Manager Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, New Delbi-110064
and PuMished by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054, 2002