This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं०डी० एल०-33001 /99

REGD . NO . D. L. -33001/99 भारतको राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

सं. 12 ]

No. 12 ]

नई दिल्ली, शनिवार , मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र 1 , 1925 NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1,1925 .

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II- खण्ड 3 - उप- खण्ड ( ii) PART II Section 3 Sub- section ( ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय कोछोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

मंत्रिमंडल सचिवालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2003

का.आ. 960 : -केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. एचडी 168 पीसीआर 2002दिनांक 24 सितंबर, 2002 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से श्री एस. थिम्माराजा कनिष्ठ दूरसंचार अधिकारी , बीएसएनएल, जगलूर टेलीफोन एक्सचेंज, जिला दवनगिरे , कर्नाटक राज्य एवं किन्हीं अन्य व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनयम , 1988 ( 1988 का केन्द्रीय अधिनियम 49 ) की धारा 13 (2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( ई ) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्यंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228 /14/2003- डी.एस.पी.ई. ] शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव 650 GI/ 2003-1

(2515)

CABINET SECRETARIAT

New Delhi , the 13th March , 2003

S.O. 960 :-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5, read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act , No. 25 of1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka issued vide Notification No.HD 168 PCR 2002 dated 24th September , 2002, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka to investigate the offences against Shri S. Thimmaraja, Junior Telecom Officer , BSNL , Jagalur Telephone Exchange , Davangere District , Karnataka State and any other persons for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13 ( 1 ) ( e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and any other offence oroffences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/ 14/2003 -DSPE]

SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 2516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

महरौली रोड, नई दिल्ली-110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

गृह मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च, 2003

का.आ. 961: केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) केअनुसरण में, गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 % से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :

1. रंगरूट प्रशिक्षण केन्द्र-4, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , श्रीनगर ( जम्मूव कश्मीर )

2. कमांडेन्ट 139 बटालियन, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल

3. कार्यालय पुलिस उप- महानिरीक्षक, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, चण्डीगढ़ ( संघ शासित क्षेत्र )

(iii ) अधिसूचित संस्था केन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामोदिष्ट निर्धारण अधिकारी को आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने के अतिरिक्त अपने लेखा परीक्षित वार्षिक लेखों की एक प्रति तथा अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत छूट प्रदान की गई थी, के संबंध में आय एवं व्यय खाते की लेखा परीक्षा की भी एक प्रति संस्था पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले ( क ) आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट ) 10 मिडिलटन रॉ, पांचवां तल , कलकत्ता-700071 (ख) सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग तथा (ग ) आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्तूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगा । 4. कार्यालय पुलिस उप- महानिरीक्षक, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, गुड़गांव ( हरियाणा )

अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है

क्रम अनुमोदित संगठन का नाम सं.

[सं. 12017/1/2002 - हिन्दी]

1. मैसर्स ज्ञान प्रबोधिनी संशोधन

राजेन्द्र सिंह, निदेशक ( राजभाषा)

1-4-2001 से 31-3-2004 तक

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi , the 17th March, 2003

संस्था, ज्ञान प्रबोधिनी भवन, 510, सदाशिव पेठ, पुणे-411030

S.O. 961 : -In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Oficial Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Home Affairs where the percentage of Hindi knowing staff has gone above 80 %:

टिप्पणी:- अधिसूचित संस्था को सलाह दी जाती है कि वे अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए तीन प्रतियों में और पहले ही अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार को आवेदन करें । अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र कीतीन प्रतियां सचिव , वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे भेजी जाएंगी ।

1. Recruit Training Centre - 4. Central Reserve Police Force . Srinagar ( J & K ) .

[अधिसूचना सं. 40/2003/फा.सं. 203/60/2002- आयकर नि.- II ] 2. Comdt. 139 Bn.. Central Reserve Police Force .

संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक (आयकर नि.- II ) 3. Office of Deputy Inspector General ofPolice, Central Reserve Police Force. Chandigarh (UT).

4. Office of Deputy Inspector General of Police , Central Reserve Police Force , Gurgaon (Haryana).

[No. 12017/ 1 /2002-Hindi ]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (Department of revenue) CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003 (Income-Tax)

RAJENDRA SINGH , Director (OL)

वित्त एवं कम्पनी कार्य मंत्रालय

(राजस्वविभाग )

केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड

नई दिल्ली , 26 फरवरी , 2003

(आयकर )

S. O .. 962. It is hereby notified for general information that the organisations mentioned below have been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their names , for the purpose of clause (iii) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income-Tax Rules , 1962 under the category " Institution " subject to the following conditions: -

(1) The notified Institution shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities;

का. आ. 962.- सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार अधोलिखित संगठन को उनके नाम के मामने उल्लिखित अवधि, के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( i ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ ' संस्था ' श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित करती है :-

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its Scientific Research Activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, " Technology Bhawan " , New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year ;

( i ) अधिसूचित संस्था अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों के लिए अलग लेखा बहियों का रख- रखाव करेगा;

(iii ) The notified Institution shall submit , on behalf of the Central Government, to (a ) the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) , 10 Middleton Row , 5th Floor , Kolkata- 700071 (b ) the Secretary , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, ( ii ) अधिसूचित संस्था प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान गति- विधियों की वार्षिक रिटर्न प्रत्येक 31 मई को अथवा उससे पहले सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग " टैक्नोलाजी भवन " न्यू 2517

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र 1 , 1925

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अवधिजिसके लिए

क्रम अनुमोदित संगठन का नाम

सं.

अधिसूचना प्रभावी है

1-4-2001 से 31-3-2004

1 . मैसर्स बैफ विकास अनुसंधान

उरूलीकंचन ताल, हवेली, जिला पुणे -412002

and ( c ) the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax ( Exemptions ) , having jurisdiction over the organisation, on or before the 31st October cach year , a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income and Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under Sub- section (1) ofSection 35 of Income Tax Act , 1961 in addition to the return of Income Tax to the designated assessing officer.

S. No. Name of the Organisation approved

Period for which Notification is cffective

टिप्पणी: - अधिसूचित संघ को सलाह दी जाती है कि वे अनुमोदन केनवीकरण के लिए तीन प्रतियों में और पहले ही अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार को आवेदन करें । अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र की तीन प्रतियां सचिव , वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे भेजी जाएंगी ।

M/s . Jnana Probhodhini

1.

[अधिसूचना सं. 41 /2003/फा.सं. 203/45/2002- आयकर नि.- II ]

1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004

Jnana Probhodhini Bhawan

511) , Sadashiv Peth .

Samshodhan Sanstha , PUNE -411030 .

संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II ) New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003 (Income-Tax)

Note : The notified Institution are advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval, 10 the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction . Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .

S. O. 963. It is hereby notified for general information that the organisations mentioned below has been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against the name, for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 , read with Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 under the category " Association " subject to the following conditions :-

[Notification No. 40/2003/F.No . 203 / 60 /2002/ITA-II ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director (ITA - II )

(1) The notified Association shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities ;

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003 (आयकर )

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Return of its Scientific Research Activities to the Secretary , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research , " Technology Bhawan " , New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year ;

का. आ. 963.-सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार अद्योलिखित संगठन को उनके नाम के सामने उल्लिखित अवधि, के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 35 की उपधारा (i ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ संघ श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित करती है: -

( i ) अधिसूचित संघ अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों के लिए अलग लेखा बहियों का रख - रखाव करेगा;

( ii ) अधिसूचित संघ प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान गतिविधियों की वार्षिक रिटर्न प्रत्येक 31 मई कोअथवा उससे पहले सचिव , वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग " टैक्नोलाजी भवन " न्यूमहरौली रोड, नई दिल्ली-110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

(iii) The notified Institution shall submit , on behalf of the Central Government, to (a) the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions ), 10 Middleton Row, 5th Floor, Kolkata - 700071 (b ) the Secretary; Department of Scientific and Industrial Research , and (c) the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions ) , having jurisdiction over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each year , a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy ofaudited Income and Expenditure Account in respect of its reasearch activities for which exemption was granted under sub - section (1) ofSection 35 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of Income Tax to the designated assessing officer.

S. No. Name of the Organisation approved

Period for which Notification is effective

1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004

1. M/s. BAIF Development Research Foundation , Urulikanchan Tal . Haveli , Distt. PUNE -412202.

Note: The notified Association is advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the (iii ) अधिसूचित संघ केन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामोदिष्ट निर्धारण अधिकारी को आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने के अतिरिक्त अपने लेखा परीक्षित वार्षिक लेखों की एक प्रति तथा अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत छूट प्रदान की गई थी, के संबंध में आय एवं व्यय खाते की लेखा परीक्षा की भी एक प्रति संस्था पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले ( क ) आयकर महानिदेशक (छूट ) 10 मिडिलटन रॉ, पांचवां तल, कलकत्ता-700071 ( ख ) सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग तथा (ग ) आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्तूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगा । 2518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003/ CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 28th February , 2003 (Income-Tax)

approval , to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction . Three copies of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

[Notification No. 41/2003/F.No . 203/45/2002 /ITA -II] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director ( IТА- II)

S. O. 964. It is hereby notified for general information that the organisations mentioned below have been approved by the Central Government for the period mentioned against their name , for the purpose of clause ( ii ) ofsub -section ( I ) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, .. 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 under the category " Institution " subject to the following conditions:-

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2003 (आयकर)

(1) The notified Institution shall maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities ;

का. आ. 964.- सामान्य जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार अद्योलिखित संगठन को उनके नाम के सामने उल्लिखित अवधि, के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6के साथ पठित. आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( i ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ संस्थान श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदिया करती है:-

(ii) The notified Institution shall furnish the Annual Retum of its Scientific Research activities to the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, " Technology Bhawan " , New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110016 for every financial year on or before 31st May of each year ;

(i ) अधिसूचित संस्थान अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों के लिए अलग लेखा बहियों का रख - रखाव करेगा;

(ii) श्रिसूति संस्थान प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी संधान गतिविधियों की वार्षिक रिटर्न प्रत्येक अथवा उससे पहले सचिव, वैज्ञानिक और और उनसंधान विभाग " टैक्नोलाजी भवन" न्यू महरौली से दिल्ली-110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगा; 31-

(iii) The notified Institution shall submit, on behalf of the Central Government , to ( a) the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) , 10 Middleton Row , 5th Floor, Kolkatta - 700071 (b) the Secretary , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and (c) the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director ofIncome Tax (Exemptions) , having jurisdiction over the organisation , on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income and Expenditure Account in respect of its reasearch activities for which exemption was granted under sub- section (1) of Section 35 of Income Tax Act , 1961 in addition to the return of Income Tax to the designated assessing officer.

S. No. Name of the Organisation approved

Period for which Notification is effective

1. Ms/ Centre for Wind

8-3-2000 to 31-3-2002

(iii) अधिसात संकेन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामोदिष्ट निर्धारण अधिकारा को आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने के अतिरिक्त अपने लेखा परीक्षित वार्षिक लेखों की एक प्रति तथा अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ॐ अन्तर्गत छूट प्रदान की गई थी, के संबंध में आय एवं ज्यय खाते की लेखा परीक्षा की भी एक प्रति संस्था पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले (क ) आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट) 10 मिडिलटन रॉ, पांचवा तल, कलकत्ता-700071 (ख ) सचिव, वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग तथा (ग ) आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्तूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

Energy Technology , R-8 , North Main Road , Anna Nagar, West Extension , CHENNAI -6000101 .

मोदित संगठन का नाम अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है

समं मन्टर फार विन्ड एनर्जी 8-3-2000 से 31-3-2002 तक

क्नॉलाजी आर-8, नार्थ मैन रोड, अन्न। नगर,

बेस्ट एक्सटेंशन,

Notes : The notified Institution is advised to apply in triplicates and well in advance for renewal of the approval , to the Central Governinent through the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction . Tlirce copics of application for renewal of approval shall also be sent directly to the Secretary , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .

न्नई -600101

[Notification No. 42/2003/16. No. 203/ 3 /2003 / TA- 11 ] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director ( ITA- II ) नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2003 (आयकर )

अधिसूचित संस्थान को सलाह दी जाती है कि व अनुमोदन के नवीकरण के लिए तीन प्रतियों में और पहले ही अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले आयकर आयुक्त/ आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) के माध्यम से केन्द्र सरकार को आवेदन करें । अनुमोदन के रकरण के लिए आवेदन पत्र की तीन प्रतियां सचिव, निक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग को सीधे भेजी अएंगी।

का. आ. 965.-आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 को 43 ) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 -ग ) के उपखंड ( 5 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा " नांदेड़ सिख गुरुद्वारा

नांदेड़ को 2000-2001 42/2003/फा.सं. 203/3/2003 - आयकर नि. - 11 ] संगीता गुप्त , निदेशक (आयक ) [ [ भाग II खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2519

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

2002-2003, तक के कर निर्धारण वर्षों के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उपखंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूचित करती है , अर्थात्:-

(i ) कर निर्धारित उसकी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा उसकी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;

( ii ) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीको से उसकी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर अथवा किसी अन्य वस्तु आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा;

(iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी, जोकि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

(iv) कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा;

(v) विघटन की स्थिति में अतिरिक्त राशियां और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी । [अधिसूचना सं. 44/2003/फा.सं. 197/09/2003- आई.टी.ए. - 1 ] आई. पी. एस. बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 28th February, 2003 ( INCOME TAX)

S. O. 965.- In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub - clause (v ) of clause ( 23C ) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (43 of1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the "Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Abchalnagar Sahib , Nanded" for the purpose of the said sub -clause for the assessment years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 subject to the following conditions namely: - (1) the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate for application , wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery , furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other wise than in any one or more of the fórins or modes snertin ninn (5) of Section 11;

(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business ;

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Incomne - tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income- taxAct, 1961;

(v) That in the event of dissolution , it surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organization with similar objectives.

[Notification No. 44/2003 /F . No. 197/09/2003 - ITA - JJ I. P. S. BINDRA, Under Secy.

शुद्धि-पत्र नई दिल्ली, 4 मार्च , 2003

का. आ. 966. फा.सं. 205/4/2000- आयकर नि- II आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के खंड 23 ( छ ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा अधिसूचना सं. 319/2001 दिनांक 4-10-2001 के तहत अनुमोदित उद्यम के नाम में निम्नलिखित परिवर्तन करती है: -

2. मैसर्स स्काईसैल कम्यूनिकेसन्स लि. से मैसर्स भारती मोबिनेट लि. में नाम के परिवर्तन और दिनांक 3-10-2001 को निगमितीकरण का नया प्रमाणपत्र जारी करने के फलस्वरूप अधिसूचना के पैरा 3 में अनुमोदित उद्यम को इस प्रकार पढ़ा जाएः -

" निदेशक, ( टीएम -1 ) संचार विभाग के माध्यम से कार्यरत भारत के राष्ट्रपति और मैसर्स स्काईसैल कम्यूनिकेशन प्रा.लि. के मध्य लाइसैंस करार सं . 842-19/93- टीएम दिनांक 30-11-94 के अंतर्गत भारती मोबिनेट लि. ( पूर्व मैसर्स स्काईसैल कम्यूनिकेसन्स लि. ) द्वारा मद्रास टेलिफोन डिस्ट्रिक, माराईमालाई नगर एक्सपोर्ट प्रोसेसिंग जोन (एमईपी-2 ) , मिनजूर और माहाबलिपुरम् द्वारा स्थानीय क्षेत्र में सेवित सेल्यूलर मोबाइल टेलीफोन सेवा । "

[अधिसूचना सं. 46/2003/फा.सं. 205/4/2000- आयकर नि. - II ] संगीता गुप्ता, निदेशक ( आयकर नि.- II) (CORRIGENDUM) New Delhi , the 4th March, 2003

S. O. 966. (F. No. 205/ 4/ 2000/ITA - II) . In exercise ofthe powers conferred in clause 23 ( G) of section 10 of the Income tax Act, 1961 , the Central Government hereby makes the following change in the name of the enterpise approved vide Notification No. 319/2001 dated 4-10-2001 .

2. Consequent upon change of name of M/s Skycell Communications Ltd. to M/s . Bharti Mobinet Ltd. and issue of fresh certificate of incorporation on 3-10-2001 , the enterpise approved in para 3 of the Natification shall be corrected to read as-

"Cellular Mobile Telehpone Service in local area served by Madras Telephone District, Maraimalai Nagar Proccata ( MEP 2 ) , Minzur and Malbamo Mottd. ( formerly M/ s .

2520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

Skycell Communications Ltd. ) , under the license agreement No. 842-19/ 93 - TM dated 30-11-94 between President of India, acting through Director ( TM - I ) , Department of Communication and M/ s Skycell Communication Pvt . Ltd." [Notification No. 46/2003 /F.No . 205 /4/2000/ITA- II] SANGEETA GUPTA, Director ( ITA- II ) नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च , 2003 (आयकर )

का. आ. 967.-आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत्दद्वारा " आल इंडिया टेनिस एसोसिएशन " नई दिल्ली को 2002-2003, तक के कर निर्धारण वर्षों के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूचित करती है, अर्थात्ः-

(i) कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा उसकी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन इस प्रकार के संचयन हेतु उक्त खंड 23 द्वारा यथा संशोधित धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) और ( 3 ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;

( ii ) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात, फर्नीचर अथवा किसी अन्य वस्तु जिसे उपयुक्त खंड 23 के तीसरे परन्तुक के अधीन बोर्ड द्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाए के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहींकरवा सकेगा;

( iii) कर निर्धारिती इसके सदस्यों को किसी भी तरीके से इसकी आय के किसी भाग का संवितरण इससे सम्बद्ध किसी एसोसिएशन अथवा संस्था को अनुदान के अलावा नहीं करेगा; और

( iv) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएँ नहीं रखी जाती हों । [अधिसूचना सं० 48/2003/फा.सं . 196/ 2/2003- आयकर नि.- 1 ] आई. पी. एस. बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव New Dellu , the 5th March 2003 (Income-Tax)

S. O. 967. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (23 ) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the " All India Tennis Association .. New Delhi " for the purpose of the said clause for the assessment year 2002-2003 subject to the following conditions namely:-

(i ) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate it for application , in consonance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) and (3 ) of Section

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii);

11 as modified by the said clause (23 ) for such accumulation wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture or any other article as may be nitofied by the Board under the third provision to the aforesaid clause (23) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other wise than in any one or inore of the forms or modes specified in Sub - section (5) of Section 11;

(iii) the assessee will not distribute any part of its income in any manner to its members except as grants to any association or institution affiliated to it; and

(iv) This notification will not apply in relation to any income, being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainments of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business .

[Notification No. 48/2003/F . No. 196/ 2/2003 - ITA -I ] 1.P.S. BINDRA , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2003 (आयकर )

का. आ. 968.-आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 - ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत्दद्वारा " दी आन्ध्र क्रिकेट एसोसिएशन, गुंटूर " को वर्ष 1997-98 से 1999-2000 तक के कर निर्धारण वर्षों के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूचित करती है, अर्थात:-

( i ) कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा उसकी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन इस प्रकार के संचयन हेतु उक्त खंड 23 द्वारा यथा संशोधित धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) और ( 3 ) के उपबंधों के अनुरूप पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;

( ii ) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि (जेवर- जवाहिरात, फर्नीचर अथवा किसी अन्य वस्तु जिसे उपयुक्त खंड 23 के तीसरे परन्तुक के अधीन बोर्ड द्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाए के रूप में प्राप्त. तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा;

(iii ) कर निर्धारिती इसके सदस्यों को किसी भी तरीके से इसकी आय के किसी भाग का संवितरण इससे सम्बद्ध किसी एसोसिएशन अथवा संस्था को अनुदान के अलावा नहीं करेगा; और

(iv ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2521

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र1 , 1925

जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्तिके लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएँ नहीं रखी जाती हों । [ अधिसूचना सं० 51 /2002/फा.सं . 196/1/2003 - आयकर नि. - 1 ]

आई. पी. एस. बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th March, 2003

(Income-Tax)

S. O. 968. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( 23) of Section 10 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961) . the Central Government hereby notifies the " The Andhra Cricket Association , Guntur" for the purpose of the said sub - clause for the assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 subject to the following conditions namely:-

(i ) the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate it for application , in consonance with the provisions of sub- section (2) and (3 ) of Section 11 as modified by the said clause ( 23 ) for such accumulation wholly and exclusivley to the objects for which it is established:

(ii ) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery , furniture or any other article) as may be notified by the Board under the third provision to the aforesaid clause (23) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub - section (5) of Section 11 :

(iii) the assessee will not distribute any part of its income in any manner to its members except as grants to any association or institution affiliated to it: and

(iv) this notification will not apply in relation to any income , being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainments of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business .

[Notification No. 51 /2002/F . No. 196/ 1 /2003 - ITA- I ] I. P. S. BINDRA, Under Secy.

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2003

का.आ. 969. बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठित धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र में इस सूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च, 2004 तक गुलबर्गा जिला सहकारी केन्द्रीय बैंक लि. ( कर्नाटक ) पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।

[फा. सं. 1 (6 )/2003-ए.सी. ] मंगल मरांडी, अवर सचिव (Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division) New Delhi , the 13th March, 2003 S.O. 969. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949 ) the Central Government on recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to the Gulbarga District Co -operative Central Bank Ltd. (Karnataka) from the date ofpublication of this notification in the Official Gazette to 31st March, 2004.

[F. No. 1 (6)/2003 - AC] MANGAL MARNDI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2003

का.आ. 970:- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठित धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र में इस सूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च, 2004 तक जिला सहकारी केन्द्रीय बैंक मर्यादित , सिवनी ( मध्य प्रदेश ) पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।

[फा. सं. 1 (7)/2003-ए.सी . ] मंगल मरांडी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th March, 2003 S.O. 970 : In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government on recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit , Seoni (M.P. ) from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette to 31st March, 2004 .

[F. No. 1 (7)/2003 - AC] MANGAL MARNDI , Under Secy.

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय (माध्यमिक तथा उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग ) नईदिल्ली, 6 मार्च, 2003

का.आ. 971.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय ( माध्यमिक तथा उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग ) के अन्तर्गत कार्यरत निम्नलिखित 10 केन्द्रीय विद्यालयों को, ऐसी संस्थाओं के रूप में, जिनमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है :-

1. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय,

खानापारा , गुवाहाटी, कामरूप ( असम) पिनः 781022.

2. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय नं. -1 , इटानगर, डाकघर-नाहर लगन , (अरुणाचल प्रदेश) , पिनः 791110.

2522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003/ CHAITRA 1 , 1925

3. केन्द्रीयविद्यालय, वायु सेना स्थल, बख्शी का तालाब, लखनऊ ( उ.प्र . )

4. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय , बी.एच.ई.एल. नगर, हरिद्वार-249403.

5. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, छिंदवाड़ा ( मध्य प्रदेश)

6. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, महासमुन्द ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) , पिन:493445.

7. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, किरन्दुल, जिला-दन्तेवाड़ा, छत्तीसगढ़ -494556.

8. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, सीधी ( मध्य प्रदेश ) , पिनः 486661 .

9. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय , केन्द्रीय कर्मशाला, जयन्त परियोजना, जिला-सीधी ( मध्य प्रदेश ) , पिनः 486890.

10. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, अम्बिकापुर ।

[सं . 11011-4/2003 - रा.भा.ए. ] डी.पी. बन्दूनी , निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (Department of Sec. & Higher Education) New Delhi , the 6th March, 2003

S.O. 971. In pursuance of sub -rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Govt . hereby notifies the following 11) Kendriya Vidyalayas under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Deptt . of Sec . & Higher Education) whose more than 80 % members of the staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi:-

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Khanapara , Guwahati . Kamroop (Assam), Pin: 781022 .

2. Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1 . Itanagar. P.O. Nahar Lagan, Arunachal Pradesh , Pin: 791110.

3. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Air Force Station, Baxi Lake, Lucknow (U.P. )

4. Kendriya Vidyalaya, B.H.E.L. Nagar, Haridwar.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) | 5. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh .

6. Kendriya Vidyalaya , Mahasamund ( Chhattisgarh) , Pin:493445.

7. Kendriya Vidyalaya , Kirandul, Distt. Dantewara . Chhattisgarh -494556 .

8. Kendriya Vidyalaya , Seedhi (Madhya Pradesh), Pin: 486661.

9. Kendriya Vidyalaya , Central Workshop 、 JayantProject, Dist . Seedhi ( M.P. ) , Pin:486890 ,

It) . Kendriya Vidyalaya , Ambikapur.

[No. 11011-4/2003- O.L.U . ] D.P. BANDOONI , Director ( O.L. ) नागरविमानन मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च, 2003

का.आ. 972.- केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 1994 ( 1994 का 55 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, तत्काल प्रभाव से भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के बोर्ड में डॉ. एस.एन.ए. जैदी, संयुक्त सचिव ,, नागर विमानन मंत्रालय और श्री टी.के. मित्रा, सुरक्षा आयुक्त ( नागर विमानन ) , नागर विमानन सुरक्षा ब्यूरो , क्रमशः श्री अनुराग गोयल , संयुक्त सचिव और श्री वीरन्ना ऐवल्ली, पूर्व सुरक्षा आयुक्त ( नागर विमानन ) , के स्थान पर अंशकालिक सदस्यके रूप में नियुक्ति करती है ।

[संख्या एवी-24015/005/94-वीबी] के. रामाकृष्णनन , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION New Delhi , the 10th March , 2003

S.O. 972. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act , 1994 (No. 55 of 1994) , the Central Government hereby appoints Dr. S. N. A. Zaidi , Joint Secretary , Ministry of Civil Aviation and Shri T.K. Mitra , Commissioner of Security (Civil Aviation), Bureau of Civil Aviation Security as Part- timeMembers on the Board of Airports Authority of India vice Shri Anurag Goel , Joint Secretary and Shri Veeranna Aivalli , former Commissioner of Security ( Civil Aviation ) repectively with immediate effect .

[No. AV-24015/005/94 -VB ] K. RAMAKRISHNAN , Under Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

2523 पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च , 2003

का. आ. 973.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारत के राजपत्र, भाग 2 , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड (ii) तारीख 30 मार्च 2002 में पृष्ठ 3179 से पृष्ठ 3189 पर प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मन्त्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 1092 तारीख 27 मार्च , 2002 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात :-

उक्त अधिसूचना के इस अनुसूची में:-

(क)

पृष्ठ 3181 पर, स्तंभ 1 में गाँव " मोतीसरा " के सामने ;

(i) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 185" , में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-07 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 1-10 " , रखा जाएगा ;

(ii) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 248" , में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-01 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल "0-02 " , रखा जाएगा ;

(iii) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 248 " , स्तंभ 3 में भाग "1 ", में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 1-00" , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 1-09" , रखा जाएगा ;

(iv) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 249 " , में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-03 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल "0-08 " , रखा जाएगा ;

(ख)

पृष्ठ 3182 पर, स्तंभ 1 में गाँव "राखी" के सामने ;

( i) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 998 " , में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-03 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 2-06" , रखा जाएगा ;

(ii) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 995 " , स्तंभ 3 में ( कार्ट ट्रेक सरकारी भूमि) , में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-02 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-06" , रखा जाएगा ;

(iii) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 1043 " , के स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-13" , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 0-19" , रखा जाएगा ;

(iv) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 1038 " , भाग "5" स्तंभ 3 में "सड़क राखी से सिवाना सरकारी भूमि , में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-02 " , के स्थान पर, क्षेत्रफल "0-06" , रखा जाएगा ;

650G1/03-2 2524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] (v) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 1038 " , स्तंभ 3 में (बंजर सरकारी भूमि) , में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 3-08 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 5-04" , रखा जाएगा ;

(ग)

पृष्ठ 3183 पर स्तंभ 1 में गाँव "राखी" के सामने ;

(i) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 810 " , स्तंभ 3 में भाग "2 " , में" स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल "0-09 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 1-16 " , रखा जाएगा ;

(ii) स्तंभ 2 के सर्वेक्षण संख्या " 614 " , में स्तंभ 4 में क्षेत्रफल " 0-01 " , के स्थान पर क्षेत्रफल " 1-07 " , रखा जाएगा ;

[फा. सं. आर-31015/23/2001- ओ.आर- ।। ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM ANID NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2003

S. O. 973. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O 1092 dated the 27th March , 2002, published at pages 3189 to 3198, in Part II , section 3 , sub- section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 30th March, 2002, namely: -

In this Schedule to the said notification: -

(A)

at page 3191 , against Village " Motisara " ,

(i) in Survey no . " 185 " , in column 2, for the area " 0-07 " in column 4 , the area " 0-10 " , shall be substituted;

(ii) in Survey no . "248 " , in column 2 , for the area "0-01 " in column 4, the area " 0-02" , shall be substituted;

(iii) in Survey no. "248 " , in column 2, part " 1 " , in column 3 , for the area " 1- 00" in column 4, the area " 1-09 " , shall be substituted;

(iv) in Survey no . "249 " , in column 2 , for the area "0-03 " in column 4, the area " 0-08" , shall be substituted;

(B)

at page 3192 , against Village " Rakhi ",

(i) in Survey no . "998 " , in column 2, for the area "0-03 " in column 4, the area "2-06" , shall be substituted ;

(ii) in Survey no . " 995 " , in column 2, part " Cart Track G.L. " in column 3 , for the area " 0-02 " in column 4, the area "0-6 " , shall be substituted;

(iii) in Survey no . " 1043 " , in column 2, for the area " 0-13 " in column 4 , the area " 0-19 " , shall be substituted;

( iv) in Survey no. " 1038 " , in column 2, part 5 Road Rakhi to Siwana G.L. , " in column 3 , for the area " 0-02 " in column 4 , the area "0-06 " , shall be substituted;

( iv) in Survey no . " 1038 " , in column 2, part " Banjer G.L. , " in column 3 , for the area " 3-08 " in column 4 , the area " 5-04", shall be substituted;

2525

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र1 , 1925

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

at page 3193 , against Village "Rakhi " ,

(C)

(i) in Survey no . " 810 " , in column 2, part " 2 " , in column 3 , for the area "0-- 09" in column 4, the area " 1-16 " , shall be substituted;

(ii) in Survey no. "614 " , in column 2, for the area "0-01 " , the area " 1-07 " , in column 4, shall be substituted;

[No. R-31015/23/2001 -O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च, 2003

का. आ. 974.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3239 तारीख 9 अक्तूबर , 2002 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 12 अक्तूबर , 2002 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुरू गोबिन्दसिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी) द्वारा मुन्द्रा- भटिंडा अपरिष्कृत तेल पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा पत्तन स्थित अपरिष्कृत तेल संस्थापन से पंजाब राज्य में भटिंडा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 14 नवम्बर 2002 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी) में निहित होगा । 2526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) )

अनुसूची

राज्य राजस्थान

जिला : बाड़मेर

तहसील सिवाना

ROU क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाग

हिस्सा क्रमांक

स्त्रसश नं.

बिस्वा

बीघा

सं.

3

2

4

1

02

0

1000

1

1

03

1048

1

02

1

1048

1

08

1044

0

01

1041

2

14

1042

2

05

2

1038

0

05

1111

3

18

763

10

764

1

0

11

781

03

1

782

1

04

783

1

0

01

784

0

14

784

17

2

1

784

1

11

789

01

0

788

2

05

798

0

1

05

798

1

03

797

0

01

804

2

16

805

1

07

807

1

06

809

0

698

04

G.L.

0

02

615

[फा. सं. आर-31015/ 23/2001- ओ.आर- ।। ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2003

S. O. 974.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.3239 , dated the 9th October, 2002, published in Gazette of India dated the 12th October, 2002 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the 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 petroleum products from crude oil terminal at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab through Mundra - Bathinda crude oil pipeline by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited ( a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) ;

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2527

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र1 , 1925

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 14th November, 2002 ;

And whereas, the competent authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;

And whereas, the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying pipeline, has decided to acquire the right of user therein ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification 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 the date of publication of the declaration, in the Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited ( a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

rehsil : Siwana

District : Barmer

State: Rajasthan

ROU - Area

PartIfAny

Name of Village Survey No.

1

2

3 Rakhi

1000

1

1048

1048

1044

1041

1042

2

1038

1111

763

764

781

782

783

1

784

784

784

2

789

788

798

1

798

797

804

805

807

Biswa

Biga

4

0

02

1

03

1

02

08

1

0

01

2

14

05

2

05

0

18

3

1

10

11

0

03

1

04

1

0

01

0

14

17

1

1

11

01

0

05

2

0

05

1

03

0

01

2

16

07

1 2528

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Siwana

District : Barmer

State: Rajasthan

ROU - Area

PartIfAny

Survey No.

Nameof Village

Biswa

Biga

3

4

2

1

06

1

809

04

0

G.L.

698

Rakhi (Contd.)

02

0

615

[No. R- 31015/23/2001 -O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च , 2003

का. आ. 975.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 2351 तारीख 11 जुलाई 2002 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2, खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 20 जुलाई , 2002 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा मुन्द्रा- भर्टिन्डा अपरिष्कृत तेल पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा पत्तन स्थित अपरिष्कृत तेल संस्थापन से पंजाब राज्य में भर्टिन्डा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 20 अगस्त 2002 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर संक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हे अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है :

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) में निहित होगा । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2529 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र1 , 1925

अनुसूची

तहसील:- अन्जार

जिला:- कच्छ

राज्य: - गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सँख्या

भाग यदी है तो

हेक्टर आर मेन्टी आर

1

2

3

4

भीमासर

622

00 19 80

623

पैकी

00 15 36

625/2

00 00 56

624

00 18 66

626

00 00 17

627

पैकी

00 17 90

627

पकी

00 17 46

628

पकी

35

00

22

628

पकी

00 42 69

00

मेटल रोड

01 90

ट्रार्वम 785 पेकी

00 15 70

663

00 03 38

671

00 00 35

670

00 59 65

664

00 27 83

665

पकी

00 22 53

666

00 00 51

ट्रार्बम 785 पकी

00 14 41

00

कार्ट ट्रेक

01

50

715

00 36 92

717

00 45 63

00 03 91

742

00 24 53

741

00 23 06

740

पकी

00 00 37

732

00 41 23

733

00 00 39

737

00 00 84

736

पका

00 14

11

नान्ना

00 01 03

777

00

36 45

776

00 28 26

ट्रार्वस 785

पकी

00 08 37

35

00 29 97

36

00 29 49

40/1

00 23 55

39

00 29 86 2530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003/CHAITRA 1 , 1925

2

1.

ट्रार्वस 785 पैकी

17

पकी भीमासर (जारी...)

पैकी

17

17

पैकी

787

ट्रार्वस 785 पैकी

ट्रार्वस 785 पैकी

पैकी

79

पैकी

79

81

पैकी

80

82

91

90

89

93

95

98/2

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 785

101

100

99

305

पसुडा

306

308

307

334

335

332

पैकी

336

337

338/1

342

पैकी

346

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 3

4

36

22

00

00 15 77

00 19 09

00 00 90

कार्ट ट्रेक

38

00 18

09

03

00

62

00 01

नाला

00 03 11

40 64

00

00 41 98

00 41 75

33

00 04

00 22 35

46 94

00

59

00 03

00 14 98

50

00 12

नाला

00 28 28

38

00 32

00 23 22

00 52

00

00 06 69

00 23 77

00 53 62

09 38

00

00 08 73

43

00 34

00

31

00

00 28 99

11 71

00

10 81

00

00 21 71

00 07 24

00 21 89

00 29 71

06 55

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

1

2

327/1

326

पसुडा (जारी...)

325

348

349

352

368/1

368/2

371/3

366

पैकी

363

पैकी

380

पैकी

380

पैकी

30

31

34

33

2531 3

4

00 12

71

00 09 35

00 09 29

00 40 48

00 25 07

00 09 73

00 04 38

00 14

10

00 00 60

00 32 73

00 35 96

गौचर

01 16 83

कार्ट ट्रेक

00 06 81

00

13

98

00

15

33

00

30

24

00

39

22 [फा. सं. आर-31015/47/2001-ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2003

S. O. 975.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.2351 dated the 11th July 2002, issued under sub- section ( 1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lan ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 20th July 2002, the 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 petroleum products from crude oil terminal at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab through Mundra- Bathinda crude oil pipeline by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited ( a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) ;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 20thAugust 2002;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;

And whereas the competent authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government ;

650G1/03-3 2532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline and has decided to acquire the right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1) of section 6 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification 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 the date of publication of the declaration, in the Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (A subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District: - Kutch Taluka :- Anjar

SurveyNo

Nameof Village

1

2

Bhimasar

622

P

623

625/2

624

626

627

627

628

628

P

Trowers 785

663

671

670

664

P

665

666

P

Trowers 785

715

717

742

741

P

740

State:- Gujarat

ROU Area

PartifAny

Ha. Ar . Sq.mt.

4

3

00 1.9 80

00 15 36

00 00 56

00 18 66

00 00 17

00 17 90

00 17 46

00 35 22

00

42 69

Metal Road

00 01 90

00 15 70

00 03 38

00 00 35

00 59 65

00 27 83

00 22 53

00 00 51

00

14 41

CartTrack

00 01 50

00 36 92

00 45 63

Nala

00 03 91

00 24 53

00 23 06

00 00 37 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र1, 1925

1

2

732

733 Bhimasar (Contd...)

737

P

736

777

776

P

P

Trowers 785

35

36

40/1

39

P

Trowers 785

17

PP

17

P

17

787

P

Trowers 785

Trowers 785

79 PPP

79

81

P

80

82

91

90

89

93

95

98/2

P

Trowers 785

101

100

99

2533 3

4

00 41 23

00 00 39

00 00 84

00 14 11

Stream

00 01 03

00 36 45

00 28 26

00 08 37

00 29 97

00 29 49

00 23 55

00 29 86

00 22 36

00 15 77

00 19 09

CaitTrack

00 00 90

00 18 38

00 03 09

00

Stream

01 62

03

00

11

00 40 64

00 41 98

00 41 75

00 04 33

00

22 35

00 46 94

00 03 59

00

14 98

Nala

00 12 50

00 28 28

00 32 38

00 23 22

00 00 52

00 06 69

00 23 77

00 53 62 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

State:- Gujarat

District:- Kutch

Tatuka :- Anjar

ROU Area

PartifAny

SurveyNo

Name of Village

Ha. Ar. Sq.mt.

4

3

2

1

00 09 38

Pasuda

305

00 08 73 306

34 43

00

308

00 31

00

307

28 99

00

334

00 11 71

335

00 10 81 332

P

21 71

00

336

00 07 24 337

21 89

00

338/1

P

29 71

00

342

00 06 55 346

00 12 71 327/1

00 09 35

326

00 09 29

325

40 48

00

348

00 25 07

349

09 73

00

352

04 38

00

368/1

10

00 14

368/2

00 60

00

371 :3

00 32 73

366

35 96

30

363

33

00 16

380

Gauchar

00

21

06

Cart Track

380

13 98

30

| 30

15 33

00

31

30 24

00

34

39 22

33

00

[No. R- 31015/47/2001 - O.R. - II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

2535 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र1 , 1925

नई दिल्ली, 17 मार्च, 2003

का. आ. 976.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 2352 तारीख 11 जुलाई 2002 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2, खंड 3, उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 20 जुलाई 2002 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) द्वारा मुन्द्रा- भर्टिन्डा अपरिष्कृत तेल पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा पत्तन स्थित अपरिष्कृत तेल संस्थापन से पंजाब राज्य में भर्टिन्डा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 17 सितम्बर 2002 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ; है

< और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया, और उन्हे अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है ;

और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी ) में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य :- गुजरात

तहसील :- अन्जार

जिला: - कच्छ

क्षेत्रफल

भाग यदी है तो

सर्वे सँख्या

गाँव का नाम

आर सेन्टी आर

हेक्टर

4

3

2

1

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 600

चन्द्राडा

249

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 600

254

25 55 39 74 83

00 00 00 00 00

33 29 45 07 45

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 600 2536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003/CHAITRA 1 , 1925

1

2

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 600

268

चन्द्राडा (जारी...)

266

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 600

271

272/1

पैकी

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 600

273

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 600

279/1

279/3

पैकी

280

277

276/1 -B

282

283

पैकी

ट्रार्वस 600

436

422

435/4

434/3

434/1

444/2

444/3

488

487/1

487/2

485/1

485/2

478

पैकी

477

475/1

476

470

469

468

455

पैकी

457

456

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 3

4

00

29

23

07

00

35

00

20

05

00

11

77

00

22

80

00

20

78

00

28

65

29

62

00

00

02

90

33

00

25

00

65

11

00

00

19

00

14

62

00

42

49

00

19

78

00

33

88 नदी

00

05

73

00

17

56

00

00

कार्ट ट्रेक

35

00

12

89

00

नाला

01

97

00

31

61

00

01

03 कार्ट ट्रेक

00

18

86

00

78

11

00

30

16

00

27

32

00

18

12

00

21

51

00

01

कार्ट ट्रेक

81

00

00

75

00

18

79

00

19

74

00

15

15

00

00

04

नाला

00

03

80

00

06

70

00

14

71

00

21

23

00

18

91

00

12

81

00 15

31

00

19

33

00 27

65

00

04

43

00

20

82 [फा. सं. आर-31015/47/2001-ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2537

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2003

S. O. 976.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.2352 dated the 11th July 2002, issued under sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 20th July 2002, the 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 petroleum products from crude oil terminal at Mundra Port in the State of Gujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab through Mundra- Bathinda crude oil pipeline by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited ( a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited);

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 17th September 2002;

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority;

And whereas the competent authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report to the Central Government ;

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification 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 the date of publication of the declaration, in the Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited ( a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District:- Kutch

Taluka:- Anjar

State:- Gujarat

ROU Area Nameof Village Survey No

PartifAny

Ha.

Ar. Sq.mt. 1

2

3

4 Trowers 600 P

Chandroda

33 249

29 Trowers 600 P

45 254

07

P

Trowers600

45

P

Trowers 600

29 268

07 266

20 Trowers 600 P

11 271

22 272/1

P

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

20

25 55 39 74 83 23 35 05 77 80 78 2538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 6 , 2002/ASADHA 15, 1924

1

2

P

Trowers 600

273

Chandroda (Contd.)

P

Trowers 600

279/1

P

279/3

280

277

276/1-B

282

283

P

Trowers 600

436

422

435/4

434/3

434/1

444/2

444/3

488

487/1

487/2

485/1

485/2

478

P

477

475/1

476

470

469

468

455

P

457

456

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 3

4

00

65

28

00

29 62

00

02 90

33

25

00

00

11

65

00

00

19

00

62

14

00

42 49

00

19 78

33

00

88

00

73 River

05

00

56

17

Cart Track

00

35

00

00

89

12

01

97 Nala

00

00

61

31

CartTrack

01

00

03

00

18 86

00

11

78

00

16 30

00

32

27

00

18

12

00

21

51 CartTrack

00

01

81

00

00

75

00

18 79

00

19 74

00

15 15

00

00

04

00

Nala

80

03

00 06 70

00

14

71

00

21

23

00

18 91

00

12

81

15

00

31

00

19

33

27

65

00

43

04

00

00

20

82

[No. R-31015/47/2001 -O.R. -II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

[भाग [ 1- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2003

का. आ. 977.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैण्डर्ड चार्टेड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कम-लेबर कोर्ट, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई . डी. नं. 36/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/451/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

2539

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

For the Management : M/s. T. S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates .

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour in excrcise ofpowers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , have referred the concerned industria dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 12012/451/99- IR(B - 1) dated 14-02-2000.

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003

S.O. 977. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( 1.D. No. 36/ 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 Standard Chartered Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2003 .

[No. L - 12012/451 / 99 - IR (B.1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 24th February, 2003

Present : K. Karthikeyan , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 36/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No.80/2000 ) [ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofSub -section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Workmen and the Management of Standard Chartered Bank]

BETWEEN :

I Party/Workman Shri M. Rajendran

AND

: II Party/Management 1. The Regional Director, HR ( MESA ) Standard

Chartered Bank . Mumbai

2. The Manager . Standard Chartered Bank , Chennai .

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : M/ s. K. Desingh ,

S. Arunachalaı .

& C. Reghurajan,

Advocates

650 G1/03-4

This reference has been made earlier to the Tainil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 80.2000 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Governinent of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of recordes from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 36/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing then about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 23-01-2001 and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, they have appeared and prosecuted this case further.

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above mentioned order of reference by the Central Govt . for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows : -- "Whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered bank in terminating the services of the workman Sri M. Rajendran with effect from 31-07-1999 is justified? If not , to what relief is he entitled ? "

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner against the management of Standard Chartered Bank . Challenging the action of the management for terminating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31-07-1999 as illegal and unjustified.

3. One Sri M. Solai , the Petitioner in I.D. No. 37/2001 has given evidence as a common witness WW1 for all these cases I.D. Nos . 30 to 37/2001 . The documents relied upon by the Petitioners have been marked separately in their respective cases as Workmen's exhibits .

4. When the matter is pending enquiry , an attempt has been made by both the parties to arrive at a settlement of these disputes amicably among themsetves. A joint memo has been filed by the parties to the dispute contending that both the parties are agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly. the Petitioner is not pressing his claim for the employment and that additional monetary compensation for petitioner can be considered on humanitarian grounds and fixation of additonal monetary compensation payable to the Petitioners may be left with the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the decision given by this Tribunal awarding compensation to the Petitioners shall not be challenged 2540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003/ CHAITRA 1 , 1925

or questioned by either of the parties before any Court and that the Tribunal also mention a date within which theadditional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner and this Hon'ble Tribunal can pass an award on the basis of the joint memo. This joint memo has been recorded .

5. In the joint memo , it is mentioned that the Petitioner has been put in six years of service and his last drawn wage was Rs . 2.400/ - per month and the Petitioner was paid Rs . 9,600/- at the time of settling his dues.

6. While advancing arguments on the side of the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo along with the xerox copy of 2A petitions filed by two other workmen against the same management of Standard Chartered and Grindlays Bank and also the xcrox copy of the cheques issued to those Petitioners by the bank while amicably settling their claims. They are one Mr. Mathivanan and the another Mr. Ehunalai , who were working as supplier and cook respectively and their last drawn salary was Rs . 1400 /- and Rs.2200/ - respectively per month and they have put in service of 8 years and 7 years respectively . Each of them was given a monetary compensation of Rs . 1.25,000/ - against their claim of reinstatement in service . This has not been denied by the Respondent/Bank management.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent /Bank relying upon judgement of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 II LLJ 509 between O. P. BHANDARI and INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that " compensation equivalent of 3.33 years salary on the basis of lastdrawn pay and allowances wouldbe a reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement." In that case, the concerned cinployce had eight years of service for his superannuation. Considering all the aspects , the Supreme Court was of the view that 50% of the annual salary and allowances can be taken into consideration in fixing up the quantum of compensation.

8. So on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel on cither side , the following Award is passed as Settlement Award :-

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 9. The Petitioner Sri M. Rajendran had put in six years of service and had drawn Rs.2,400/ - per month as his last drawn pay and he was paid Rs . 9,600 /- at the time of settling his dues , as per the joint memo filed by both the partics.

10. For 6 years of service on the basis of last drawn pay Rs.2.400/- per month , the total amount comes to Rs . 1,72,800 /- Out of which 50% is Rs.86,400/-In this . the amount he has been paid at the time of settling his ducs by the Respondent/Bank Rs.9,600/- has to be deducted and the balance amount of Rs . 76,800/- ( Rupees Seventy Six Thousand Eight Hundred only) has been fixed as additional monetary ompensation to be paid by the Respondent/Bank management within a period of one month from this date, failing which the Respondent/Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12 % per annum to this additional inonetary compensation from this date till the date of its actual payment to the Petitioner .

11. The Joint Memo filed by both the parties dated 2nd December , 2002 shall form part of this Award.

(Dictatedto the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th February , 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Encl: Copy of JointMemo dated 2-2-2002 .

Witnesses Examined :-

For the 1 Party/Workman : WW1 Sri Solai- common witness for ID Nos . 30 to 37/2011

For the II Party/Management : None

Documents Exhibited :-

For the I Party/Workman :-

Ex.No. Date

Description

WI 30-7-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respondent .

W2 31-7-99 Xerox copy of the termination notice sent by Respondent with cheque.

W3 20-8-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Respondent to Petitioner .

W4 10-1-2000 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respondent .

For the II Party/Management :- Nil

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI C.G. I. D. NO . 36 OF 2001

Petitioner

:

M. Rajendran

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that compensation equivalent to 50% of the total salary of the workman calculated on the basis of the total years of service to that of his last drawn pay can be a reaonable amount that can be awarded as a monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in service . In that total amount calculated, the amount that has already been paid to the Petitioner has to be deducted and the balance amount has to be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Bank Management within a period of one month , failing whielt the Respondent shall pay that amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 12 % per annum , from this date till the date ofpayment.

Vs.

Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank : Respondent [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES 1. It is agreed that the Petitioner has served the respondent for six years on the date of cessation of engagement . His last drawn wage was Rs. 2400/- per month. The Petitioner was paid Rs . 9,600/- at the time of settling his dues .

2. It is agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Petitioner is not pressing his claim for employment .

3. It is agreed that the Petitioner could on humanitarian grounds , be considered for additional monetary compensation.

4. It is agreed that the question of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioner may be left to the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal .

5. It is agreed that any decision given by this Hon'ble Tribunal awarding compensation shall not be chellenged or called in question by either of the parties before any Forum .

6. It is also agreed that the Tribunal will also mention the date , within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner .

7. It is agreed that this Memo may be kept as part of the record of this Hon'ble Tribunal and an award may be made on the basis of this Memo .

2002. Dated at Chennai , this the 2nd day of December,

Sd./-

Counsel for Petitioner

Counselfor Respendent नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2003

का. आ. 978.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैण्डर्ड चार्टेड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- कम- लैबर कोर्ट, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. नं. 35/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/450/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003

S.O. 978. In pursuance of Section 17.of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 35/ 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 Standard Chartered Bank and their

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

2541 workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2003.

[No. L- 12012/450/99 - IR(B.1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNΑΙ Monday , the 24th February , 2003

Present : K. Karthikeyan , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 35/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No.81 / 2000) [ 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 Workmen and the Management of Standard Chartered Bank] .

BETWEEN :

Mrs. Selvi ( a) Tamil Selvi : I Party/Workman

AND

: II Party/Management 1. The Regional Director , HR(MESA) Standard Chartered Bank , Mumbai .

2. The Manager ,

Standard Chartered Bank, Chennai .

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : M/ s. K. Desingh ,

S. Arunachalam , & C. Reghurajan , 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 Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 12012/450/99- IR(B - I ) dated 14-02-2000 .

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 81/2000 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of recordes from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 35/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing then about the transfer of this case to this 2542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 23-01-2001 and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, they have appeared and prosecuted this case further.

working as supplier and cook respectively and their last drawn salary was Rs . 1400/- and Rs.2200/- respectively per month and they have put in service of 8 years and 7 years respectively . Each of them was given a monetary compensation of Rs.1.25,000/- against their claim of reinstatement in service . This has not been denied by the Respondent/Bank management .

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

"Whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered bank in terminating the services of the workman Mrs. Selvi ( a) Tamil Selvi with effect from 31-07-1999 is justified? If not , to what relief is she entitled?"

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner against the management of Standard Chartered Bank . Challenging the action of the management for terminating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31-07-1999 as illegal and unjustified.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Bank relying itpon judgement of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 11 LLJ 5t ) 9 between O. P. BHANDARI and INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that " compensation equivalent of 3.33 years salary on the basis of last drawn pay and allowances would be a reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement ." In that case , the concerned employcehad eight years of service for his superannuation . Considering all the aspects, the Supreme Court was of the view that 50% of the annual salary and allowances can be taken into consideration in fixing up the quantum of compensation.

3. One Sri M. Solai , the Petitioner in 1.D. No. 37/2001 has given evidence as a common witness WWI for all these cases I.D. Nos . 30 to 37/2001 . The documents relied uponby the Petitioners have been marked separately in their respective cases as Workmen's exhibits .

8. So on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel on either side , the following Award is passed as Settlement Award : -

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that compensation equivalent to 50% of the total salary of the workman calculated on the basis of the total years of service to that of his last drawn pay can be a reasonable amount that can be awarded as a monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in service . In that total amount calculated, the amount that has already been paid to the Petitioner has to be deducted and the balance amount has to be paid to the Petitionerby the Respondent/Bank Management within a period of one month , failing which the Respondent shall pay that amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 12 % per annum , from this date till the date of payment .

9. The Petitioner Mrs. Selvi ( a) Tamil Selvi had put in nine years of service and had drawn Rs.2,400)/- per month as her last drawn pay and she was paid Rs . 8,400/ - at the time of setting her dues , as per the joint memo filed by both the parties.

4. When the matter is pending enquiry , an attempt has been made by both the parties to arrive at a settlement of these disputes amicably among themselves . A joint memo has been filed by the parties to the dispute contending that both the parties are agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly, the Petitioner is not pressing her claim for employment and that additional monetary compensation for petitioner can be considered on humanitarian grounds and fixation of additonal monetary compensation payable to the Petitioners may be left with the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the decision given by this Tribunal awarding compensation to the Petitioners shall not be challenged or questioned by either of the parties before any Court and that the Tribunal also mention a date within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner and this Hon'ble Tribunal can pass an award on the basis of the joint memo . This joint memo has been recorded.

5. In the joint memo , it is mentioned that the Petitioner has put in nine years of service and her last drawn wage was Rs . 2.400/ - per month and the Petinioner was paid Rs . 8,400 /- at the time of settling her dues .

6. While advancing arguments on the side of the Petitioner , the learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo along with the xerox copy of 2A petitions filed by two other workman against the sante management of Standard Chartered and Grindlays bank and also the xerox copy of the cheques issued to those Petitioners by the bank while amicably settling their claims . They are one Mr. Mathivanan and the another Mr. Elumalai , who were

10. For 9 years of service on the basis of last drawn pay Rs.2,400/- per month, the total amount comes to Rs . 2,59,2100 / - Out of which 50% is Rs . 1,29,600/- In this , the amount she has been paid at the time of settling her dues by the Respondent/Bank Rs.8,400/ - has to be deducted and the balance amount of Rs. 1,21,200)/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred only ) has been fixed as additional monetary compensation to be paid by the Respondent/ Bank management within a period of one month from this date, failing which the Respondent/ Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to this additional monetary compensation from this date till the date of its actual payment to the Petitioner .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2543 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22 , 2003 /चैत्र 1 , 1925

chellenged or called in question by either of the parties before any Forum .

11. The Joint Memo filed by both the parties dated 2nd December , 2002 shall form part of this Award.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th February, 2003. )

6. It is agreed that the Tribunal will also mention the date, within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner .

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Encl : Copy of Joint Memo dated 2-2-2002.

7. It is agreed that this Memo may be kept as part ofthe record of this Hon'ble Tribunal and an award may be made on the basis of this Memo .

Witnesses Examined :-

Forthe I Party/Workman : WW1 Sri M. Solai Common

Dated at Chennai , this the 2nd day of December , 2002 .

witness for ID Nos . 30 to 37/2001

Sd/-

Counsel for Petitioner

Sd/- Counsel for Respondent For the II Party/Management : None

Documents Exhibited :-

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2003

For the I Party/Workman :-

Date

Ex.No.

Description

WI

30-7-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respondent .

W2 31-7-99 Xerox copy of the termination notice sent by Respondent with cheque.

का. आ. 979.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैण्डर्ड चार्टर्ड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कम- लैबर कोर्ट, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई . डी. नं. 34/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

20-8-99

W3

[सं. एल -12012/449/99- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Respondent to Petitioner .

W4

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी 10-1-2000 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respondent.

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003

For the II Party/Management :- Nil

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI

C.G.I.D. NO . 35 OF 2001

: Petitioner

Ms. S. Selvi alias tamil Selvi

VS.

Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank : Respondent

S.O. 979. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 34/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employe inrelation to the management of Standard Chartered Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2003 .

JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES

[No. L- 12012/449/99 - IR( B.I ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

1. It is agreed that the Petitioners has served the Respondent for nine years on the date of cessation of engagement. Her last drawn wage was Rs . 2400/- per month . The Petitioner was paid Rs . 8,400/- at the time of settling her dues .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 24th February , 2003

Present: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer 2. It is agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Petitioner is not pressing her claim for employment .

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 34/2001

(Tamil Nadu State industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 82/ 2000)

3. It is agreed that the Petitioner could on humanitarian grounds , be considered for additional monetary compensation.

4. It is agreed that the question of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioner may be left to the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal .

[Inthe 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 Workmen and the Management of Standard Chartered Bank)

5. It is agreed that any decision given by this Hon'ble Tribunal awarding compensation shall not be 2544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] BETWEEN :

Mrs. D. Lalitha

: 1 Party/ Workman

AND

for all these cases 1. D. Nos . 30 to 37/2001 . The documents relied upon by the Petitioners have been marked separately in their respective cases as workmen's exhibits .

1. The Regional Director, : II Party/Management

HR ( MESA ) Standard Chartered Bank , Mumbai ,

2. The Manager.

Standard Chartered Bank , Chennai ,

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : M/ s . K. Desingh ,

S. Arunachalam,

& C. Reghuranjan,

Advocates .

For the Management : M/s . T. S. Gopalan & Co. , Advocates .

4. When the matter is pending enquiry , an attempt has been made by both the parties to arrive at a settlement of these disputes amicably among themselves . A joint memo has been filed by the parties to the dispute contending that both the parties are agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly, the Petitioner is not pressing her claim for employment and that additional monentary compensation for the petitioner can be considered on humanitarian grounds and fixation of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioners may be left with the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the decision given by this Tribunal awarding compensation to the Petitioner shall not be challenged or questioned by either of the parties before any Court and that the Tribunal also mention a date within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner and this Hon'ble Tribunal can pass an award on the basis of the joint memo. This joint memo has been recorded .

The Govt. of India . Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 12012/449/99- IR( B - 1) dated 14-02-2000 .

5. In the joint memo , it is mentioned that the Petitioner has been put in nine years of service and her last drawn wage was Rs . 2,400/- per month and the Petitioner was paid Rs . 8,400/- at the time of settling her dues.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 82/2000 , When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India. Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 34/2001 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 22-01-2001 and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly , they have appeared and prosecuted this case further.

6. While advarrcing arguments on the side of the Peitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed a rnemo along with the xerox copy of 2A petitions filed by two other workmen against the same management of Standard Chartered and Grindlays Bank and also the xerox copy of the cheques issued to those Petitioners by the bank while amicably settling their claims . They are one.Mr. Mathivanan and the another Mr. Elumalai , who were working as supplier and cook respectively and their last drawn salary was Rs . 1400/ - and Rs.2200/ - respectively per month and they have put in service of 8 years and 7 years respectively . Each of them was given a monetary compensation of Rs . 1,25,000 /- against their claim of reinstatement in service . This has not been denied by the Respondent/Bank management .

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

"Whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered Bank in terminating the services of the workman Mrs. D. Lalitha with effect from 31-07-1999 is justified ? If not , to what relief is she entitled?"

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner against the management of Standard Chartered Bank , challenging the action of the management for terminating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31-07-1999 as illegal and unjustified.

3. One Sri M. Solai , the Petitioner in I.D. No. 37/2001 has given evidence as a common witness WWI

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Bank relying upon judgement of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 II LLJ 509 between O. P. BHANDARI and INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that " compensation equivalent of 3.33 years salary an the basis af last drawn pay and allowances would be a reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement . " In that case , the concerned employee had eight years of service for his superannuation . Considering all the aspects , the Supreme Court was of the view that 50% of the annual salary and allowances can be taken into consideration in fixing up the quantum of cormpensation.

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

8. So on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel on either side, the following Award is passed as Settlement Award :-

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that compensation equivalent to 50% of the total salary of the workman calculated on the basis of the total years of service to that of her last drawn pay can be a reasonable amount that can be awarded as a monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in service . In that total amount calculated, the amount that has already been paid to the Petitioner has to be deducted and the balance amount has to be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Bank Management within a period of one month , failing which the Respondent shall pay that amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from this date till the date ofpayment.

9. The Petitioner Mrs. D. Lalitha had put in nine years of service and had drawn Rs.2,400/ - per month as her last drawn pay and she was paid Rs.8,400/- at the time of settling her dues , as per the joint memo filed by both the parties .

10. For 9 years of service on the basis of last drawn pay Rs.2.400/- per month , the total amount comes to Rs.2.59.200/- Out of which 50 % is Rs . 1,29,600 /- In this , the amount she has been paid at the time of settling her dues by the Respondent/Bank Rs.8,400 / - has to be deducted and the balance amount of Rs. 1,21,200/ - ( Rupees One Lakh Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred only) has been fixed as additional monetary compensation to be paid by the Respondent/Bank management within a period of one month front this date , failing which the Respondent/Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to this additional monetary compensation from this date till the date of its actual payment to the Petitioner .

11. The Joint Mento filed by both the parties dated 2nd December, 2002 shall forn part of this Award .

(Dictatedto the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him , correctred and pronounced by ine in the open court on this day the 24th February , 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer Encl : Copy of Joint Memo dated 2-2-2002 .

Witnesses Examined :-

For the I Party /Workman : WW1 Sri M. Solai common witness for ID Nos . 30 to 37/2001

For the II Party /Management : None

Documents Exhibited :-

For the I Party /Workman :-

2545

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

Ex .No. Date

Description

W1 30-7-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner To Respondent .

W2 31-7-99 Xerox copy of the termination notice sent by Respondent with cheque.

W3 20-8-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Respondent to Petitioner.

W4 10-1-2000 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respondent For the Respondent/Management :- Nil BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI C.G. I. D. NO . 34 of 2001

Ms. D. Lalitha

: Petitioner Vs.

Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank : Respondent JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES 1. It is agreed that the Petitioner has served the respondent for nine years on the date of cessation of engagement .ement . Her last drawn wage was Rs. 2400/- per month. The Petitioner was paid Rs . 8,400/- at the time of settling her dues .

2. It is agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Petitioner is not pressing her claim for employment .

3. It is agreed that the Petitioner could on humanitarian grounds , be considered for additional nonetary compensation .

4. It is agreed that the question of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioner may be left to the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal .

5. It is agreed that any decision given by this Hon'ble Tribunal awarding compensation shall not be challenged or called in question by either of the parties before any Forum .

6. It also is agreed that the Tribunal will also mention the date, within in which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner .

7. It is agreed that this Memo may be kept as part ofthe record of this Hon'ble Tribunal and an award may be made on the basis of this Memo .

Dated at Chennai , this the 2nd day of December, 2002.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respendent 2546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नईदिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2003

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 Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No.L - 12012/448 /99/IR (B - I ) dated 14-02-2000 .

का. आ. 980.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैण्डर्ड चार्टेड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कम - लेबर कोर्ट, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. नं. 33/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-12012/448/99- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as ID No. 83/2000 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India , Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records froin that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No.33 /2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side , inforning them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 22-01-2001 and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly , they have appeared and prosecuted this case further .

S.O. 980. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (1.D. No. 33/2001 ) 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 Standard Chatered Bank and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-2-2003

[No. L- 12012/448/99- IR (B.1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer .

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

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENΝΝΑΙ

Monday, the 24th February, 2003

"Whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered Bank in terminating the ser- vices of the workman Sri G. Venu with effect from 31-07-1999 is justified? If not , to what re- lief is he entitled?"

Present: K. KARTHIKEYAN PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ . 33/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No.83/2000 )

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner against the management of Standard Chartered Bank, challenging the action of the management for ter- minating the services of the Petitioner w.c.f. 31-07-1999 as illegal and unjustified.

[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 Workmen and the management of Standard Chartered Bank]

BETWEEN

3. One Sri M. Solai , the Petitioner in I. D. No.37/2001 has given evidence as a common witness WWI for all these cases 1.D. Nos .30 to 37/2001 . The documents relied upon by the Petitioners have been marked separately in their respective cases as workmen's exhibits .

Shri G. Venu

: I Party/ Workman

AND

II Party/Management

1. The Regional Director, HR(MESA) Standard

Chartered Bank,

Mumbai,

2. TheManager . Standard Chartered Bauk. Chennai .

Appearance:

For the Workman : M/ s . K. Desingh , S. Arunachalam , & C. Reghurajan , Advocates

4. When the matter is pending enquiry , an attempt has been made by both the parties to arrive at a settle- ment of these disputes amicably among themselves . A joint memo has been filed by the parties to the dispute contending that both the partics are agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accord- ingly, the Petitioner is not pressing his claim for employ- ment and that additional monetary compensation for the petitioner can be considered on humanitarian grounds and fixation of additional monetary compensation pay- able to the Petitioners may be left with the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the decision given by this Tri- bunal awarding compensation to the Petitioner shall not be challenged or questioned by either of the parties [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

2547 before any Court and that the Tribunal also mention a date within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner and this Hon'ble Tribunal can pass an award on the basis of the joint memo . This joint memo has been recorded.

9. The Petitioner Sri G. Venu had put in six years of service and had drawn Rs.2,400 per month as his last drawn pay and he was paid Rs.3,600 at the time of set- tling his dues , as per the joint memo filed by both the parties.

5. In the joint memo , it is mentioned that the Peti- tioner has put in six years of service and his last drawn wage was Rs. 2,400/- per month and the Petitioner was paid Rs. 3,600/- at the time of settling his dues .

10. For 6 years of service on the basis of last drawn pay Rs.2,400 per month , the total amount comes to Rs . 1,72,800 . Out of which 50% is Rs.86,400 In this , the amount he has been paid at the time of settling his dues by the Respondent/Bank Rs.3,600 has to be deducted and the balance amount of Rs.82,800 ( Rupees Eighty Two Thousand Eight Hundred only) has been fixed as additional monetary compensation to be paid by the Respondent/Bank management within a period of one month from this date, failing which the Respondent/Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12 % per annum to this additional monetary compensation from this date till the date of its actual payment to the Petitioner .

11. The Joint Memo filed by both the parties dated 2nd December, 2002 shall form part of this Award.

6. While advancing arguments on the side of the Petitioner , the learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo along with the xerox copy of 2A petitions filed by two other workmen against the same management of Standard Chartered and Grindlays Bank and also the xerox copy of the cheques issuedto those Petitioners by the bank while amicably settling their claims . They are one Mr. Mathivanan and the another Mr. Elumalai . who were working as supplier and cook respectively and their last drawn salary was Rs . 1400 and Rs . 2200 respectively per month and they have put in service of 8 years and 7 years respectively . Each of them was given a monetary compensation of Rs . 1,25,000 against their claim of reinstatement in service . This has not been de- nied by the Respondent/Bank management .

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th February, 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

End: Copy of Joint Memo dated 02-02-2002 .

Witnesses Examined:--

For the 1 Party /Workman : WW1 Sri M.Solai-com- monwitness for ID Nos . 30 to 37/2001.

Forthe 11 Party/

Management : None

Documents Exhibited :---

7: Learned counsel for the Respondent/Bank rely- ing upon judgement of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 11 LLJ 509 between O.P. BHANDARI and INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that " compensation equivalent of 3.33 years salary on the basis of last drawn pay and allow- ances would be a reasonable amount to award in lieu ofreinstatement. " In that case, the concerned employee had eight years of service for his superannuation . Con- sidering all the aspects , the Supreme Court was of the view that 50% of the annual salary and allowances can be taken into consideration in fixing up the quantum of compensation.

For the 1 Party/Workman :-

Ex. No. Date

Description

30-07-99

8. So on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel on either side, the following Award is passed as Settlement Award :-

WI Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner To Respon- dent.

31-07-99

W2 Xerox copy of the termination notice sent by Respondent withcheque.

W3

20-08-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Respondentto Peti- tioner.

10-01-2000

W4 Xerox copy of the notice sent by Petitione: dent. espon- This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that compensation equivalent to 50% of the total salary of the workman calculated on the basis of the total years of service to that of his last drawn pay can be a reason- able amount that can be awarded as a monetary compen- sation in lieu of the reinstatement in service . In that total amount calculated, the amount that has already been paid to the Petitioner has to be deducted and the balance amount has to be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Bank Management within a period of one month , failing which the Respondent shall pay that amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 12% per annum , from this date till the date of payment.

For the II Party /Management : Nil

650G1/03-5 2548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 22, 2003/CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] ANNEXURE

New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2003

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI.

C.G.1.D. No.33 of2001

G.Venu

Petitioner

Vs

Respondent

Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank.

S.O. 981. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. I.D. No. 32/2001 ) 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 Standard Chatered Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government cn 28-2-2003 .

JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES

[No. L- 12012/447/99- IR(B.1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

1. It is agreed that the Petitioner has served the Respondent for six years on the date of cessation of en- gagement . His last drawn wage was Rs.2400 per month. The Petitioner was paid Rs.3,600 at the time of settling his dues .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHEΝΝΑΙ

Monday, the 24th February, 2003

2. It is agreed that there is no scope for employ- ment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Petitioner is not pressing his claim for employment .

PRESENT : K, KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ. 32/2001

3. It is agreed that the Petitioner could on humani- tarian grounds , be considered for additional monetary compensation.

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D.No. 84/2000) 4. It is agreed that the question of additional mon- etary compensation payable to the Petitioner may be left to the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal .

[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 and the management of Standard Chartered Bank.

5. It is agreed that any decision given by this Hon'ble Tribunal awarding compensation shall not be challenged or called in question by either of the parties before any Forum .

BETWEEN

Shri S. David

: IParty/Workman 6. It is also agreed that the Tribunal will also men- tion the date, within in which the additional compensa- tion to be paid to the Petitioner .

AND

: II Party/Management 7. It is agreed that this Memo may be kept as part of the record of this Hon'ble Tribunal and an award may be made on the basis of this Memo .

Dated at Chennai , this the 2nd day of December,

2002.

1. The Regional Director, HR(MESA) Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

2. TheManager, Standard Chartered Bank, Chennai.

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च . 2003

APPEARANCE :

का. आ. 981.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947

For the Workman :M/s. K. Desingh , S. Arunachalam, & C.Reghurajan , Advocates

FortheManagement : M/ s. T. S. Gopalan &Co. , Advocates .

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैण्डर्ड चार्टेड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कम - लेबर कोर्ट , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी.नं. 32/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

'The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of [सं. एल -12012/447/99-आई. आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1947) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L - 12012/ 447 /99/IR (B - I) dated 14-02-2000.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 84/2000 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , the Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 32/2001 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 22-01-2001 and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly , they have appeared and prosecuted this case further.

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

"Whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered Bank in terminating the ser- vices of the workman Sri S. David with effect froin 31-07-1999 is justified? If not, to what re- lief is he entitled?"

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner against the management of Standard Chartered Bank, challenging the action of the management for ter- minating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31-07-1999 as illegal and unjustified.

3. One Sri M. Solai , the Petitioner in I.D. No.37/2001 has given evidence as a common witness WWI for all these cases I.D. Nos . 30 to 37/2001 . The documents re- lied upon by the Petitioners have been marked sepa- rately in their respective cases as workmen's exhibits .

4. When the matter is pending enquiry , an attempt has been made by both the parties to arrive at a settle- iment of these disputes amicably among themselves. A joint nemo has been filed by the parties to the dispute contending that both the parties are agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accord- ingly, the Petitioner is not pressing his claim for employ- ment and that additional monetary compensation for the Petitioner can be considered on humanitarian grounds and fixation of additional monetary compensation pay- able to the Petitioners may be left with the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the decision given by this Tri- bunal awarding compensation to the Petitioner shall not be challenged or questioned by either of the parties be-

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र1 , 1925

2549 fore any Court and that the Tribunal also mention a date within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner and this Hon'ble Tribunal can pass an award on the basis of the joint memo . This joint memo has been recorded .

5. In the joint memo , it is mentioned that the Peti- tioner has put in eight years of service and his last drawn wage was Rs . 2,400/- per month and the Petitioner was paid Rs . 9,600/- at the time of settling his dues .

6. While advancing arguments on the side of the Petitioner , the leamed counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo along with the xerox copy of 2A petitions filed by two other workmen against the same management of Standard Chartered and Grindlays Bank and also the xerox copy of the cheques issuedto those Petitioners by the bank while amicably settling their claims . They are one Mr. Mathivanan and the another Mr. Elumalai , who were working as supplier and cook respectively and their last drawn salary was Rs. 1400/- and Rs . 2200/- respectively per month and they have put in service of 8 years and 7 years respectively . Each of them was given a monetary compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/ - against their claim of reinstatement in service . This has not been de- nied by the Respondent/Bank management .

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Bank rely- ing upon judgement of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 II LLJ 509 between O.P. Bhandari and Indian Tourism Development Corporation and Others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that " com- pensation equivalent of 3.33 years salary on the basis of last drawn pay and allowances would be a reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement . " In that case . the concemed employee had eight years of service for his. superannuation . Considering all the aspects . the Supreme Court was of the view that 50 % of the annual salary and allowances can be taken into consideration in fixing up the quantum of compensation .

8. So on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel on either side . the following Award is passed as Settlement Award :-

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that compensation equivalent to 50% of the total salary of the workman calculated on the basis of the total years of service to that of his last drawn pay can be a reason- able amount that can be awarded as a monetary compen- sation in lieu of the reinstatement in service . In that total amount calculated , the amount that has already been paid to the Petitioner has to be deducted and the balance amount has to be paid to the Petitioner by the 2550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]

W3

20-08-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Respondentto Peti- tioner.

Respondent/Bank Management within a period of one month , failing which the Respondent shall pay that amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 12 % per annum, from this date till the date of payment .

W4

10-01-2000 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respon- dent.

For the II Party /Management:- Nil

9. The Petitioner Sri S. David had put in eight years of service and had drawn Rs . 2,400/ - per month as his last drawn pay and he was paid Rs . 9,600/ - at the time of settling his dues , as per the joint memo filed by both the parties.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL , CHENNΝΑΙ

C.G.1.D. No. 32 of 2001

S. David

Petitioner

Vs.

Standard Chartered Grindlays Respondent

Bank.

JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES 10. For 8 years of service on the basis of last drawn pay Rs . 2.400/- per month , the total amount comes to Rs . 2.30,400 /-out of which 50% is Rs.1,15,200/ - . In this , the amount he has been paid at the time of settling his dues by the Respondent/ Bank Rs . 9,600 /- has to be de- ducted and the balance amount of Rs . 1,05,600/- (Rupees One Lakh Five Thousand Six Hundred only) has been fixed as additional monetary compensation to be paid by ( he Respondent/Bank management within a period of one month from this date, failing which the Respondent/ Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to this additional monetary compensation from this date till the date of its actual payment to the Petitioner .

11. The Joint Memo filed by both the parties dated 2nd December , 2002 shall form part of this Award .

1. It is agreed that the Petitioner has served the Respondent for eight years on the date of cessation of engagement . His last drawn wage was Rs . 2,400/ - per nonth. The Petitioner was paid Rs . 9,601)/ - at the time of settling his dues.

2. It is agreed that there is no scope for employ- rnent of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Petitioner is rot pressing his claim for employment .

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day the 24th February , 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

3. It is agreed that the Petitioner could on humani- tarian grounds , be considered for additional monetary compensation .

Encl : Copy of Joint Memo dated 02-02-2002 .

Witnesses Examined :

4. It is agreed that the question of additional roonetary compensation payable to the Petitioner may be left to the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal .

For the I Party/ Workman : WW1 Sri M. Solai-com-

mon witness for I.D. Nos . 30 to 37/2001

5. It is agreed that any decision given by this Hon'ble Tribunal awarding compensation shall not be challenged or called in question by either of the parties before any Forum .

None

For the 11 Party / Management

Docunients Exhibited :

6. It is also agreed that the Tribunal will also men- tion the date , within in which the additional compensa- tion to be paid to the Petitioner .

For the I Party/Workman:

Ex. No. Date

Description

7. It is agreed that this Memo may be kept as part ofthe record of this Hon'ble Tribunal and an award may be made on the basis of this Memo .

30-07-99

WI

Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respon- dent.

Dated at Chennai , this the 2nd day of December , 2002.

W2

31-07-99

Sd/-

Sd/-

Counsel for Petitioner Counsel for Respondent Xerox copy of the termination notice sent by Respondent with cheque .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22 , 2003 /चैत्र 1 , 1925

2551 नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2003

: II Party/Management

1. The Regional Director, HR(MESA) Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai .

2. The Manager ,

Standard Chartered Bank , Chennai .

APPEARANCE :

का. आ. 982.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैंडर्ड चार्टर्ड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-कम-लेबर कोर्ट , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी. नं. 31/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

For the Workman

:M/s. K. Desingh, [सं. एल-12012/446/99- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

S.Arunachalam, and C. Reghurajan, Advocates

For the Management

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

:M/s. T. S. Gopalan & Co. Advocates .

New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2003

The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L - 12012/446/99- IR(B- I) dated 14-02-2000.

S.O. 982. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No. 31/2001 ) 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 Standard Chartered Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2003.

[No. L- 12012/446/ 99 - IR(B - I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT , CHENNΑΙ

Monday, the 24th February , 2003

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai, where the same was taken on file as I. D. No. 85/2000 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India , Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 31/2001 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 22-01-2001 and to prosecute this case further . Accordingly, they have appeared and prosecuted this case further .

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Preisding Officer

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

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 31/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I. D. No. 85/2000)

"Whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered Bank in terminating the services of the workman Mrs. Padma with effect from 31-07-99 is justified? If not, to what relief is she entitled ? " [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 workmen and the management of Standard Chartered Bank)

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner against the management of Standard Chartered Bank, challenging the action of the management for terminating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31-07-1999 as illegal and unjustified.

BETWEEN

Mrs. Padma

:I Party/ Workman

AND

3. One Sri M. Solai , the Petitioner in I.D.No. 37/2001 has given evidence as a common witness WWI for all these cases I.D. Nos . 30 to 37/2001 . The documents relied upon by the Petitioners have been marked separately in their respective cases as workmen's exhibits .

2552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

4. When the matter is pending enquiry , an attempt has been made by both the parties to arrive at a settlement ofthese disputes amicably among themselves . Ajoint memo has been filed by the parties to the dispute contending that both the parties are agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly, the Petitioner isnot pressing her claim for employment and that additional monetary compensation for the petitioner can be considered on humanitarian grounds and fixation of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioners may be left with the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the decision given by this Tribunal awarding compensation to the Petitioner shall not be challenged or questioned by either of the parties before any Court and that the Tribunal also mention a date within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner and this Hon'ble Tribunal can pass an award on the basis of the joint memo. This joint memo has been recorded.

5. In thejoint memo , it is mentioned that the Petitioner has put in twenty years of service and her last drawn wage was Rs . 3000/ - per month and the Petitioner was paid Rs. 31,500/- at the time of settling her dues .

6. While advancing arguments on the side of the Petitioner , the learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo along with the xerox copy of 2A petitions filed by two other workmen against the same management of Standard Chartered and Grindlays Bank and also the xerox copy of the cheques issued to those Petitioners by the bank while amicably settling their claims . They are one Mr. Mathivanan and the another Mr. Elumalai , who were working as supplier and cook respectively and their last drawn salary was Rs . 1400/ - and Rs . 2200/- respectively per month and they have put in service of 8 years and 7 years respectively. Each of them was given a monetary compensation of Rs . 1,25,000/- against their claim of reinstatement in service. This has not been denied by the Respondent/Bank management.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Bank relying upon judgement of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 II LLJ 509 between O.P. BHANDARI and INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that "compensation equivalent of 3.33 years salary on the basis of last drawn pay and allowances would be a reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement . " In that case , the concerned employee had eight years of service for his superannuation . Considering all the aspects , the Suprente Court was of the view that 50 % of the annual salary and allowances can be taken into consideration in fixing up the quantum of compensation .

8. So on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel on either side, the following Award is passed as Settlement Award :-

ThisTribunal is of the considered opinion that compensation equivalent to 50 % of the total salary of the

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] workman calculated on the basis of the total years of service to that of her last drawn pay can be a reasonable amount thatcan be awarded as a monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in service . In that total amount calculated the amount that has already been paid to the Petitioner has to be deducted and the balance amount has to be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Bank Management within a period of one month, failing which the Respondent shall pay that amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 12 % per annum, from this date till the date of payment.

9. The Petitioner Mrs. Padma had put in twenty years ofservice and had drawn Rs . 3,000/- per month as her last drawn pay and she was paid Rs . 31,500/ - at the time of settling her dues , as per the joint memo filed by both the parties.

10. For 20 years of service on the basis of last drawn pay Rs . 3,000 /- per month , the total amount comes to Rs. 7,20,000/-Out of which 50 % is Rs . 3,60,000 /- . In this , the amount she has been paid at the time of settling her dues by the Respondent/Bank Rs . 31,500/- has to be deducted and the balance amount ofRs . 3,28,500/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred only) has been fixed as additional monetary compensation to be paid-by the Respondent/Bank management within a period ofone month from this date , failing which the Respondent/ Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to this additional monetary compensation from this date till the date of its actual paymentto the Petitioner.

11. The Joint Memo filed by both the parties dated 2ndDecember, 2002 shall form part of this Award.

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed byhim, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th February . 2003.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Encl : Copy of Joint Memo dated 02-02-2002.

Witnesses Examined:-

Forthe I Party/Workman : WW1 Sri M. Solai common witness for ID Nos . 30 to 37/2001 Forthe II Party/Management : None

Documents Exhibited:-

Forthe I Party/Workman:-

Ex.No. Date Description

WI 30-07-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respondent .

W2 31-07-99 Xerox copy of the termination notice sent by Respondent with cheque .

W3 20-08-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Respondent to Petitioner.

W4 10-01-2000 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitionerto Respondent .

2553

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र1 , 1925

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI .

C.G.1.D. No.31 of 2001

Ms. Padma

.. Petitioner

Vs.

..Respondent Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank.

JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES 1. It is agreed that the Petitioner has served the Respondent for twenty years on the date of cessation of engagement. Her last drawn wage was Rs. 3000/ - per month. The Petitioner was paid Rs . 31,500/- at the time of settling herdues .

2. It is agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Petitioner is not pressing her claim for employment .

3. It is agreed that the Petitioner could on humanitarian grounds , be considered for additional monetary compensation.

4. It is agreed that the question ofadditional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioner may be left to the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal .

5. It is agreed that any decision given by this Hon'ble Tribunal awarding compensation shall not be challenged or called in question by either of the parties before any Forum.

6. Itis also agreed that the Tribunal will also mention the date , within in which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner .

7. It is agreed that this Memo may be kept as part of the record of this Hon'ble Tribunal and an award may be made on the basis of this Memo .

Dated at Chennai , this the 2nd day of December , 2002.

Sd/-

Sd/- COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER K. PADMA, PETITIONER

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2003

का. आ. 983.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैंर्डड चार्टेड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-कम-लेबर कोर्ट, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी. नं. 30/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/445/99- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2003

S.O. 983. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No. 30/2001 ) 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 Standard Chartered Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-2-2003 .

[No. L - 12012/445/99 -IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT , CHENNAI Monday, the 24th February , 2003

Present: K. KARTHIKEYAN, Preisding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 30/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I. D. No. 86/2000)

[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 Workmen and the management of Standard Chartered Bank ]

BETWEEN

:I Party/ Workman Ms. P. Banu (a) Banumathi

AND

: II Party/Management 1.The Regional Director , HR(MESA) Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai .

2.TheManager , Standard Chartered Bank , Chennai .

APPEARANCE : For the Workman :M/s. K. Desingh, S.Arunachalam, and C. Reghurajan, Advocates For the Management :M/s. T. S. Gopalan & Co. Advocates .

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L - 12012/445/99/ IR(B- I) dated 14-2-2000.

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same 2554

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003/CHAITRA 1,1925

was taken on file as I. D. No. 86/2000 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as 1.D. No. 30/2001 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 22-1-2001 and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly , they have appeared and prosecuted this case further .

6. While advancing arguments on the side of the Petitioner , the learned counsel for the Petitioner has filed a memo along with the xerox copy of 2A petitions filed by two other workmen against the same management of Standard Chartered and Grindlays Bank and also the xerox copy of the cheques issued to those Petitioners by the bank while amicably settling their claims . They are oneMr. Mathivanan and the another Mr. Elumalai , who were working as supplier and cook respectively and their last drawn salary wasRs . 1400/- and Rs : 2200/- respectively per month and they have put in service of 8 years and 7 years respectively. Each of them was given a monetary compensation of Rs . 1,25,000 /-against their claim of reinstatement in service. This has not been denied by the Respondent/Bank management .

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

"Whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered Bank in terminating the services of the workman Ms. P. Banu ( a) Banumathi with effect from 31-7-99 is justified? If not , to what relief is she entitled?"

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner against the management of Standard Chartered Bank , challenging the action of the management for terminating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31-7-1999 as illegal and unjustified .

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Bank relying uponjudgement of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 II LLJ 509 between O.P. BHANDARI and INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that "compensation equivalent of 3.33 years salary on the basis of last drawn pay and allowances would be a reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement . " In that case , the concerned employee had eight years of service for his superannuation. Considering all the aspects , the Supreme Court was of the view that 50 % of the annual salary and allowances can be taken into consideration in fixing up the quantum of compensation .

8. So on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel on either side, the following Award is passed as Settlement Award:-

3. One Sri M. Solai , the Petitioner in 1.D.No.37/2001 has given evidence as a common witness WW1 for all these cases 1.D. Nos . 30 to 37/2001 . The documents relied upon by the Petitioners have been marked separately in their respective cases as workmen's exhibits.

This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that compensation equivalent to 50 % of the total salary of the workman calculated on the basis of the total years of service to that ofher last drawn pay can be a reasonable amount that can be awarded as a monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in service . In that total amount calculated the amount that has already been paid to the Petitioner has to be deducted and the balance amount has to be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Bank Management within a period of one month, failing which the Respondent shall pay that amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from this date till the date ofpayment .

9. The Petitioner Ms. P. Banu (a) Banumathi had put in ten years of service and had drawn Rs . 2400/- per month as her last drawn pay and she was paid Rs . 7200/- at the time of settling her dues , as per the joint memo filed by both the parties .

4. When the matter is pending enquiry , an attempt has been made by both the parties to arrive at a settlement of these disputes amicably among themselves . Ajoint memo has been filed by the parties to the dispute contending that both the parties are agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Petitioner isnot pressing her claim for employment and that additional monctary compensation for the petitioner can be considered on humanitarian grounds and fixation of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioners may be left with the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the decision given by this Tribunal awarding compensation to the Petitioner shall not be challenged or questioned by either of the parties before any Court and that the Tribunal also mention a date within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner and this Hon'ble Tribunal can pass an award on the basis of the joint memo . This joint memo has been recorded.

10. For 10 years of service on the basis of last drawn pay Rs . 2400/- per month , the total amount comes to Rs . 2.88,000/- Out of which 50 % is Rs . 1,44,000/- In this . the amount she has been paid at the time of settling her dues by the Respondent/Bank Rs . 7.200/ - has to be 5.In the joint memo , it is mentioned that the Petitioner has put in ten years of service and her last drawn wage was Rs . 2400 /- per month and the Petitioner was paid Rs . 7,200/ - at the time of settling her dues .

2555

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र 1 , 1925

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

deducted and the balance amount of Rs . 1,36,800/- ( Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Eight Hundred only ) has been fixed as additional monetary compensation to be paid by the Respondent/Bank management within a period of one month from this date , failing which the Respondent/ Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to this additional monetary compensation from this date till the date of its actual payment to the Petitioner.

11. The Joint Memo filed by both the parties dated 2nd December , 2002 shall form part of this Award.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day ( he 24th February , 2003. )

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Encl . Copy of Joint Memo dated (02-02-2002.

Witnesses Examined: -

: WWI Sri M.Solai- Forthe 1 Party/Workman

common witness for ID Nos . 30) to 37/2001 For the 11 Party /Management : None

Documents Exhibited :-

For the I Party/Workman :-

Ex. No. Date Description

WI 30-07-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner To Respondent

W2 31-07-99 Xerox copy of the termination notice sent by Respondent with cheque W3 20-08-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Respondent to Petitioner

W4 10-01-20XX) Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respondent

Forthe II Party/Management: Nil

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI.

C.D.1.D. No. 30 of 2001

Petitioner Ms. P. Bhanu

VS.

Respondent Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank.

650G1 /03-6

JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES 1. It is agreed that the Petitioner has served the Respondent for ten years on the date of cessation of engagement . Her last drawn wage was Rs . 2400 per month . The Petitioner was paid Rs . 7200 at the time of settling her dues.

2. It is agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Petitioner is not pressing her claim for employment.

3. It is agreed that the Petitioner could on humanitarian grounds , be considered for additional monetary compensation.

4. It is agreed that the question of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioner may be left to the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal .

5. It is agreed that any decision given by this Hon'ble Tribunal awarding compensation shall not be challenged or called in question by either of the parties before any Forum.

6. Itis also agreed that the Tribunal will also mention the date , within in which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner .

7. It is agreed that this Memo may be kept as part of the record of this Hon'ble Tribunal and an award may be made on the basis of this Memo .

2002. Dated at Chennai , this the 2nd day of December ,

COUNSEL FOR

RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2003

का. आ. 984. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दि कर्नाटक बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, कम लेबर कोर्ट, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ 2556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003/CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

1. The Branch Manager.

संख्या आई डी. नं. 8/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The Karnataka Bank Ltd. ,

[सं . एल-12014/05/2002- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ]

R.P. Road , Secunderabad.

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

2. The General Manager, HR & IR,

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003

The Kamataka Bank Ltd. ,

Regd: Office/HeadOffice,

Kodialbail ,Mangalore - 575003 . ...Respondents

Appearances :

Forthe Petitioner :

M/s . G. Vidyasagar, Smt .

S.O. 984. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I. D. No. 8/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court. Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The Karnataka Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-02-2003.

K. Udaya Sree & Sri . P. Sudheer Rao

[ No. L - 12014/05/2002 - IR (B - I) ]

For the Respondent:

Shri K. Rama Reddy AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

AWARD

ANNEXURE

This is a case taken under Sec . 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-3-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present

Shri E. Ismail

Presiding Officer

Dated 29th November , 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ON . L.C. 1.D. NO. 8/2001

Between:-

Sri B. Narender,

2. The brief facts as stated in the claim petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as turner in the respondent Bank on 17-1-1977 at Nampally Branch . Hyderabad. He was promoted as clerk in 1982 and transferred to Adoni Branch in Kurnool District . In 1986 . the petitioner was transferred to Secunderabad Branch . Whileworked as such he was issued with a memorandum dated 3-9-1997 vide proceedings No. HO/HR & IR/ 1697/ 5856/97-98 alleging that he has not credited the amount received from the H.D. Canvasser to the Bank and misappropriated. Further that he made alterations in the credit challans . That an enquiry was conducted and ultimately he was issued that show - cause notice holding that the charges are true for dismissal . Inspite of giving explanation he was dismissed by an order dated 3-10-98 with a libertyto prefer an appeal against the dismissal order .

R/ o 18-7-747 / 3 , Gowlipura .

...Petitioncr

Hyderabad.

AND

That he preferred an appeal to the Chief General Manager. HeadOffice, Mangalore who without considering the same to dismiss the appeal vide order dated 28-12-98 that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges 2557 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 22 , 2003 /चैत्र1 , 1925

levelled against the petitioner. Hence the petition will be allowed and the respondent Bank may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in the services with continuity of service , full back wages and other all attendant benefits including the arrears of salary .

deposited into their honey collection accounts through the agent of the Banks . The petitioner had not accounted for the money deposited by the agent on various dates and he resorted to falsification of records to cover up his fraudulent action . Hence , the petition may be dismissed .

5.Arguments on validity of domestic enquiry were held and (his Court by an order-dated 27-7-2001 held (had the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner is valid.

6. In view of holding that the domestic enquiry is valid, the petitioner has not let any evidence and accordingly the respondent also has not let in any evidence. The question is one of deciding whether the punislument is conumensurate with the alleged misconduct .

3. A counter was filed stating that the petitioner had already approaclied the ALC ( C) , Hyderabad on the same issued and the notice served on 2nd respondent is annexed for the kind perusal of the Court . The petitioner cannot approacht two or more forns simul (ancously. Hence , without going to the merits of the case the petition is liable for dismissal at this state itself. So far as his appointment , promotion , and transfers to various branches is concemed it is admitted. While the petitioner was working as a cashier at Secunderabad Branch on 2-4-1997 , he misappropriated monies belonging to the customers of the respondent Bank as he did not deposited Rs . 33,000/ - received from Honey Deposit Canvassers collected from various customers of the Bank . He did not account for the said amount . He also altered the correct challans submitted by the HD Canvasser along with the amount of Rs . 33,000 /- and thus resorted to misappropriation of the funds as well as falsification of the accounts. Hence the petitioner was charge sheet and regular domestic enquiry was held wherein the petition admitted his guilt and requested the disciplinary authority to condone his mistake and not to take further action . The Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that the petitioner has defrauded the Bank and brought disrepute to the respondent Bank and hence it was decided the petitioner be awarded the punishment of dismissal from the services of the Bank. Accordingly he was disnussed vide order dated 3-10-98 . That the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief General Manager , Appellate authority vide his letter dated 12-11-98 . The Appellate Authority gave a personal hearing to the petitioner on 7-12-98 , during the personal hearing also the petitioner admitted the misconduct , and pleaded for mercy . The Appellate Authority confirnted the orders ofthe disciplinary authority.

7. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that even assuming that the petitioner has admitted his guilt even then , the Tribunal or the Court has got powers to sec whether the punishunent awarded is commensurate with the misconduct . He relies on a Judgement of A.P. Higlt Court 1999 ( 5ALT 450) wherein it was held "Labour Court has powers of jurisdiction to re- appreciate the validity of domestic enquiry and substitute it's own findings even in cases where workman concedes the validity ofdomestic enquiry-take reverse the findings ofdisciplinary authority. Even if findings of misconduct are justified, Labour Court has power to held dismissal as unjustified and award appropriate and lesser punishment " . In the circumstances of a particular case . He also relied on a Judgement ofwhich was AIR 1975 54 page 1227 wherein also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Sec. 11 A now empowers Labour Court or Tribunal to reappraise the evidence and examine the correctness of the findings there at. The Sec . 11 A further empowers it to interfere with the punislument and alter the same. " He further submits that the petitioner was appointed in respondent bank on 17-1-1977 at Nampally Branch , Hyderabad . He was prontoted as a clerk in 1982 and transferred to Adoni Branch , Kurnool where he worked up to 1986 and was transferedto Secunderabad Branch where he worked till 1997 , i.c .. he has put in 20 years of service when the memo was issued alleging misconduct . He further submits that as per Ex . M2 enquiry report the details of the alleged misappropriation between 5-4-1997 to 16-5-1997 is Rs . 33,000 / - which was renutted between 10-5-1997 to 19-7-1997 . So practically the Bank has suffered no financial loss and even assuming when admitting ifthere was some latches on the part ofthe petitioner and his services unblemished service of more 4.Respondent Bank is a financial institution dealing with the monies of their clients and the petitioner is one of the employees. It is submitted that the very essence of the relationship between the Bank and its clientele is faith. Back, which is dealing to the public money , expects all employees to be loyal and honest to the institution. As it is totally relying on the faith of its clientele on them , the petitioner had acted with malafide intention and defrauded the clientele of the Bank by not crediting the monies 2558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii)]

responsible for the differences in cash short of Rs . 20,810/-and remitted the same on 19-7-1997 vide Ex . M12 (In Ex.MI) .

than 20 years and 8 months . He just ignored he does deserve sympathy of the Court and the Court has got ample powers under Sec . 11A . Submitted and further review of the Judgement of the Hon ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. Therefore he pleaded that a lenient view may be taken and the punishment of dismissal may be substituted by a lesser punishment.

10. He has put in about 21 years of service , the question is whether it is a fit case to invoke the powers under Sec. 11 A of the Act . He was dismissed from service inOctober, 1998 i.e. , almost he was allowed to continue in the same position for one year . Reinstatement of course is outof question as it is a case of misappropriation on number of occasions and voluntary admission on number of occasions by the petitioner. The question is whether clismissał can be substituted by any other punishment as compulsory retirement or any other form of punishment . 1 have given serious thoughts and the circumstances in which the petitioner is said to have committed the said temporary misappropriations . But seeing the gravity of the offence neither reinstatement is desirable nor compulsory retirement . However, seeing his 20 years of service and one year after the incident and the fact that he deposited the entire amount with interest of Rs . 20,810/- . I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for some relief .

11. Hence , he is awarded 9 months gross wages as compensation instead of reinstatement or any other relief since in the circumstances stated above and the fact that he has got 3 minor children and a family to support .

Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced in the Open Court by me on this the 29th day of November , 2001 .

E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent:

NIL

NIL

8. It is argued by the Ld . Counsel for the Respondent that no doubt the amount that has been misappropriated ofRs . 33,000 /- which he remitted back with interest . He also gave a letterdt. 9-7-1997 adınitting the misappropriation of the amount. That MW 1 in the enquiry is Sri K. Prabhakar , the Honey Deposit Canvasser of Secunderabad Branch who is also working as such from 1979. That he was remitting challans for the total amount of the previous days collection and remit the cash with challans to the cashier . But . be never used to obtain counter foil from cashier as he hadutroost faith in the bank staff. That the petitioner herein misappropriated the amount submitted by him on 9 occasions . Further. in the plea of the charges he has admitted his guilt and requested for condonation of the guih. He submits that misplaced sympathy should not be invoked as it is grave misconduct of misappropriation of about Rs . 33.000 /- He relies on Hon'ble High Court Digest ofdisciplinary cases 1990-2000 in which he relies on the case K. Venkateswarlu Vs. Nagarjuna Grameen Bank - 1995 II LLJ 492 ( APHC ) wherein departmental enquiry is not necessary in case of admission of misconduct by the employee . He also relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement that " any sympathy shown to the employee in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest . Where even alleged to have misappropriated with a sum of Rs . 1,548.17 ps, it is the act of misappropriation thatis relevant. " - 1996 SC FLR (73 ) 1429. Therefore submits that no sympathy can be shown .

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

ExMI

:Enquiry Report dated 27-6-1998 .

9. Even in documents filed by the petitioner , it is mentioned that he was in the habit of borrowing from the public and customers and used to default . Now only question that remains to be scen is whether he paid the amount with interest or not . He paid the same on 19-7-1997. He himself has given a letter Ex . M. 10 ( In Ex.MI ) that he is [भाग 11-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003

का. आ . 965 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी. एल . प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्म- कारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, असनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 94/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 89/ 2000- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003 S.O. 985. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 942000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-2-2003 .

[No. L - 22012 / 89/ 2000- IR ( C - II ) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT , ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Shri Ramjee Pandey , Presiding Officer . Reference No. 94 of 2000

PARTIES :

Agent , Shyamsundarpur Colliery Management .

Vers . Shri Sarawan Mushar , Stone - cutter Workman .

REPRESENTATION :

For the Management Shri P. K. Das , Advo- cate.

For the Workman ( Union ) - Shri S. K. Pandey , Chief General Secy . Koyala Mazdoor Con- gress .

INDUSTRY : Coal .

STATE : West Bengal . Dated, the 17tin January , 2003 AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Governinent of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012 89 2000 - IR (CM- II) dated 18-9-2000 650 GI/2003-7

2559

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र1, 1925

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Sital- pur unit of Shyamsunderpur Colliery of Ms. ECL in dismissing Sh . Sarawan Mushar, Stone-cutter from services is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. In response to the summons sent by this Tribu- nal both the parties appeared through their respec- tive representatives . Shri S. K. Pandey , Chief Gene- ral Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress appeared for the workman and Shri P. K. Das , Advocate ap- peared for the management . Both the parties filed their respective written statement and contested the dispute.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the work- man viz . Shri Sarawan Mushar was employed as a stone-cutter in Shyamsunderpur Colliery of Sitalpur Unit of ECL . He was dismissed by the management on the ground that he became absent from his duty from 1-7-98 to 1-8-98 .

4. The case of the workman in brief is that the workman became absent from his duty due to sick- ness and he did not deliberately avoid to attend his duty. No sooner the workman became fit he reported for his duty but he was not allowed and he was in- formed that his name has been deleted. The further case of the workman is that he was neither charge- sheeted nor any enquiry was held and he was dismis- sed from his service against the Rules & Regulations and thereby the management violated the principle of natural justice and the order of dismissal is illegal .

5. The case of the management in brief is that the workman was a habitual absentee and again he be- came absent from his duty w.e.f. 1-7-98 without any prior permission and information to the management and therefore the workman was charge sheeted and after conducting domestic enquiry, when his mis- conduct was found established , he was dismissed from his service . The further case of the manage- ment is that the workman was served with the charge- sheet and he replied the same but his explanation was not acceptable . The workman participated in the en- quiry proceeding and he was given opportunity to defend himself but since his misconduct was estab- lished he was dismissed from his service considering the facts that he became absent for 197 days , 96 days and 54 days respectively in the year 1975 , 1996 and 1997 and hence his dismissal from service was pro- per and justified.

6. Although the union has alleged in the written statement that neither charge - sheet was given to the workman nor any domestic enquiry was conducted in his presence but during hearing on the preliminary validity of enquiry proceedingprocee the union did not challenged the same rather admit- ted that the enquiry proceeding was fair and by order dated 26-8-2002 the enquiry proceeding was held to be valid and fair . point of fairness and validity

7. Now first point for consideration is as to whe- ther the finding of the Enquiry Officer given in the enquiry report is based on material during enquiry . In this regard after hearing both the parties I per- 2560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH, 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

used the enquiry report and the evidence adduced during enquiry . It is admitted by both the parties that the workman was absent from his duty from 1-7-98 to 1-8-98 for a period of one month . A plea has been taken by the union that due to illness the workman became absent but it is clear from the docu- ments from the enquiry proceeding and it is also ad- mitted by both the parties that the workman could not prove the fact that he was ill during the period of absence and hence the finding of the enquiry officer to the effect that absence of the workman from 1-7-98 to 1-8-98 was unauthorised appears to be cor- rect. Hence I find and hold that the mis- conduct of the workman has been established and the finding of the Enquiry Officer in this regard is correct, 8. Next point for consideration is as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service is dispropor- tionate and shocking . In this regard learned lawyer for the management submitted that the workman had been unauthorisedly absenting himself in past also and hence he was habitual absentee and it was a fit case for dismissal from service . On the other hand Shri S. K. Pandey , representing the union , submitted that no previous absence of the workman has been incorporated in the charge- sheet and hence the work- man remained unhurt on this point and he has been deprived of defending himself . He further submitted that previously neither charge-sheet has been given to the workman for previous absence nor the enquiry had been conducted for this purpose nor he was given second show- cause notice requiring to defend. himself against the allegation of past absence and hence any allegation made by the inanagement regard- ing past absence of the workman can not be legally. taken into consideration for awarding punishment to the workman .

9. In view of contrary submissions I perused the charge- sheet and the materials of the enquiry pro- ceeding . I find that Shri S. K. Pandey has correctly. submitted that no previous absence for the workman has been incorporated in the charge - sheet nor the workman was ever proceeded against in any depart- mental proceeding for such previous absence . I also find that the management did not issue any second show cause notice informing the workman regarding intention of the controlling authority for considering the fact of previous absence at the time of awarding punishment and as such the management has failed to prove that the workman was a habitual absentee .

10. In view of the above discussion only mis- con- duct on the part of the workman is that he became absent from his duty for one month and in my opin- ion that is not a gross misconduct warranting maxi- mum punishment of dismissal from service. In my opinion the order of dismissal is shocking and dis- proportionate to the nature of mis - conduct and hence the order of dismissal is set aside and the manage- ment isdirected to reinstate the workman in service hut under the facts and circumstances of the case with 50 per cent of the back wages . In the above manner the award is passed .

RAMJEE PANDEY , Presiding Officer

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003

का. ग्रा. 986-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीयः सरकार एअर इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवादः में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 16/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-02-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं: एल-11012/79/ 2001-आई.आर . (सी-1) ] एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003 S.O. 986. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 16 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , New Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India and their workman , which was received by the Central Gov- ernment on 24-2-2003 .

[No. L- 1101279 2001 - IR ( C - 1 ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI ( LOK ADALAT)

Presiding Officer Shri B. N. Pandey. I.D. No. 16 2002

Shri Subhash Chand Kapnor , House No. RZ - H 643 Raj Nagar, Part - II , Palam Colony , New Delhi - 110045 .

... Workman

Versus

General Manager ( HRD ) , Air India , Air India Complex , I.G.I. Airport , New Delhi - 110010.

.Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 11012 / 79 / 2001 - IR ( C- 1 ) dated 28-2-2002 has referred the following industrial dis- pute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the action of the management of Air India in terminating services of Shri S. C Kapoor w.e.f. 19-4-2000 is fair legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the work- man entitled ? "

The matter was taken up for disposal in the Lok Adalat by way of reconciliation . The petitioner (workman) moved an application to withdraw his claim to which the respondent management has raised no objection . The case ( reference) is , therefore, 2561

भारत का राजपत्नः मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

decided in terms of the application of the petitioner . The petitioner is allowed to withdraw his claim. No dispute award is given accordingly.

Dated : 20-2-2003 .

B. N. PANDEY , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003

By Order No. L- 2001299 94-1.R. ( Coal - 1 ) dated , the 4th December , 1995 , 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 adjudi- eation to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the management of Block II Area of Ms : BCCL is justified in changing the post and eategory of wage rate of Shri Ram Agya Gora , w.e.f. 8-10-88 after issuing re- portedly notice under Section 9 -A of the I.D. Act, 1947 ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

का. आ . 987.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणं- I, 'धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 134/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-02-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 99/ 94- आई. आर. (सी-1)] एन . पी . केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th February, 2003

S.O. 987. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 134/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- I , Dhanbad , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their work- man, which was reeeived by the Central Govern- ment on 24-2-2003 .

2. It appears from the record that this referenee was registered in this Tribunal on 12-12-1995 and then date was fixed for filing of the written statement by the workman . Notice was also issued in that regard to both the sides . But despite issuance of notiee and granting adjournments repeatedly from time to time the step as required was never taken on behalf of the workman and the position as it exists till today is that this case is still pending for filing of written statement on behalf of the workman. It is, thus , clear that the workman or the sponsoring union is no more interested in the instant case and does not want to pursue this referenee any further , otherwise they would not have abandoned this ease in such a way and would not have left this case unattended. Anyway , whatever may be the reason considering the deve- Iopments , as noticed above , it is needless to allow this case to remain pending any further .

[Ne . L - 200129994 II ( C- 1 ) ] N. P. KESAVAN; Desk Officer

of. Thus , the present reference case stands disposed ANNEXURE

S. H. KAZMI , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003 In the matter of a reference under Section 10( 1 ) ( d )

(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 Reference No. 134 of 1995

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Block- II Area of Mis : BCCL.

का. आ . 988.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-1, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 185/94) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीयं सरकार को 25-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । AND

Their Workmen .

[सं. एल-20012/140/94-आई . आर. (सी-1 ) ] एन. पी . केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी PRESENT :

:

New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003 Shri S. H. Kazmi , Presiding Officer .

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers- Shri H. Nath , Advocate .

For the Workman-- None .

INDUSTRY . Coal .

STATE : Jharkhand.

Dated, the 14th February , 2003

S.O. 988. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 185/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the 2562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925 [ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 25-02-2003 , on

[ No. L - 20012/ 140/ 94 - IR ( C- 1 ) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference under Sec . 10 ( 1 ) (d) (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

Reference No. 185 of 1994 .

Parties Employers in relation to the manage- ment of Maheshpur Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C. Ltd.

AND Their Workman .

Present : Shri S. H. Kazmi , Presiding Officer .

Appearances :

For the Employers Shri D. K. Verma ,

Advocate .

For the Workman Shri S. C. Gour,

Authorised Representative.

State : Jharkhand .

Industry Coal .

Dated, the 17th February , 2003

AWARD

for of leave he submitted leave application and left for his native place . His son however died after protrected illness and his wife who was already sick became all the more serious and developed mental disease . Further , it has been said that when his wife recovered from her illness the concerned workman reported duty on 5-2-92 to the Personnel Officer and apprised him about the reasons of his absence and prayed for allowing him to resume duty, but the colliery management immediately issued chargesheet against him on the same day for the misconduct under clause 26.1.1 . of the Certified Standing Order i.e. for habitual late attendance or wilful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause. It is said that the workman replied to the said chargesheet stating all about the illness of his wife and his absence from duty without taking leave due to the said reason and also stated therein that in future he will not go on leave without properly obtaining sanctioned leave. It is also said that the management however conducted an enquiry , which was , in fact, perfunctory enquiry as no opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself and to take help of any co- worker to assist the workman during enquiry. Further, it has been said that absence from duty is not misconduct and it is taken as misconduct only when there is reasonable cause for the same and as far as the instant case is concerned satisfactory explanation was furnished by the workman for his absence during the relevant period and so there was no reason for holding the concerned workman guilty of the alleged misconduct . no By Order No. L- 20012/ ( 140) /94-I.R . ( Coal - 1 ) dated 27-7-1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, has in exercise of the power 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 adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the General Manager Govindpur Area III M/ s . BCCL, P. O. Sonardih , Dist . Dhanbad in disınissing Shri Sheo Charan Beldar , Miner/ Loader w.e.f. 18-7-92 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

3. The management's stand, on the other hand as disclosed , in its written statement is that the concerned workman started absenting from his duty without permission or authorised leave and without information with effect from 20-3-1991 and so ultimately a charge - sheet dated 5-2-92 was issued for the same to which he replied on the same date accepting his gulity and took the ground of illness of his wife for his absence from duty . It has been said that finding the explanation not satisfactory the inanagement ordered for holding enquiry which was accordingly held and during which the concerned workman accepted his guilt and did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim that his wife was sick during the relevant period . Upon the completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty of the charge levelled against him and then on the basis of the said report upon the approval of the disciplinary authority the order was passed regarding the dismissal of the concerned workman 2. Precisely , the case of the sponsoring union is that the concerned workman , Sheo Charan Beldar had been working since long as minor / loader at Moheshpur colliery under Govindpur Area of M/ s . BCCL with unblemished record of service . It has been said that the concerned workman received an information regarding serious illness of his wife and his son and tried to get leave but since there was delay in grant 2563

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003/ चैतं 1 , 1925

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

from his service w.e.f. 18-7-92 . Lastly , it is said that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman from his service perfectly correct and justified and the work- man concerned is not entitled to any relief . was

In its rejoinder also the management reitera- ted its stand and denied the facts regarding the illness of the wife of the concerned workman or about the death of his son and stated the same to be an after thought .

In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the workman also several averments and statements made in the written statement of the management were either controverted or denied. :

4. Before proceeding further it is significant to point out at the that during the outset pendeney of this reference the issue regarding the fairness of domestic enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue and one witness was examined on behalf of the management on the said aspect and few documents pertaining to the enquiry proceeding were also marked as exhibits . But when the management closed its evidence and the workman or the union was called upon to adduce evidence , they conceded fairness of the domestic enquiry at that stage and consequently the departmental enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the case was fixed for argument on merit . In view of such development, therefore , the only question which is now left to be considered for the disposal of the instant case is whether the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the concerned authority with respect to the guilt of the concerned workman or the action taken by the management against the concerned workman can be taken to be bad , illegal or unjustified or not .

again in future and so considering the circumstances he may be allowed to resume his duties . The management . however , did not find the workman's reply satisfactory and ordered for an enquiry to be held in the matter which was accordingly held thereafter . It appears from the copy of the proceedings (Ext. M-4) and the copy of the enquiry report (Ext . M - 5) that in the enquiry the concerned workman participated and at the very outset accepted the charge levelled against him and further made statement that he remained absent without leave or information because of the illness of his wife . He further requested for sympathetic consideration of his case keeping in view the cir- cumstances indicated by him and for allowing him to join his duty. It further appears that when the concerned workman confessed his guilt the manage- ment's representative submitted before the Enquiry Officer that in view of the admission of his guilt by the concerned workman it is no more necessary for him to produce any witness and then upon such statement being made the Enquiry Officer closed the proceeding and submitted his report before the competent authority for taking appropriate action in view of the developments made during the enquiry. Ultimately on the basis of the enquiry report the concerned workman was dismissed from his service with prior approval obtained in that regard from the competent disciplinary authority . Ext.M- 7 is the letter dated 8-7-92 addressed to the Agent of the concerned colliery and sent by the Personnel Manager , Govindpur Area whereby request was made to issue letter of dismissal to the workman concerned in view of the fact that the competent authority had already approved his dismissal with immediate eſſect . Pursuant to such request being made one letter dated 18/20-7-92 was issued to the concerned workman by the Agent of the concerned colliery (Ext . W -2) whereby an intimation was made regarding termination of his service w.e.f. 18-7-92 and he was also advised to collect all his legal dues

etc.

5. It is pertinent to point out that during the pendency of this reference the concerned workman died and upon necessary steps being taken his wife was substituted in his place for the purpose of pursuing the present case .

As the concerned workman himself admitted the misconduct on his part in the manner as aforesaid rightly he was held to be guilty of the charge levelled against him . He clearly and categorically stated not only in his reply to the charge sheet , rather during enquiry also that after 20-3-91 he remained absent without any leave permission or information . He accepted his guilt and requested for mercy and further gave undertaking that he would not be com- miting the same misconduct in future , if he is a allowed to join. It is also apparent that though the concerned workman took the ground of his wife's illness but he did not produce anything at all in support of such ground . He neither disclosed the 6. As it is evident from the materials on record , when the concerned workman was found to be absenting from his duty w.e.f. 20.3.91 a chargesheet (Ext . M- 1 or W- 1 ) was issued against him under clause 26.1.1 of Certified Standing Orders of the Company i.c. for habitual late attendance or wilful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause. Upon the receipt of the chargesheet the concerned workman submitted his reply (Ext . M -2) wherein he accepted the fact that he remained absent from 20-3-91 without any permitsion or informa- tion and stated that he had to go to see his ailing wife at his native place. He futher stated therein that he would not be committing the same misconduct 2564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003/ CHAITRA 1 , 1924

nature of illness of his wife nor even stated as to for how long she remained ill or was bed - ridden . Interestingly in the written statement there is mention about the illness and the death of the son of the concerned workman also and further there is state- ment that upon getting the information regarding illness and before leaving his work place the concerned workman had tried to obtain leave also and had submitted an application also for leave before starting for his native place but such statements are neither there in the reply to the chargesheet nor the same are in the statements given by the concerned workman before the Enquiry Officer . Rather , as it is quite apparent in a very categorical way he consistently stated that he remained absent althrough the relevant period with- out leave permission or information .

Therefore , in view of all the aforesaid , the finding arrived at with respect to the guilt of the concerned workman , does not require any interference by this Tribunal .

7. It has been urged on behalf of the concerned workman that the extreme punishment of dismissal as awarded , is quite disproportionate to the gravity of the charge as levelled against the concerned work- man .

Having considered the materials available on record , I find substance in the aforesaid submissions .

As observed above , both in his reply as well as in his statements made during the enquiry the con- cerned workman accepted his guilt , tendered his apology and gave undertaking not to repeat the same misconduct in future . It is evident from the note- sheet dated 12-2-92 ( Ext . M- 6) that upon the sub- mission of enquiry report the matter was put up before the Agent / Manager for his kind perusal and necessary action who upon that made the endorse- ment/ recommendation thereon that siene the con- cerned workman has accepted the charge and has assured in writing not to repeat such misconduct in future he may be allowed after light punishment . The concerned workman was also mentioned there in as a " productive workman " . The General Manager , however, did not accept such recommendation and by observing that since earlier also once the workman had committed same misconduct he does not deserve any sympathetic consideration , he awarded the puni- shment of dismissal from service and then upon such approval being granted or order being passed the letter of dismissal was issued in the said regard .

Though no any document has been filed by the management during the enquiry to show the past conduct of the concerned workman but even if it is accepted for the moment that once earlier also he had remained absent withont leave , permission or in- formation even then certainly the concerned workman

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] did not deserve such a harsh punishment of dismissal . Since he did not contest the matter and accepted his guilt althrough and gave positive undertaking re- garding his future conduct , them it would have been in the fitness of thing and would have also been just and proper to give a chance to the workman to mend his ways and prove himself to be a loyal , punctual and disciplined. A lenient view as such, in the matter should have been taken and the appropria- te punishment other than dismissal from service , should have been awarded taking into account the circumstances borne out of the materials on record .

As the concerned workman is now dead 'no ques- tion arises of his reinstatement and so , in my view , onsidering the totality of the circumstances the in- terest of justice would be served if the punishment is modified to the extent that the widow , who has been pursuing this case after the death of her hus- band would now be required to be paid a lump sum amount of Rs . 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only by the management as against the back wages of the concerned workman w. e . f. the date of his dismissal from service .

8. The award is , thus made hereunder :

The action of the General Manager , Govindpur Area III M/ s BCCL in dismissing Sheo Charan Bel- dar, Miner/ Loader w. e . f. 18-7-92 is not justified and as such the wife of the diseased workman deserves payment of a lump sum amount of Rs . 50,000/ as against the back wages of her diseased husband . Consequently the management is hereby directed to make payment of a lump sum amount of Rs . 50,000/ to the wife of the diseased workman by way of back wages , within 30 days from the date of publication of the award .

In the circumstances of the case . however there would be no order as to cost .

S. H. KAZMI , Presiding Offierc नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2003

का. आ . 989.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , इंडियन आयल कॉ . बोटलिग प्लांट , बालासोर के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/1993) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 30011/ 9/ 92-आई. आर. (मीस)/आईं . आर (सी. - 1) ]

एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी भारत का राजपत्नः मार्च 22, 20.03/चैल 1 , 1925

[भाम II खंड-3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003

S.O. 989. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby, publishes the award ( Ref. No. 18/1993 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in, the Industrial Dispute between the employers in, relation to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Bottling Plant and their workman , which was received by the.Central Government on 28-2-2003 .

[No. L - 30011 / 9 /92 - IR ( Misc . ) /IR (C- 1 ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL: ORISSA : BHUBANESWAR PRESENT :

Shri A. K. Samantaray, O.S.J.S. (Sr. Branch) , Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal , Bhubaneswar .

Industrial Dispute Case No. 18 of 1993 ( Central) Dated Bhubaneswar the 20th February , 2003

BETWEEN

The management of Indane Bottling Plant Represented through Sri S. N. Nanda , Handling Contractor of the Bottling Plant, Balasore .

First Party - management .

AND

Their workmen represented through Indane Bottling Plant Shramik Congress , Balasore .

Second party -workmen.

APPEARANCES :

None For the First Party-management.

For the SecondParty- workmen.

Sri Satyabadi Das , Advocate.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred upon them by elause (d ) of sub - section ( 1) and sub - section ( 2 - A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-30011 /9/92- IR (Misc . ) dt . 3-5-93 :-

"Whether the handling workers employed by Sri S. N. Nanda, Handling Contractor at Indian Oil, Corpn . Bottling Plant, Balasore are entitled to benefits ( as per Annexure) as paid at Haidia regarding wages , leave, washing allowance , house , rent, canteen allowance, uniform and safety shoes as , demanded by the union ? If not , to what relief they are entitled to and from what date ?"

2. The reference , as aforesaid lias since been answered by this Tribunal in its Award 'dtd. 6-11-99 and it is worthwhile to quote the operating, portion of the said Award at para -5 which runs as follows :-

On the basis of the uncontroverted evidence , I am, there- fore inclined to hold that none of the demands of the workmen is unfair or unmeasonable . The capacity of the industry to bear the additional burden on account of revision of wages has to be presumed at it is primarily an industry floated in the public sector by the Government of India wherein principles of reasonableness and fair play in the matter of pay- ment of wages to the workmen has to be of paramount consideration . Considering the claims made as per Ext . 1 , I am inclined to hold that the members of the second party are entitled to wages at Rs . 1260 ner motnh as claimed and other bene- fits as, embodied in the charater of demands which includes leave , bonus , washing allowance , house rent

2565- allowance, canteen allowance , uniform and safety shoes and medical allowance . In other words , it is hereby ordered that the first party- management shall pay to the members of the second party wages @Rs. 1260 per month . It is further directed that the second party- workmeit shall be entitled to 12 days of festival holidays , 10 days of sick leave , 10 days of casual leave and 20 days nf earned leave every year . Bonus shall be payable to 17 per cent per year besides the second party , workmen shall be entitled to washing allowance @ Rs . 25 per month over and above supply of three pieces of Lifebuoy soaps. They are further held entitled to house rent allowance @Rs . 100 per month , canteen allowance of Rs . 3 per day's attendance and medical allowance @ Rs . 30 per month . They are also entitled to Rs . 600 per year on account of uniform and safety shoes and such other benefits as envisaged in Ext . 1, the charter of demands .

3. As it was not indicated in the Award as to from which date the second party workman would be entitled to get the benefits , the second party workman moved the Hon'ble High Court by filing a writ application bearing O.J.C. No. 5864 of 2000 and the Hon'ble Court while disposing of the said writ application observed as follows :-

"On perusal of the award, we find that there is merit in the grievance of the petitioners . Although the Tribunal. has held that the concerned. workmen would be entitled to different benefits , but it has not answered as to from which date they would be entitled to get the same. In , the circumstances , we give liberty to the petitioners to move the Tribunal for clarification of this position by making appropriate application . If any such application is made on behalf of the petitioners the Tribunal will consider the samend pass appropriate order according to law after hearing the Management . "

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Court the second party workman appeared and filed a petition with a prayer to extend the benefits as per the Award with effect from 1-4-90. The management although was noticed by Registered Post to appear on the date fixed , it neither appeared nor took any step .

5. As it appears from the petition of the second party workman dtd. 26-11-2002, The second party workman have claimed the benefits as have been extended to the workman working in Haldia Bottling Plant at West Bengal by virtue of settlements entered between them on 6-8-91 , 11-1-93 and 18-10-96 as per Exts . 2 , 3 and 4.. The charter of demands marked Ext . 1 , however discloses that on 10th December , 1991 the President of the union ( Indane Bottling Shramik Congress) submitted the demands to the mariagement asking for their fulfilment by 25-12-91 and upon failure of concilia- tion on such demands the Government of India referred the dispute in the month of May, 1993. W.W. No. 1 examined on behalf of the second party workman has not breathed a word as to why they have claimed the benefit at par with their counteroarts working in the Haldia Bottling Plant with effect from 1-4-90 . In absence of any justifiable reason the benefit claimed by the second party , workman can not suo motu be extended to them with effect from 1-4-90 ..

6. Be that as it may , when as per the Award of this Tribunal the workman have already been granted the benefits, at par with the employees working in the Haldia Bottling Plant, West Bengal and this Tribunal is only required to find out the date from which such benefits are to be extended to the second party workman . I hold that the second party workman are entitled to the benefits as per the Award of this Tribunal frem the date of reference i.e. 3-5-93 .

Dictated and corrected by me .

A. K. SAMANTARAY , Presiding Officer [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1924

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 12012/6/ 2000- IR(B -I ) dated 25/ 30-5-2000 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 have referred the followingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion :

का.ग्रा . 990.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं . 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/ 34/ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Mumbai by not regularising the services of Smt. Meena Ghosalkar is justified ? If not then what relief the workman is entitled to " ?

[सं . एल-12012 / 06/ 2000-आई . आर . (बी-1 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003

S.O. 990.-In pursuanceuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. C-GIT- 2/ 34/ 2000) of the Central Government Industri- al Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-02-2003.

[No. L- 12012/06/2000 - IR (B.1 ) ] C, GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 , MUMBAI PRESENT :

S. N. SAUNDANKAR , Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO CGIT- 2/34 OF 2000

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MA- NAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA , MUMBAI

The Dy. General Manager , Zone - I ,

2. Workman Mrs. Meena Ghosalkar vide Claim- Statement Ex - 7 averred that she worked in the can- teen of the management State Bank of India at Shivaji Park Branch , Dadar , Mumbai from the year 1988 . She was catering to the needs of employees of the Bank. She used to prepare food and beverages for the employees of the Bank and at times she was doing incidental work i.e. cleaning, sweeping etc. It is pleaded that workman used to attend the work of Water-woman i.e. sub - staff whenever the regular workman was absent or on leave and that she was getting Rs . 1050 per month . It is contended that the other workman placed in similar circumstances have been given regular employment and privilages of permanent workman , however workman has been deprived therefrom . It is averred since workman continuously worked from 1988 and that manage- ment has not regularised her services , Bank be directed to regularise her services in the Bank in the post of sub - staffemployee from the date of employment in the canteen with consequential benefits . Ma- nagement State Bank of India resisted the claim of workman by filing written statement Ex- 10 contending that workman is not the employee of Bank . She is the canteen employee . It is pleaded that workman being not the employee of management Bank, ques- tion of regularising and paying her monetary benefit does not arise and for all these reasons claim be dis- missed with costs in limine .

State Bank of India , Old Prabhadevi Road , Mumbai -400 025 .

AND

Their Workmen

The Dy. General Secretary , State Bank of India Karmachari Sena , Old Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai- 400 025 .

APPEARANCES :

3. On the basis of the pleadings issues we framed at Ex - 11 and consequently matter was fixed for filing affidavit in lieu of Examination - in- Chief by the workman, on 28-8-2002 , 8-10-2002, 12-11-2002, 20-1-2003 and lastely today on 5-2-2003 , however record shows inspite of sufficient opportunity, work- man did not venture to file affidavit by way of Exami- nation - in- Chief and that on many dates she chosen to remain absent thereby the claim has not been supported, threfore , for want of evidence the matter deserves to the disposed of and hence the order :

For the Employer : M/s . Dhruva & Co. Advocates

ORDER

For the Workmen : Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant Advocate

Reference stands disposed of.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR , Presiding Officer Mumbai dated 5th February , 2003 2567

भारत का राजपत्त्र: मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003

tion 10 read with 2A thereof of the Industrial Dis- putes Act 1947.The terms of reference are as follows ;

"Whether there is any anomaly in the actions of the Sangali Bank Ltd. in promoting clerk to Officers on the basis of merit list w. e. f. 1992 ? If so, what relief are the workmen entitled to?"

का.आ. 991.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सांगली बैंक लिमिटेड , बाम्बे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रोय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सोजीमाईटी-08/ 1997) को प्रकाशित करतो है, जो केन्द्राय सरकार को 25-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल 12011/ 06/ 95-आई . आर. (बो-1) ] सो. गंगाधरन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 26th February , 2003

S.O.991 .- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Gov- ernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT- 08/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal No. 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the An- nexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sangli Bank Ltd. Bombay and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-02-2003 .

[No. L- 12011 /06/ 95 - IR (B.I ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI

PRESENT :

Shri Justice S. C. PANDEY Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT - 08/1997

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Sangli Bank Ltd. Bombay AND Their Workmen

APPEARANCES ;

For the Management : Mr. Gaonkar , Advocate For the Workman : STATE : Mr. Nabar, Advocate. Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 6th day of February , 2003. AWARD

2. Sangli Bank Workers Sanghatana is the sec- ond party to this reference . It is a registered as a trade union of the employees . It is a minority trade union. It is alleged by the second party with the consent of existing union the First Party Bank had issued a promotion policy which was prevalent in the year 1988 marked as Exhibit A. The basis of promotion was merit- cum-seniority. The merit was to be judged on the basis of written examination , interview and Educational Qualifications of candi- date. Then the marks obtained on mertis were added to the respective seniority number of the candidate. A new list of seniority was to be prepared and the persons were promoted in accordance serial number obtained. It was stated that first party did not disclose the number of vacancies and also did not disclose the result of the written test till September , 1989. On 4th August, 1989 the First Party had entered with the majority union Sangli Bank employees an agreement regarding policy of promotion ( Exihibit B) . However, by this new agreement to promotion was to be done on the basis of merit-cum - seniority without any change in the manner as indicated in Exhibit A. On 29th September , 1989 the first party held interviews without disclosing the marks obtained in written test. Thereafter 50 bank employees were promoted to the post of the Officers . Four employees tried to raise a dispute regarding illegality in promotion. The first party promoted three persons out of four before the matter could be taken up by the Conciliation Officer , Poona . The case of remaining person Shri Rawate was admi- tted for conciliation and was transferred to Mumbai Thereafter , other workmen represented to the sec- ond party that it should take up this case for viola- tion of promotion policy. Consequently , a notice of strike was given by the second party union , on 2nd April 1993 , the matter was admitted for concila- tion. During the conciliation proceedings the Bank filed the list prepared by it in respect of. Clerks eligi- ble for promotion as a consequence of the written test . It revealed arbitrary action of the First Party Bank . It was found that the Bank did not comply with the clause 4 of the Promotion Policy dated 4th August , 1989. Accordingly, the Second Party Union demanded that the list be revised because it was apparent that claims of many employees who secu- red more marks had not been given due weight . The 1. This is a reference made by the Central Govern- ment of this tribunal under Sub -section ( Id) of Sec- 650 GI/2003-8 2568

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

that the present Union had no locus standi to challenge the promotion made earlier . All other allegations were denied .

second party wanted that this tribunal should declare that seniority - cum-merit list prepared by the Bank be declared contrary to promotion policy of Bank. It be directed that the promotion be made in accor- dance with the merit list prepared in accordance with the promotion policy . The promotions of three persons be quashed .

4. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the second party by its Treasurer Shri Ramesh Padsalgikar . He was cross -examined . Thereafter , the Bank examined Mr. P. G. Gadgil Manager by filing his affidavit . He was cross - examined .

5. It has been argued on behalf of the Bank that terms of reference are limited to promotion of officers on the basis of merit list with effect from 1992. It is contended that in the year 1992 only thrce persons were promoted . The order sheet dated 5-6-1997 was also referred to . The order sheet dated 5-6-1997 is as follows :

"Shri Umesh Naber for union . Shri M. V. Gaonkar for management . Shri Nabar has filed Statement of Claim with certain exhibits . Copies have been supplied to the other side . Shri Gaonkar prays for time to file reply. Other side has no objection . 6 weeks time is granted as prayed and agreed to . Reply with documents , if any be filed. within the said period, with advance copies to the other side . Looking to the nature of the dispute referred to this tribunal , I specifically asked Mr. Nabar if promotions already made prior to the making of the reference would be affected by the adjudication : Mr. Nabar in consultation with and instructions of Mr. P. R. Padsalgikar , signatory to the claim petition states that the union does not challenge the lega- lity and propriety of the promotions already made and hence no promotce shell be affected . " 3. The stand taken by the Bank in its written statement is that with effect from 1992 till raising of dispute only three persons namely Shri D. B. Dhumak, Shri R. S. Sarfare , and Shri S. P. Dattar were promoted to Cadre of Officers . It has been stated on 5-6-1997 on behalf of second party that the promotions already made prior to making of reference shall not been affected . In view of this undertaking this reference had become infructuous . On merits it has been stated that the three employees were promoted on the basis of Settlement of the Bank with the Sangli Bank Employees ' Union ( the majority union for short) which has been recognized by the Bank. It has been stated that the second party is a minority union. The majority union and the Bank had entered several settlements prior to registration of second party in year 1991. It was alleged that as por promotion policy of the settlement with the majority union a written test for promotion of 50 clerks was taken on 17th April 1988. A merit list was prepared for promotion of 50 persons . Initially , 13 persons wore promoted . Thereafter , 37 persons promoted on 20-12-1990. Thereafter , recognized union raised a demand of promotion of three persons . A settlement under section 12(3 ) of the Act was signed by the Bank with the recognized union. The present union i.e. Party No. 2 had raised the dispute with malafide intention . By Settle- meat deted 4-8-1989 , the earlier settlement dated 11-8-1982 was modified . The party No. 2 had were right challenge those settlements . It was stated that list of successful candidates was cir- euleted on 29-9-1988 . Thereafter no complaint was raised . It was further argued that it was not recessary to publish the merit list as per settlement dated 4-8-1989 . It is alleged Shri Rawate did not file his appeal within 15 days of declaration of list. He did not get sufficient marks . He raised a dispute on Cifferent aspect not covered by the promotion policy after ten months. It was denied that there was any favori- tism or nepotism. The genuine claims for three persons named earlier were considered and a settlement dated 24-9-92 was reached before the conciliation officer under section 12(3) of the Act. It was asserted that the reasons for not promoting Shri Rawate were explained in reply filed before the Conciliation Officer . It was said

6. It is apparent from the order sheet that Mr. Nabar had already conceded that second party did not want to challenge the promotions already made . The language of the terms of reference showed that question that was roferred to this tribunal related to anamoly in the promo- tions w.e.f. 1992. Therefore , it is natural to ask what remains to be adjudicated upon . The parties do not dispute that written examina- tions were held on 17-5-1988 . A merit list was prepared on the basis of these examinations . It is on basis of this merit list 13 clerks were promoted . Subsequently, 37 persons were promoted . Among the persons that promoted, the case of three persons was espoused by the majority union and an industrial dispute w2.s raised on behalf of three persons . It culminated! in the settlement before conciliation officer on 24th Sept. 1992, whereby D. B. Dhamuk , R. S. Sarfare and S. P. Dattar were promoted..

2569

भारत का राजपुन: मार्च 22, 2003/ चैत्र1,1925

[भाग I!-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

had expressed that he did not want to challenge the promotion already made . Therefore , the three persons have not been noticed. In view of these facts and the settlement of 24-9-92 it would not be proper to interfcre with the promotions already made .

10. Despite the anamoly in these promotions it would not be proper to disturb the promo- tions for the facts stated hereinabove in paragraph 9. However, the witness admitted that document M- 2 had to be adhered to so long as the fresh list was not made . The witners did not say that a fresh list was made between 1992 to 2002. It is also not known that how many vacancies were existing after 1992.

7. The only question that has to be decided is that there was any anomaly in promotion of D. B. Dhamuk , R. S. Sarfare and S. P. Dattar as compared to Ravate . This tribunal is not concerned with the promotion of persons prior to 1992. The terms of reference limit the promo- tion of Clerks to the grade of Officer w.e.f. 1992. Therefore , according to merit list prepared by the Bank the promotion S. P. Dattar over prior to R. B. Rawate appears to be anamalous . R. B. Rawate is placed at No. 106 and S. P. Dattar is placed at No. 149. So far as R. S. Sarfare is concerned, he was placed at No. 65 above R. B. Rawate . Similarly, D. B. Dhamuk is placed above R. B. Rawate at No. 94. How could the Bank then promote S. P. Dattar prior to R. B. Rawate ?

8. The witness examined by the Bank admit- ted in cross - examination that exhibit B is the promotion policy which was followed. It is settlement dated 4th August , 1989. The final list M-2 was prepared adhering to the promotion policy . It was stated that persons named in the list M- 2 from 1 to 50 were promoted in the year 1989. Then in the year 1992, the persons mentioned at No. 65, 94 and 149 were promoted. The witness admitted in doing so the Bank had not adhered to seniority list mentioned in the final list prepared as per promotion policy . The witness was unable to explain the gap between 51 to 64 for promoting No. 65. Similar gaps between 66 and 94, and 96 and 148 existed. Although this witness says that there is no anamoly in promotion in the year 1992, of these witness , even though , the promotion policy was not adhered to this tribunal is of the view that he is trying to support the action Bank without any reason . The witness admitted that in year 1992 a fresh list was not prepared and list marked as M-2 was prevailing. This Tribunal , therefore , comes to the conclusion that there was anamoly.

11. Under these circumstances ,, the second party Union is entitled to claim relief on the final list Exhibit M -2 prepared on 26-12-1989 . The list was admittedly in force in the year 1992. The witness admitted that it would prevail until a new list is prepared. It would be proper to direct the Bank to adhere to the list exhibit M - 2 so long as the fresh list is or was not prepared . Therefore , it would be proper to direct that the Bank shall make promotions in filling of the vacancies of the Officers strictly in order of merit given in exhibit M- 2 . It shall review the promotions to the post of Officers after 24-9-92 and give promotions as directed above in case it has not filled the vacancies as directed above , and give the incumbents due seniority consequential benefits from the date of promo- tion so made . It is made further clear that pro- motions of all persons promoted up to 1992 , including the three persons who get promotions as a result of Settlement dated 24-9-92 shall not be in any way affected . It is further made clear that this award shall be effective up to the period till new list is or was prepared according to settlement dated 9th August , 1989 or any other settlement made subsequently . In other words , the award is effective so long as the merit list remained in force after 24-4-1992 subject to the The reference is availability of vacancies . accordingly answered . No costs . and

S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी, 2003

का.आ. 992.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियो- जकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कम लेबर कोर्ट चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई डी 9. Now the argument raised on behalf of the Bank has to be considered. It has been argued that settlement dated 24-9-92 prevails over the rights of the other workmen . It has been argued that settlement dated 24-9-92 entered into with the majority Union is binding on the workmen. It appears that the settlement dated 24-9-92 was entered into during the conciliation proceedings before Shri Gyandra Singh the Conciliation Officer . It has been signed by the representative of the majority union and the Bank before the Conci- liation Officer . It is also clear from the order sheet dated 5-6-1997, that Mr. Umesh Nabar 2570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

सं. 672/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/620/ 98-आई.आर . (बी-1 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003 S.O. 992.- In pursuance of Section 17 of th Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 672/2001 ) 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 State Bank of India and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 25-02-2003 .

[No. L- 12012/620/ 98 - IR (B. - 1 ) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday, the 11th February , 2003 Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN,

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 672/2001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court CGID No.

309/99)

(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. Paul Pandi and the Management of State Bank of India , Tiru- chirappalli) .

BETWEEN

Sri K. Paul Pandi

: I Party/ Workman

AND

: II Party/Management The Deputy General Manager,

State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Tiruchirappalli .

Appearance :

For the Workman : M/ s . Aiyar & Dolia ,

R. Arumugam &

N. Krishnakumar , Advocates .

For the Management : Sri S. Kanniah , Advocate , The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour in exercise

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 12012/620 / 98 /IR (B - I ) dated 20-04-99 .

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as CGID No. 309/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Principal Labour Court , the Government of India , Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 672/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side informing them about the trans- fer of this case to this Tribunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 16-10-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further. Accordingly, the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and pro- secuted this case further .

Upon perusing the Claim Statement , Counter Statement , the documentary evidence let in on the side of the II Party/Management alone , the other material papers on record , the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman , after hearing the arguments adavnced by the learned counsel for the II Party/ Management and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this Tribunal has passed the following : ---

AWARD

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

" Whether the order dated 26-12-94 of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of the workman Sri K. Paul Pandi is justified? If not , to what relief is the workman is entitled?"

2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the I Party/Workman Sri K. Paul Pandi , Challenging the action of the II Party / Management State Bank of India , the Respondent herein , in terminating him from the services of the State Bank of India as un- justified.

3. The dispute raised by the I Party/Petitioner is briefly as follows :---

The Petitioner was appointed as messenger on 5-1-79 in the Respondent/ Bank. He had put in more than 15 years of unblemished record of service . The Respondent/ Bank Management by an order 2571

भारत का राजपत्रः मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

by the Respondent /Management on the petitioner hy exercising the powers under section 11A of In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and set aside the order of punishment and to hold that the non-employment of the Petitioner is not justified and further direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with conti- nuity of service and back wages .

4. Disputing the contentions of the Petitioner in his Claim Statement the Respondent/ Management has filed a Counter Statement . The averments in the Counter Statement are brifly as follows:-

The Petitioner has committed serious misconduct during the course of his employment as a messenger in the Respondent/ Bank. Therefore , disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him . A show cause notice was issued to him and he was called upon to offer his explanation for the various mis- conducts said to have been committed hy him . The Petitioner had failed to offer any explanation , so the Respondent/Bank had framed five charges and appointed an Enquiry Officer to go into those various charges framed against the petitioner . The enquiry proceedings were adjourned from time to time at the instance of the petitioner . But in spite of the same the Petitioner was not prepared to co- berate with the Enquiry Officer . He was anxiety to drag on the proceedings hy some pretext or other . In spite of sufficient opportunities given to the Petir tioner to disprove the charges levelled against him he has failed to avail for the same for the reasons best known to him . The Enquiry Officer after taking into account the various materials both oral and documentary produced on behalf of the bank had come to the conclusion that the Petitioner was guilty of three out of all the charges framed against him and submitted a report to the bank. A copy of the report of Enquiry Officer was forwarded to the peti- tioner with a direction to give his written explanation to the same , but the Petitioner has failed to give any explanation . Thereafter , the Respondent /Bank in- formed the petitioner by a letter dated 16-6-94 about the proposed punishment to be imposed by the Disci- plinary Authority and the fixing up the date for per- sonal hearing at the instance of the petitioner the said enquiry was postponed from time to time and finally posted on 22-8-94 . On that day , the Peti- tioner appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and requested him to consider any punishment other than dismissal . The Disciplinary Authority after taking into account the various factors involved in the case, and also the claim made by the petitioner , had passed an order dated 26-12-94 imposing the punishment of dismissal without notice . The Petitioner then preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and after dated 18-7-94 placed the Petitioer under suspension and issued a charge sheet alleging various irregulari- ties. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry. He posted the enquiry to 17-8-93. Due to non - avilability of the defence re- presentative, the Petitioner could not attend the enquiry on that date . Then the enquiry was posted to 1-9-93 . On that day , the Petitioner could not attend the enquiry due to sickness . Then the enquiry was posted to 17-9-93 . The Petitioner gave a telegram to the Enquiry Officer about his sudden set back in his health condition and the same was recieved by Enquiry Officer on 16-9-93 . On 16-9-93 the Peti- tioner's defence representative was present . The Enquiry Officer instead of adjourning the en- quiry, had chosen to record that the telegram has been received by him only on 17-9-93 at 1.15 p.m. and set the Petitioner ex - parte and completed the enquiry without further notice , it shows the biased attitude of the Enquiry Officer . In the enquiry, reasonable opportunity was not given to the peti- tioner and the enquiry was not fair and proper . The Enquiry Officer , having observed that the prosecution could not prove the charge No. 1 and relevant authenti- catedproof were not made availble during the enquiry gave a perverse finding by holding that the charge No. 1 was proved. The Enquiry Officer in his report has given a finding that the Petitioner is not guilty of the charges 4 and 5 and the charges 1 to 3 levelled against the Petitioner have heen proved. The find- ings of the Enquiry Officer are pervers and not based on the evidence on record . The Disciplinary Autho- rity passed a final order dated 26-12-94 without ap- plying his mind dispassionately for his conclunsion for accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer . The various submissions made by the Petitioner in his representation dated 22-8-94 regarding the per- versity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer was not considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority erred in giving the punish- ment of dismissal without notice the maximum pu- nishment provided for the minor misconduct for charge No. 3 alleged to have been proved is only stoppage of increment for the period not longer than six months . The Appellate Authority , though modified the order of the Disciplinary Authority to the one of discharge , has failed to consider various valid contentions raised by the Petitioner in his appeal . The Senior Officials of Respondent/ Bank who had found guilty of misconducts of similar nature were dealt with leniently . Hence , the punish- ment imposed by the Respondent /Bank management against the petitioner is discriminatory . The un- blemished past record of the petitioner was not con- sidered both by the Disciplinary Authority and Ap- pellate Authority. Hence , this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to interfere with the punishment imposed 2572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] taking into consideration , the oral and written sub- missions made by the petitioner and his representa- tive passed an order dated 19-11-96 confirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authority . However he took a lenient view and reduced the punishment from dismissal without notice todischarge . The Peti- tioner has deliberately failed to attend the enquiry proceedings , though sufficient opportunity was given to him to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings , he failed to avail of the various opportu- nities provided to him . There is no violation of principles of natural justice. The enquiry was fair and proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on oral and documentary evidence pro- duced by the bank before him . The petitioner has raised this dispute after a long lapse of time and therefore, it is barred by limitation and laches . It is reliably learnt that the petitioner is gainfully emp- loyed in all these years and therefore, he is not eligible to get any relief . There is absolutely no merits in the claim made by the Petitioner . If this Hon'ble Tribunal during the course of proceedings observes that there were some lapses on the part of Respondent while conducting the proceedings , the Respondent may be allowed to lead both oral and documentary evidence in support the claim . Hence , it is prayed that the claim of the petitioner may be disınissed.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no one has been examined on either side as a witness . No document has been marked on the side of the I Party/ Workman. Documents filed on the side of the 11 Party/ Management have been marked by consent as Ex . MI to M18 . Learned counsel for the I Party/Workman has filed his written arguments and the learned counsel for the II Party / Management has advanced his oral arguinents .

5. The point for my consideration is--

"Whether the order dated 26-12-94 of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of the workman Sri K. Paul Pandi is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

Point:-

copy of that show cause notice is Ex . M2 . In spite giving enough time to the Petitioner for submission of his explanation to the show cause notice , he has not submitted his reply to the show cause notice till 13-1-1993 . So a reminder letter was sent by the Branch Manager of Avoor branch of the Respondent/ Bank to the Petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation within 15 days . The xerox copy of that reminder letter is Ex . M3 . To enquire into the various irregularities said to have been committed by the Petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has sent a communication dated 20-7-93 to the Peti- tioner informing him that he is decided to conduct an enquiry at 10.30 a.m. on 9-8-83 at the State Bank branch at Avoor . The xerox copy of that letter dated 20-7-93 is Ex. M4 . Then again the Enquiry Officer sent another communication to the Petitioner dated 10-8-93 informing him that the enquiry is postponed to 17-8-93. The xerox copy of the same is Ex . M5. On 17-8-93 , the Enquiry Officer has con- ducted the enquiry . The Xerox copies of the pro- ceedings of enquiry on 17-8-93 is Ex . M6 . The Enquiry Officer had his second sitting on 1-9-93 . On that day also , the Petitioner has not turned up for the enquiry . Then the Enquiry Officer has postponed the enquiry to 16-9-93. On that day also , the Petitioner did not appear at 11.30 am . So , the Enquiry Officer decided to wait till 2.00 p.m. on that day awaiting the arrival of the charge sheeted employee . When he again commences the enquiry at 2.45 p.m. the Petitioner didn't appear and then he proceeded the enquiry ex - parte. Then one Perumal was examined as first witness for the management and documents have been marked through him. Then the enquiry was continued on the next day on 17-9-93 . Then one John William of Avoor , Velu Udaiyar one Murugesan , Dhanam , Shanthammal and the Branch Manager of Avoor branch of the Respondent/Bank have been examined as witnesses on the management side and documents have been marked as management exhibits . The Xerox copy of that enquiry proceedings have been filed by the Respondent/Management . On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has given his report dated 6-11-93. The xerox copy of the same is Ex . M7. He has given his findings that the charges 1 to 3 levelled against the Petitioner have been proved and he found the Petitioner not guilty in respect of the other two charges . A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was forwarded to the Petitioner with an advice that if he desires to make any repre- sentation , he can do so to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days from the date of receipt of that letter . The xerox copy of that letter dated 11-11-93 is Ex . M8 . For that the Petitioner has not submitted It is admitted that when the Petitioner was work- ing as messenger in the Respondent/ Bank branch at Avoor for some irregularities alleged to have been committed by him , he was placed under suspension by an order dated 18-7-92 by the Disciplinaty Authority of the Respondent/ Bank management . The xerox copy of the same it Ex.MI. A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to offer his explanation for the various misconducts said to have been committed by him. The xerox 2573

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003/चैल1, 1925

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

enquiry , and the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry ex- parte, in spite of his representation that he is unable to take part in the enquiry due to his ill health . It is not his definite averment in his Claim Statement that he has not committed such irregulari- ties as alleged in the charge memo . The various irregularities said to have been committedby the Petitioner while he was serving as messenger in the Respondent/Bank branch at Avoor, are that in the villagers of Avoor approached the bank for obtaining gold loans, the Petitioner had disverted them and he had started advancing money against gold crnaments and he had been doing his business for a consider- able period of time and he had advanced around 2.5 lacs to 85 persons in and around Avoor and thereby he had indulged in money lending business , which is outside the scope of his duties and is in violation of his service conditions in the bank;

And that when some of the villagers have repaid the their loans with interest the Petitioner had failed to return the gold ornaments to them leading to filing of police complaint against him by six villagers and that he had avoided meeting the persons who have repaid the loans and he is absconding since March, 1992 and thus , he had cheated the general public and created a public scandal spoiling the image of the bank;

and that he had re - pledged the gold ornaments to private pawn brokers in Trichy and availed loans for higher amounts under higher interest and in that process , the Petitioner had enjoyed fundsto the tune of Rs . 1.5 lakhs on the repledged oraaments which had made it difficult for him to redeem the gold crnaments pledged with him , despite the pledge of repaying their loans and in that process , the Petitioner had incurred outside debts far in excess of his position in the bank;

and that he had availed a consumer lean on 20-8-90 for Rs . 9550 to purchase some consum articles , but it was found during inspection that he had pledged some of the articles purchased unde: consumer loan, his house owner and thus, he had misutilised the facility of consume : Icans to staff; and

his explanation. So the Disciplinary Authority has sent a letter dated 16-6-94 to the Petitioner informing him that he concurs with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and he proposed to impose punishment of dismissal without notice and advised him that he will be given a personal hearing and he can appear for the same and make his written sub- missions of the hearing , if he so desires . The xerox copy of that letter is Ex . M9 . The Petitioner has sent a reply to the 2nd show cause notice. The xerox copy of the reply dated 24-6-94 is Ex.M10. Then for the personal hearing on 22-8-94 the Peti- tioner appeared before the Disciplinary Authority. The xerox copy of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority on the personal hearing on 22-8-94 is Ex.M11 . In the personal hearing , the Petitioner has requested the Disciplinary Authority to consider any other punishment other than dismissal . He has not made any other representation in the personal hearing before the Disciplinary Authority. He has also given a written representation on the same day. The xerox copy of the same is Ex.M12 . After consi- dering the oral as well as the written representation of the Petitioner in the personal hearing , the Discip- linary Authority has passed the final order dated 26-12-94 . The xerox copy of the same is Ex.M13 . In that final order , he has confirmed the proposed punishment of dismissal without notice against the Petitioner , as per para 521.5 (a) of Sastry Award with para 18.28 of Desai Award . Against that order of Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner has preferred an appeal to Appellate Authority . The xerox copy of the appeal dated 11-2-95 is Ex. M14. The Appellate Authority sent an intimation dated 10-3-95 to the Petitioner affording him a personal hearing . A xerox copy of the letter dated 10-3-95 is Ex.M15 . Then the Appellate Authority at the request of the Petitioner by his letter dated 15-3-95 has postponed the personal hearing to 31-3-96 and informed the same by letter dated 5-10-96 . The xerox copy of the same is Ex.M16 . Again at the request of the Petitioner by his letter dated 26-10-96 the Appellate Authority has post- poned the personal hearing to 19-11-96 and informed the same to Petitioner by his letter dated 8-11-96 . The xerox copy of the same is Ex.M17 . Then on 19-11-96 the Petitioner appcared before the Appellate Authority for his personal hearing and made his representation . The xerox copy of the proceedings of Appellate Authority for the personal hearing dated 19-11-96 is Ex . M18 . It is admitted that the Appellate Authority had passed an order by reducing the punishment of dismissal without notice imposed by the Disciplinary Authority to that of discharge from service while disposing of that appeal on 19-11-96.

that the Petitioner had availed extraordinary leave on loss of pay for 377 days before joining at Avoor branch and his increment got postponed on account of this and that even after this he continues to be absent from duty at Avoor branch from 1-4-92 without any leave at his credit and without sanction of the appropriate authority and even without production of leave application or medical certi- ficate and thus , he is continuously absenting himsjef from duty unauthorisedly .

6. It is alleged by the Petitioner in his Claim Statement that he was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth his defence effectively in the domestic 2574 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925 [ PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 7. It is the contention of the Respondent/Ma- nagement that inspite of the charge memo issued to this effect , and the Petitioner has been called upon to submit his explanation , he has not submitted any explanation for the same , denying that the charges levelled against him are false and he has not commit- ted such irregularities . This fact has not been dis- puted by the petitioner himself. A domestic enquiry has been conducted to enquire into the charges levelled against the Petitioner mentioned in Ex.M2 . The documents filed by the Respondent/Management clearly shows that in spite of various notices issued to the Petitioner by the Enquiry Officer about the dates fixed for domestic enquiry and a direction to him to appear for enquiry , he has not taken part in the domestic enquiry , but remained ex -parte . So , the Enquiry Officer has conducted the domestic enquiry ex - parte and examined the witnesses on the side of the management and has marked the docu- ments as management exhibits .

8. It is the contention of the Petitioner that despite his representation to the Enquiry Officer through telegram to adjourn the enquiry , the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry ex- parte and it is against the principles of natural justice and since the enquiry has been conducted ex-partc , he was not given an opportunity to cross examine the prose- cution witnesses and which caused him prejudice and it is against the principles of natural justic . In his Claim Statement itself, it is stated that the Enquiry Officer commenced the enquiry proceedings ex- parte on 16-9-93 and concluded the same on 18-9-93 despite the attendance of his defence representa- tive . Such being the case , the defence representative who attended the enquiry could have proceeded with that enquiry in the absence of the delinquent employee as his authorised representative to defend him in the enquiry. But he has also not chosen to do so . The entire proceedings of the domestic en- quiry reveals that as contended by the Respondent/ Management the petitioner was anxious to drag on the proccedings by some pretext or other without an end and in spite of sufficient opportunities given to him to disprove the charges levelled against him , he has failed to avail of the same for the reasons best known to him. If really, the various irregulari- tier/ misconducts said to have been committed by h'm as alleged in the charge memo are false , he would not have failed to offer his explanation , when he was asked to do so and even after giving enough time for him to do so. Even in the Claim Statement , it is not his contention that the charges levelled against him in the charge memo as various misconducts com- mitted by him are false . It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta AIR 1970 Calcutta 154 H. MOITRA VS. CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRIBUNAL that " employee deliberately not appear-

ing and explaining charges against him in the disci- plinary proceedings initiated against him with on to future remedy can be considered as a conduct goes against his plea that he had no opportunity to defend and that proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice " . This decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the above case it squarely applicable to the facts of this case . Hence , it cannot be contended that the conduct of the en- quiry by the Enquiry Officer in this case ex- parte is against the principles of natural justice . A perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings and a reading of the Enquiry Officer's report clearly show that sufficient oral and documentary evidence has been let in by the management to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner , the charge sheeted employee . and after analysing the same , the Enquiry Officer has given his findings that out of the five charges levelled against the Petitioner the charges 1 to 3 which are very serious in nature have been proved. From this , it is seen that the Petitioner was doing a parallel banking business as an employee of the Respondent/ Bank in service. The Enquiry Officer in his report under Ex . M7 has clearly stated that the petitioner Sr , K. Paul Pandi who is the charge sheeted employee was in the habit of lending money against pledge of gold ornaments with him by the villagers of Avoor and near by villagers and after analysing the entire oral and documentary evidnece on this aspect of mis conduct of the Petitioner , he has observed that the charge sheeted employee has been engaging in money lending business and had failed to return the gold ornaments pledged with him by the villagers and has incurred outside debts by misusing his position in the bank and cheated the general public and spoiled the image of the bank in the eyes of the general public' and hence he found him guilty of the charges 1 to 3 mentioned in the charge memo. So from this it canbe said that the said finding of the Enquiry Officer is not with out any evidence or basis or is a perverse finding. As it is decided by the Supreme Court in a case reported as 1998 I LLJ 629 SECRETARY TO GOVT. HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Vs. SRI VAIGUNTHANATHAN that ' the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquizy Officer unless the findings are perverse and not supported by any evidence' . This decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is quite applicable to the facts of the present case . In a case reported as 1998 3 LLN 89 UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. VISHWAMOHAN the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that " in banking business , absolute devotion diligence and integrity need to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular , by bank officer , and if this is not observed , confidence of depositors would be impaired and hence , order of dsimissal of the 2575

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( 11 ) ]

Witnesses Examined :

None

On either side

Documents Exhibited : -

For the I Party / Workman : - Nil

For the II Party/ Management : ----

Description

Ex . No. Date

18-07-92 Xerox copy of the suspension letter issued by Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner MI

M2 Nil Xerox copy of the draft copy of explanation letter Called for from Petitioner

M3 13-01-93 Xerox copy of the reminder letter sent to Petitioner

M4 20-07-93 Xerox copy of the letter from the Enquiry Oficer to Petitioner

M5 10-08-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner

M6 17-08-93 Xeгox copy of the enquiry pro- ceedings

M7 06-11-93 Xerox copy of the Enquiry Officer's report .

M8 11-11-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Dis- ciplinary Authority to Petitioner

M9 16-06-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to Peti- tioner

M10 Petitioner 24-06-94 Xerox copy of the letter from to Disciplinary Authority

Mil 22-08-94 Xe : 0x copy of the proceedings of personal hearing given By Disciplinary Authority to Peti- tioner

M12 Petitioner Authority 22-08-94 Xerox copy of the letter from to Disciplinary

M13 26-12-94 Xerox copy of the order of dis- missal passed by Disciplinary Authority against the Petitioner employee by the management is proper and justified. " In a case reported as 1999 II LLJ 1994 MANAGEMENT OF CATHELIC SYRIAN BANK VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , MADRAS AND ANOTHER the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that " finding that employee committed fraud on a customer was established in domestic enquiry , the bank management is right in its conclusion that continuing such employee in the employment of the bank would be prejudicial to the interest of the bank, since the confidence of the customer is paramount for success of banking business . The Industrial Tribunal cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment , if proved misconduct is grave in nature warranting dismissal from service . Dis- cretionary power to interfere with the quantum of punishment can he exercised only, when it is established that the proved charges and penalty imposed are not proportionate to each other after considering all aspects. This decision of the Hon'ble High Court is quite applicable to the facts of this case . The proved misconduof of the Petitioner, the charge sheeted employee is grave in nature warranting dismissal from ser- vice. So under such circumstances , this Tribunal cannot interfere with the quantum of punisht- ment imposed by the Respondent/ Management against the Petitioner for the proved misconduct by exercising its power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Hence, it is found that the final order passed by the Appellate Authority of the Respondent / Management State Bank of India against the Petitioner by an ordeı dated 19-11-1996 by reducing the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority for dismissal without notice to discharge is justified. The final order passed by the Respondent /Mana- gement against the Petitioner/Workman Sri K. Paul Pandi is not the order dated 26-12-1994 as a termination of the Petitioner from service as mentioned in the Reference for adjudication. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief . Thus , the point is answered accordingly.

11-02-95 Xerox copy of the appeal pre- ferred by the Petitinoner to Appellate Authority M14

9. In the result , an Award is passed holding that the concerned workman Sri K. Paul is not entitled for any relief . No Cost .

M15 10-03-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Appellate Authority to Petitioner

M16 05-10-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Appellate Authority to Petitioer

M17 08-11-96 Хегоx copy of the letter from Appellate Authority to Petitioner (Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 11th February , 2003.)

M18 19-11-96 Хегоx copy of the proceedings of personal hearing Before Appellate Authority

K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer

650 GI /2003-9 2576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003

का. ग्रा. 993.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय मरकार मै . फेड्रल बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में लेबर कोर्ट , अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ग्राई.डी.नं . 181996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [मं. एल-12012/133/ 95- आई.आर. (बी-1)] सी. गंगाधरन , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003 S.O.993 . In pursuancemance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( I.D. No. 18/1996 ) of the Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofMis . Federal Bank Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-02-2003 ,

[No. L- 12012/ 133 /95-1R( B.1 ) ] C. GANGADHARAN. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

ON THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM) (Monday the 3rd day of January , 2003 ) Present:

Smt . N. Thulasi Bai , B.A.LL.B. , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 18 of 1996 ( Central ) Between :

The Chairman , M/ s . Federal Bank Limited, Alwaye .

And

The workman of the above concern Sri K.G. Mukundakumar . Bankman , No. 39/544 , Cochin - 11 .

Representations :

M/ s . B. S. Krislınan Associates ,

Advocates .

.. For Management Warriam Read . Ernakulam .

Sri . Ashok B. Shenoy,

..For Workman Advecates . Vatsal,

Cochin-35.

[PART I- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

This reference was made by the Central Govern- ment as per letter No. L.12012 / 133 /95 /JR (B.1 . ) dated 9-8-1996. The dispute isbetween the manage- ment of M/ s . Federal Bank Limited and their work- man Sri K.G. Mukundakumar . The dispute referred is :

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Federal Bank Limited, Alwaye in retrenching Sri K.G. Mukundakumar, Bankman from service w.e.f. 18-12-86 is justified or not ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Pursuant to notices issued from this court the workman and monagement appeared through counsel . The workman filed a claim statement and management filed a written statement raising their respective claims . Thereafter a replication was filed by the workman and the case was pending for adducing evidence. Some documents were produced by the management as per petition filed by the workman and witness list also was filed by the management . Thereafter the case was pending for adducing evi- dence by the workman . Inspite of repeated chances the workman has not turned up to adduce evidence . Today, when the case was called the workman's counsel was present and the workman was absent . The counsel submitted that he has no instrctions from the workman . Workman was called absent . Under the above circumstances I am satisfied that the work- man is not interested in prosecuting the dispute thereby it can be found that there exists no industrial dispute at present to be adjudicated by this court .

In the result, an award is passed finding , that there exists no industrial dispute at present to be adjudicated by this court.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant , trans- cribed and typed out by her , corrected by me and passed this the 3rd day of February , 2003. Ernakulam .

N. THULASI BAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003

का. ग्रा . 994.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियन , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई. रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -कम-लेबर कोर्ट, भवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी.नं. 304/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार 25-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । को [सं. एल-41012/172/ 99-आई . आर . (बी-1 ) ] सो. गंगाधरन, अवर सचिव [भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003 S.O. 994 - In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 304/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.E. Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-02-2003 .

[No. L-41012/172/99 - IR(B.1 ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR

Present :

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

Tr. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 304/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing 23rd Jan. 2003 Date of Passing Award 18th Feb. , 2003 Between :

-1st Party- Management .

The Management of the Divisional Railway Manager , S.E. Railway , Sambalpur .

AND

Their Workmen

Shri J. Raja Rao , Represented through the Asst. General Secretary , All India Loco Running Staff Associa- tion , S.E. Railway , Sambalpur Divn . At/Po . Kantabanji ,

2577

भारत का राजपत्रः मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र1, 1925

"Whether the action of the Management of S.E. Railway , Sambalpur in not regularizing the service of Shri J. Raja Rao , Clerk who has ren- dcred service for 38 years in Railway Institute is justified. If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to?"

2. The case of the 2nd Party as per his Claim Statement may be stated in brief.

The 2nd Party is working as a Clerk in the Railway Institute , Kantabanji since 28-5-1958 and has comp- leted 42 years of service . He is being paid Rs . 340 per month . He is enjoying the facilities of having free pass , treatment in the Railway Hospital and availing Casual Leave and other Leave . In the 1997 there was a proposal to regularize the services of persons who have rendered service for five years in the Railway Institute . In the district of Sambal- pur Division zone first screening test was conducted on 17-10-1995 . He could not appear before the screening test as he got the intimation after the date of screening test i.e. on 18-10-1995. Again the second screening test was held on 10-2-1996. He appeared before the test but he was declared disquali- fied being over aged . His grievance is that due to negligence of the 1st Party- Management he could not be regularized after completion of five years of service in the Group -D post . So , he raised the dispute, conciliation was made and as it failed the present reference has been made. In his Claim Statement, he has prayed to issue direction to the 1st Party-Management to regularise his service in a Group- D post from the year 1963 or from 1988 with back wages with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum with further prayer for service benefits like pension and other financial benefits enjoyed by the employees of the 1st Party - Management and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs . 10,000 .

-2nd Party-Workman

Distt . Bolongir

Appearances :

Shri Ajaya Kr . Mohanty. Advocate .

-For the 1st Party- Management .

Shri Sitansu Kumar Das , For the 2nd Party- Workman. Advocate .

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and-sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 41012 / 172/ 99 - IR (B - 1 ), dat ed 11-11-1999 :

3. The 1st Party- Management has filed their Written Statement . They have taken the stand that , the present reference is not maintainable as the 2nd Party is not a workman under the 1st Party- Management and that, this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to answer the reference . It has been averred that , the 2nd Party being a worker under the Railway Institute cannot claim to be a workman under the 1st Party - Management as he was engaged as a worker in a quasi administrative organization . In the year 1995 a screening test was held as per the instruction of the Railway but the 2nd Party did not turn up ,. Subsequently , in the yaar 1996 further screening test was held and the 2nd Party was found over aged even if upper age limit of five years was extended to him . So , the Ist Party - Management has taken the stand that the 2nd Party is not entitled for any relicf.

2578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003/ CHAITRA 1 , 1925 [PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

==

4. On the above pleading of the parties , the following Issues have been settled.

ISSUES

1. Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to answer the reference ?

2. Whether the 2nd Party- Workman can be treated as workman ?

3. Whether the action of the Ist Party - Mana- gement in not regularizing the services of Shri J. Raja Rao , Clerk is justified ?

4. What relief the workman is entitled to ?

Railway Institute, Kantabanji . The witness examined on behalf of the Ist Party- Management has admitted that the Railway Institutes and clubs are the integral part of the Railway administration . But admittedly , when the 2nd Party has not been appointed by the 1st Party- Management and payment is being made to him by the Managing Committee of the Railway Institute on which no direct administrative control is being exercised by the 1st Party - Manage- ment . So , in that case even if the 2nd Party has worked in the Railway Institute , Kantabanji , he cannot be defined as a workman as per the Industrial Disputes Act . So , this Issue is answered in favour of the Ist Party - Management .

ISSUE NO . I

5. On behalf of the 2nd Party one witness has been examined and he is the Workman himself . He has exhibited seven documents in support of his case. On the other hand , the Ist Party Management has examined one witness in support of their case .

FINDINGS

6. I will take up Issue No. Il first for conve- nient sake

ISSUE NO.1

8. I have already recorded a finding in respect of Issue No. II in my previous paragraphs that the 2nd Party is not a workman . The Industrial Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to answer the reference as per the Industrial Disputes Act if a person has raised dispute who is not a workman . When the 2nd Party is not a work- man , the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable to him. In other words this Tribunal will have not jurisdiction to answer the reference .

ISSUE NO . III

9. A lengthy argument has been advanced on behalf of the 2nd party to justify his claim for regularization in the Group-D post from the year 1963 i.c. when has completed five years of service in the Railway Institute . Inviting the attention of the Tribunal to the documents and the evidence of the Ist Party - Management it has been admitted that when there was a proposal to regularize the workers who have worked in the quasi administrative organization , the case of the 2nd Party could have been considerec after five years and due to negligent of the 1st Party -Management that could not be done as a result of which the 2nd Parży suffered a loss and when he appeared before the screening test he was disqualified as he was cross the age limit prescribed . It is true that there was a proposal for preparation of screening test of workers who is working in quasi administrative organization after completion of five years of service . The 2nd Party joined in the year 1958 and completed five years in the year 1963. When his case was not considered he did not raise any objection or dispute at that time. But when he was dis- engaged in the year 1996 he raised the dispute claiming that he should have been regularized 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st Party- Management has submitted that , the 2nd Party was working under the quasi admi- nistrative organization of the Ist Party - Management can not be treated as a workman is terms of the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act on workman. According to him as the 2nd Party has worked under the Railway Institute and has not received his salary from the 1st Party -Mana- gement who has got no administrative control , the 2nd Party is not a workman as per the defi- nition of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Party has submitted that , when admittedly Railway Institute , Kantabanji is an integral pari of the Ist Party- Management , the 2nd Party having worked in the Railway Institute is a workman as per the definition of the Indus- tria ! Disputes Act. After hearing of both the parties , I am not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the 2nd Party. Admittedly , no order of appointment has been issued to the 2nd Party by the Ist Party - Management . The certificate , which has been exhibited, in this case as Ext . - 1 filedby the 2nd Party reveals that , he was working under the Railway Institute , Kanta- banji and this certificate has been issued by the Honorary Secretary of S.E. Railway , Kantabanji . The 2nd Party has admitted in the cross examina- tion that , he had not received any appointment letter and he was receiving the payment from the Management of the Railway Institute and he was applying for leave to the Honorary Secretary , 2579

भारत का राजपत्तः मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

to from the year 1963 or from the year 1988. In Paragraph 4 of his Claim Statement, it has been averred that, the 1st Party- Management has taken prompt action to regularize the services of one Shri J. R. Rao and he was standing on the same footing on which the 2nd Party is standing. In view of my findings given in respect of Issue Nos. I and II, this Tribunal can not grant any relief to the 2nd Party even if it is accepted for the argument sake that some injustice has been showed the 2nd Party. When the 2nd Party has failed to make out a case that he is a workman under the Ist Party- Management , this Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to grant any relief under the Industrial Disputes Act because this Tribunal does not have any inherent powers like Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court to grant any relief. So , it cannot be said that , the action of the 1st Party - Management in not regularizing the services of the 2nd Party, Shri J. Raja Rao is illegal . Hence , this Issue answered accordingly. is

ISSUE NO . IV

10. In view of my findings recorded in respect of Issue Nos . I, II and III the 2nd Party -Work- man is not entitled for any relief. As regards equal pay no relief can be granted by this Tribunal because the Railway Institute is not a Party to the proceedings .

11. Reference is answered accordingly . S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE C.G.I.T. - CUM - LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Tr . I. D. Case No. 304/2001 List of the Witnesses Examined on behalf of the 2nd Party- Workman .

W. W. No. 1. Shri J. Raja Rao (the 2nd Party- Workman)

List of the Witnesses Examined on behalf of the 1st Party - Management .

M. W. No. 1. Shri Giridhari Bindhani .

List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the 2nd Party -Workman .

Ext. 1. Copy of the certificate issued to the Workman on 26-8-1997 by the Hono- rary Secretary , S. E. Railway Institute, Kantabanji .

Ext. -2. Copy of the letter No. 75/99 , dated 4-4-1999 of S. E. Railway Institute , Kantabanji .

Ext.-3. Copy of representation, dated 21-10-1995 of the workman to DRM, S. E. Railway , Sambalpur .

Ext. -3 / 1 . Copy of representation, dated 30-11-1996 of the workman to the Addl . DRM S. E. Railway. Sambalpur .

Ext. - 3/ 2. Copy of representation , dated 2-10-1997 of the workman to the Chief person- nel Officer , S. E. Railway, Calcutta .

Ext. -3 /3 . Copy of representation dated 15-4-1999 of the workman to the DPO, S. E. Railway , Sambalpur .

Ext.-4 . the Copy of the correspondence made by Divisional Personnel Officer, Sambalpur with the Asstt . Engineer , S. E. Railway .

Ext-5. Copy of the letter No. SPR/Screening/ NRB/ 96 , dated 9-2-1996 by DPO , Sambalpur to the Secretary , S. E. Rail- way Institute to attend the screening 10st 011 10-2-96.

Ext-6. Copy of letter , dated 13-1-1997 addres- sed to Sr. D.P.O. , S.E. Railway , Visakhapatnam , addressed by D.P.O. Sambalpur with copy to the workman .

Ext.-7. Copy of the letter No. RI/ SER/ SM/ 93, dated 23 /24-9-93 -order appointing some person .

List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the 1st Party - Management .

No documents has been exhibited on behalf of the Ist Party - Management .

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003 का.ग्रा . 995:- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रोय सरकार पारादीप पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2001 ) क़ो प्रकाशित करतो है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 38025/1/ 2003- आई . आर . (वो.-II ) ] सो गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव 2580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003/ CHAITRA 1 , 1925 [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 26th February , 2003

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003

S.O. 996. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 24/2002 ) of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-2-2003 .

S.O. 995. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 42 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cuc - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofParadip Port Trust and their workman , which was recei- ved by the Central Government on 25-2-2003 .

[No. L- 12011 / 46/ 2002- IR(B - II ) ] [No. L - 38025 | 1 | 2003 - IR ( B - II ) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy .

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COUR'T " SHRAM SADAN "

PRESENT:

111 MAIN , III CROSS, 11 PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD ,

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

I.D. Misc . Case No. 42 2001

Dated : 4th February , 2003

PRESENT :

Date of Passing Order 26-12-2002

Hon'ble Shri V. N. Kulkarni , B.Com , LLB . , Presiding Officer .

BETWEEN :

CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Shri Prasanta Kumar Kar,

C.R. No. 24/2002

I PARTY

Petitioner.

At-Qrs . No. M111.98 , POP.S. -Paradip Port , Dist. -Jagatsinghpur , Orissa.

11 PARTY AND

The Assistant General Manager ,

The State Secretary, Bijapur District Bank Daily , Deposit Collectors Asson ,

Syndicate Bank , Zonal Office , 1. The Chairman , Paradip Port Trust , At PO - Paradip . Dist . -Jagatsinghpur .

Co Canara Bank ,

(Industrial Relation Cell ) ,

BANGALORE- 560009 ,

Azad Road , BIJAPUR- 586 101 .

2. The Chief Medical Officer , Paradip Port Trust , Dist . -Jagatsinghpur ,

AWARD

3. The Estate Officer , Paradip Port Trust , Dist. -Jagatsinghpur , Orissa

Opposite Parties .

APPEARANCE :

None

On behalf of the applicant .

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) Sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12011/ 46/ 2002 ( IR- CB - 11 ) dated 24th May, 2002 for adjudication on the following schedule :

On behalf of Opposite

SCHEDULE

Shri N. K. Senapati . Head Assistant, PPT

parties.

ORDER

"Whether the action of the management of Mis . Syndi- cate Bank is justified in terminating the Pigmy Agency in respect of Shri L. P. Kulkarni , Work- man ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

This order arises on the application 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed under Section 1947 by one Shri Prasant Kumar Kar.

2. The representative of the Opposite Party is present. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner on repeated calls . Hence , this Misc . Case is dismissed for default.

2. The workman was working with the management as Pigmy Agent . His services were terminated and therefore , Industrial Dispute is raised .

3 Order is passed accordingly.

Dictated and Correctedby me .

3. Parties appeared . First party filed Claim Statement . The case of the first party in brief is as follows :

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2003

का.ग्रा . 996 : औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947

4. The workman was working us Pigmy Agent from 18-4-1988 to 22-7-1997 at the branch office and his services are terminated w.e.f. 22-7-1997. Termination is illegal . It is said in Para 6 of the Claim Statement that allegations made by the management are baseless and untrue . He was not irregular in his duties . He was very regular in collec- tion of deposits . No fraud is established by the manage- ment . There is no evidenee regarding loss of customers confidence . Management has not proved any thing . Order of the High Court is relied. Workman for these reasons as prayed to allow the reference .

(1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुवन्ध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्याया- लय बंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

5. Management appeared but even after giving adjourn- ments have not filed counter. During the Camp Court at Hubli adjournment was refused and workman was examined as WW1 . He has given detailed evidence saying that he has not misappropriated any amount and the order of terminalion is illegal.

[नं. एन.-12011/46/ 2002-आई . आर. (बी. -II) ]

मी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

6. The learned counsel appearing for the management has not filed the counter and participated in the proceedings 2581

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003 /चैट 1 , 1925

[भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Chennai Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-2-2003 .

and cross examined WW1 . Nothing is made out from the cross examination of WWI to prove the case of the work- man .

[No. L- 33011 / 2 / 99 - IR ( M ) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAI , TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Friday , the 14th February , 2003

PRESENT :

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer .

Industrial Dispute No. 248/2001

(Tamil Nadu S'ate Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 261/99 ) 7. On 30th January , 2003 counsel appearing for the management has filed Counter . It is not correct to say that Ministry of Labour has evidently taken up the instant dispute by conferring the status of workmen automatically on Shri L. P. Kulkarni , the Pigmy Agent , and Syndicate Bank, in keeping in view the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India should regularize him . It is also not gorrect to say that as such Shri L. P. Kulkarni was confirmed as a workmen and accordingly termination of his services is in violation of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act . The appointment was purely on contractual basis and it is only a relationship of Principal and Agent . The workman is not coming under the definition of Employer and Employee . The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is wrongly interpreted by the workman . The Domestic en- quiry is conducted in respect of regular employees . Service conditions are not applicable to the workman . The action of the management is correct . Management for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to reject the reference .

(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 workmen and the Management of the Chair- man, Chennai Port Trust . )

BETWEEN

8. I already said workman got examined himself as WW1 . Management has not examined any witnesses .

The General Secretary ,

1 Party/Claimant

Madras Port United Labour Union , Chennai .

AND

9. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2001 AIR SCW 749 now the first party is a workman. The first party being a workman cannot be terminated as done by the management in this case .

Ii Party/Management

The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust , Chennai .

APPEARANCE :

10. Admittedly management have not conducted any en- quiry . Management has not proved any charges and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India first party is a workman . Accordingly I proceed to pass the following Order :

ORDER

For the Claimant : M/ s. R. P. Pannerselvan and Rd Damodaran , Advocates . For the Management : Sri M. M. Shanmugham and S. Jayakumar , Advocates .

The reference is partly allowed. The Management is directed to regularize the services of the first party who is a workman as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred above .

Accordingly reference is disposed off.

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), have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 33011 / 2 / 99 / IR ( M ) dated 21-9-1999 .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4th February , 2003)

V. N. KULKARNI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2003

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 261/99 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tri- bunal to this Tribunal for adjudication . On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 248 2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side . informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tri- hunal , with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 9-2-2001 with their respective parties and to prosecute this case further . Accordingly , the learned counsel on either side along with their respective parties have appeared and prosecuted thhis case further.

का.आ. 997 --औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम व्याया- लय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 248/2001 ) को प्रका- शित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement , the documentary evidence let in on either side , the other material papers on record, the written arguments filed by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration , this Tribunal has passed the following : -

AWARD

[सं. एल.- 33011/2/ 99-आई . आर. (एम.) ] सी गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

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

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003

"Whether the demand of Madras Port United Labour Union for creation of supernumerary posts under the arbitration award to accommodate the SC/ ST employees is justified or not ? If justified , to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

"Whether the demand of Madras Port United Labour Union for promotion of Shri E. Jaganathan as S.O. 997. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government herehy publishes the award ( Ref. No. 248/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court . Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of 2582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] Office Superintendent from the post of Assistant Superintendent , Traific Department as extended to his other co - workmen is justified ? If justified , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

justified and order the Respondent to promote him retros- pectively and pay the monctary benefits entitled to him and pass such further orders , this Court deem it fit and proper in the circumstances of this case .

3. The II Party /Management Chennai Port Trust , Chennai . (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) has filed a Counter Statement with the following averments :

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by the I Party/Claimant the General Secretary , Madras Port United Labour Union ( hereinafter refers to as Petitioner ) are briefly as follows :-

other were Due to the application of the Award; the employees of communities who have attained qualifying service could not be promoted due to the application of files for SC/ST. In the Arbitration Award no qualifying service was prescribed for promotion either for SC/ ST or for other community employees hence , SC/ ST employees accommodated as per feservation, rules against the post reserved for them . There is no necessity to create super numerary posts to accommodate SC/ ST employees . 1985 four vacancies arose in the cadre of Office Superinten- dent in, Traffic Department . Out of which two vacancies reserved for SC and remaining two were unreserved. The Office Superintendent post is a selection post and depart- mental promotion committee constituted by the Chairman and it interviewed 10 Head Clerks and recommended 4 employees for inclusion in the panel for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent . The Committee has not selected Sri E. Jaganathan for the reasons that he has been in just and average worker and his past performance as Head Clerk has not been up to the mark and further , being an epileptic patient he does not have good health . Sri E. Jaganathan preferred a Writ Petition No : 1205185. challenging the selection and also filed an application in W.M.P. No. 2089/85 for interim injunction restraining the Chairman not to promote two Head Clerks belonging to SC . The Trust has filed an application in W.M.P. No. 10914/85 in which the Hon'ble High Court directed the Trust to fill up the post of Office Superintendent keeping one post vacant pending outcome of the W.P. No. 1205/85 . Accord- ingły, Sri P. Angamüthti and R. Krishnan were promoted to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 6-9-90. On 25-11-93 the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Sri E. Jaganathan . Then he preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 93/94. During the year 1994, there were six vacancies of Office Superintendent in Traffic Department out of which , one is reserved for ST and two for SC. Sri E. Jaganathan was required to appear before the Depart- mental Selection Committee on 24-10-1994 . Sri E. Jagana- than by his letter dated 20-10-94 replied that the W.A. No. 93/94 was admitted and hence , he cannot participate in the interview. Hence , Sri E. Jaganathan was not interviewed for the post of Office Superintendent and hence , he could not be considered for the post of Office Superintendent . He retired from service nn 31-10-94 and the W.A. No. 93/94 was also dismissed on 31-10-94. The Trust has not discri- minated Sri E. Jaganathan and the demand of the Petitioner Union is unsustainable in law and he is not entitled for any relief as claimed by the Petitioner . Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Trihunal may be pleased to dismiss the claims of the Petitioner Union .

a 4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry finally , no one has been examined as witness on either side. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side , documents filed on either side have been marked as Ex . WI to W4 and M1 and M2 respectively . Learned counsel on either side have filed their respective written arguments .

5. The Points for my consideration are :

"Whether the demand of Madras Port United Labour Union for creation of supernumerary posts under the arbitration award to accommodate the SC/ST employees is justified er not ? If justified , to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

"Whether the demand of Madras Port United Labour Union for promotion of Shri E. Jaganathan as Office Superintendent from the post of Assistant Superintendent. Traffic Department as extended to his other co- workmen is justified ? If justified , to what relief the workaen is entitled ?"

Point( s) :-

Based on the Arbitration Award the II Party Chennai Port Trust Management has created promotional posts in 23 categories on 13-1-97 . The cut off date for giving effect for such promotion was 31-3-90 , According to the Arbitration Award to satisfy the reservation rules for SC/ ST supernumerary posts maybe created , wherever necessary which will be personal to the individual concerned and to be adjusted against the future vacancies . Initially, the pro- motions were given to the employees as per the Arbitration Award and they were getting monetary benefits . But , in Jater stage , to comply with the said Award to create such supernumerary posts to accommodate the SC ST employees was not done . In the result , the promotion for the other community employees were affected . The proceedings of the Chairman dated 13-1-97 ereated 13 posts of Senior Assistants Works ) according to the Arbitration Award . Sri Ananthakrishnan and Sri K. Panduranga Chetty , Senior Works Clerks submitted a claim on 23-6-97 to consider them for promotion against the 13 posts created . Out of 13 posts , 8 posts were allocated for Civil Engincering Depart- ment and 5 posts bere allocatetl for Electrical and Mecharni- col Department , Among 8 posts of Civil Engineering Department , one is reserved for SC , and one is reserved for ST. By promoting Sri S. Ramachandran against SC roster roint , and Sri K. Giribabu against the ST rostee point. The promotion claimed by Sri Ananthakrishnan and Sri Pandu- ranga Chetty was not considered . So , the non- creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate the SC/ ST employees in the proceedings of Chairman dated 15-1-97 to accommo- date SC ST employces has deprived the due promotion of Sri M. Ananthakrishnan and Sri K. Panduranga Chetty . The non- compliance of creating superaumerary posts for SC/ST employees to accommodate roster rolls has resulted in de- nial of due promotion to other community employces under the Arbitration Award by accommodating the SC/ ST ent- ployees in the course totally created as listed in the proceed- ings dated 13-1-97 . Thus , the claim to create supernumerary posts for SC/ ST is sustained and other community employees denied promotion due to this lapse . They have to be promoted from earlier dates against the posts created and the Award and consequential vacancies that arise in the respective channels of promotion . Sri E. Jaganathan has not been considered for promotion as per the Award. But his juniors were promoted to the post. The said Jaganathan was called for interview for sclection , but at that time, Writ Appeal No. 93 of 1994 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court regarding earlier promotion . So, he did not attend the interview, but in the Respondent / Management several persons were given promotion without conducting interview . This was done in order to satisfy the Arbitration Award. The said Jaganathan has no adversc remarks in his service . But his juniors Sri M. P. Govindaraj , Smt. Rajathi , Sri K. Ramadurai and S. Dhanraj , who were prometed to the said post had been subjected for domestic enquiry and also punishment was given to them. The con- tention of the management that the said Jaganathan had not attended the interview held for promotion was unsus- tainable . He has explained the circumstances as to why he has not appeared for interview in his letter dated 20-10-94 to the Management. On the other hand , onc Dhanraj who died while in service said post without interview. He got all the monetary bene- fits of the promotional post . The management has discri- minated Sri E. Jaganathan in the matter of promotion as Office Superintendent against the post created under the Award. Therefore , it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award bolding that the demand of the Petitioner Union for creation of supernumerary posts under the Arbitration Award to accommodate SC/ST em- ployees is justified and order to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the SC/ ST cmnloyees and promote them from the date of vacancy of such posts and the demand of the Petitioner Union for promotion of Sri E. Jaganathan as Office Superintendent from the post of Assistant Superinten- dent , Traflie Department as extended to his co - workmen iş was promoted to the

6. The I Party/Claimant Madras Port United Labnur Union has raised this industrial dispute for a direction to the Res- 2583

भारत का राजपत्त्र: मार्च 22, 2003/ चैत्र 1 , 1925

[भाग 11-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

hereby accorded for creation of posts on the Schedule of employees of different departments of the Trust and also for abolition of equal number of posts in the lowest category of Posts as indicated in Annexure I to VIII and that in respect of promotions to be made as per the Award the reservation rules for SC ST have to be followed . From all these things , it is seen that the demand of the Madras Port Trust United Labour Union for creation of supernumerary posts under the Arbitration Award to accommodate SC/ ST employees is justi- fied. It is the contention of the Petitioner Claimant Union that the non -creation of superaumerary posts of SCISTem- ployees has deprived the due promotion of Mr. Ananthakrish- nan and K. Panduranga Chetty and it resulted in denial of due promotion to other community employees . This has not been disputed by the Respondent / Madras Pnrt Trust nianage- ment as incorrect or as a felicitons argument . On the basis of the materials available , it is seen that the said demand of the Madras Port United Labour Union is a justified one . So as per the direction in the Arbitration Award the Respondent| Management of Chennai Port Trust shall create such super- numerary posts , as per the Arbitration Award and accommo- date the eligible employees to those posts by giving promotion from the date of vacancy of such post .

trary 7. The second demand made by the Petitioner Union is for the promotion of Sri E. Jaganathan as Office Superintendent from the post of Assistant Superintendent . Traffic Depart- ment as extended to his other co- workmen . It is the conten- lion of the Petitioner Union that in the year 1985 four vacancies arose in the cadre of Office Superintendent in Traffic Department and out of which two reserved for SC and remaining two were unreserved and that the Office Superin- tendent is a selection post , the Departmental Promotion Committee which interviewed 10 Head Clerks has not selected Mr. Jaganathan since he is not upto the mark and further he being a epileptic patient and the said Jaganathan has preferred a Writ Petition in the Madras High Court challenging the selection and the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition on 25-11-93 and that Jaganathan preferred a Writ Appeal in 1994 and there was six vacancies in 1994 for the post of Office Superintendent in Traffic Department and that one was reserved for SC and two were reserved for ST and the said Jaganathan refused to appear before the selection committee on 24-10-1994 . Hence , he was not considered for that post . Subsequently , the Writ Appeal No. 93/94 was dismissed on 31-10-1994 and he also retired from the service on the same day. It is further contended by the I Party Union that as per the Arbitration Award 52 Assistant Superintendents were promoted without any interview and medical fitness. The non- setection of Mr. Jaganathan by the Departmental Promo- lion Committee in the interview and its report are all arbi- and malafide . So the promotion order of Traffic Manager dated 22-8-97 has to be set aside and Mr. Jaganathan has to be promoted as Office Superintendent as extended to co -workmen . In Ex . W4 an order passed by the Traffic Manager dated 22-8-97 for the promotion to the post of Office Superintendent as per Sankaran Committee Award, it is stated that in pursuant to the Arbitration Award and in compliance with the orders issued in Chairman Port Trust proceedings dated 13-1-97, the employees mentioned there- under who were earlier promoted to the post of Office Superintendent against regular vacancies on the dates noted against each in column 3 deemed to have been promoted to the post of Office Superintendent from the dates noted against each. This order has been passed on 22-8-97 . It is admitted that the said Jaganathan has relired from service on 31-10-1994 and on the same date his Writ Apneai No. 93/94 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court . This order of the Traffic Manager under Ex . W4 has been passed three vears subsequent to the dismissal of Writ Appeal nreferred by the said Jaganathan and his date of retirement from ser- vice. It is the contention of the Petitioner Union that S. No. 7. P. Angamuthu , 8 , R. Krishnan and 13. M. P. Govindaraj who have been promoted on 6-9-90 and 31-8-91 respectivelv are all junior to the said E. Jaganathan and hence , the said promotion has to he extended to the concerned workman E. Jaganathan also . For the contention of the Petitioner Union that as per the Arbitration Award 52 Assistant Superintendents mentioned in Ex . W4 had been promoted without any inter- view and medical fitness have not been established by anv acceptable evidence. On the other hand , it is not disputed that after the dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by said Jaganathan , challenging the earlier selection conducted by the Departmental Promotion Committee by interviewing pondent Management to create supernumerary posts based on Arbitration Award to accommodate CS ST category employees and to promote a workman by name Sri E. Jaganathan as Oifice Superintendent and for a direction to the Respondent Management to take into consideration the total period of service for the future promotion under the Scheme of grouped posts . Except filing of documents on either side as exhibits , no one has been examined as a witness on either side . Four documents as Ex. W1 to W4 on the side of the Petitioner and two documents as Ex . Ml and M2 on the side of the Respondent Management have been exhibited. Learned counsel on either side had filed their respective written argu- ments . Ex . W2 is the xerox copy of the Notification in the Central Govt. Gazette dated 3-2-96 for the publication of the Award of the Arbitrator in the industrial dispute between the employees and the management of Madras Port Trust, Madras . Mr. T. S. Sankaran , who was appoitned as the Arbitra- tor in the industrial dispute between the Madras Port Trust management and Madras Port Trust Employees Union for the arbitration in respect of eight items of dispute has passed an Award and it is not disputed. Ex. W3 is the xerox copy of the proceedings of the Chairman, Madras Port Trust dated 13-1-1997 in respect of implementation of the Award given by the Arbitrator Sri T. S. Sankaran . Ex . W4 is the xerox copy of the orders issued by the Madras Port Trust administration dated 22-8-97 in respect of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent as per Sankaran Com- mittee Award . This is also not disputed by the Respondent Madras Port Trust management . It is the contention of the 1 Party Claimant Union that in the award passed by the Arbitrator under Ex. W2 , a direction has been given to the Madras Port Trust management for creation of supernume- rary posts to accommodate SCIST employees , but it was not done by the Respondent Madras Port Trust management and in the result the promotion for other community employees were affected and that in the proceedings dated 13-1-1997 of the Chairman of Madias Port Trust 13 postsof Senior Assis- tants ( Works ) were created according to the Arbitration Award and when Sri Ananthakrishnan and K. Panduranga Chetty, Senior Works Clerks submitted the claim on 23-6-97 to consider them for promotion against the 13 posts created , they were not considered and out of 13 posts, 8 posts were allocated for Civil Engineering Department ons is reserved for SC, and one is reserved for Si andby promoting Sri S. Ramachandran against SC roster point and Sri Giribabu against ST roster point , the promotion claimed by Sri Ananthakrishnan and Sri Panduranga Chetty were not crea- led and the non - creation of supernumerary posts of Senior Assistants ( Works ) to accommodate SC/ ST employees has deprived the due promotion of Sri Ananthakrishnan and Panduranga Chetty. It is further contended that the non- compliance of creating supernumerary posts employees to accommodate roster rules has resulted in denial of promotion to other community employees under Arbitra- tion Award , by accommodating the SCIST employees in the posts totally created as listed in the proceedings of the Chairman of the Madras Port Trust dated 13-1-1997. Bul . it is the contention of the Respondent Management that in the Arbitration Award , no qualifying service for promotion was stipulated either for SCIST or for other community, hence, SCIST were accommodated as per reservation rules against the posts reserved for them and hence there is no necessity to create supernumerary posts to accommodate SC From this contention of the Respondent ST employees . Management, it is seen that they have not disputed that there is a direction in the Arbitration Award for creation of super- numerary posts to accommodate SC/ST employees . For the non - creation of supernumerary posts by the Respondent Management as per the Arbitration Award , the reason given by the Respondent Management that in the Arbitration Award no qualifying service was prescribed either for SC/ ST or other community employees for promotion to higher posts created under the Award . So this stand takenby the Respondent Management is against the terms of the Arbitration Award itself. In Ex . W3, the proccedings of the Chairman, Madras PortTrust, it is stated that the Arbitrator vide his order dated 18-12-96 has given the clarifications and one among them is , to satisfy the rules for SC and ST supernumerary posts may he created to accommodate the SCIST employees wherever necessary and those supernumerary posts will be personal to the individual concerned and to be adjusted against the future vacancies . It is further stated in that proceedings that in pursuance of the above Award and in exercise of the powers conferred on him ( the Chairman Madras Port Trust ) , under section 27 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 sanction is 650 GI/ 2003-10 for SC ST 2584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं.एल.-12012/ 74/ 2002-आईं. आर. (वी. -II ) ]

सौ . गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003 10 Head Clerks for the post of Office Superintendent, he pre- ferred a Writ Appeal No. 93/94 and when it is pending , the six vacancies arose for the post of Office Superintendent in Traffic Department in the year 1994 , the said Jaganathan was also asked to appear before the Selection Committee on 24-10-1994 and since he refused to attend the interview , he was not considered for that post also is not disputed . So, under such circumstances , the contention of the I Party Union that the Respondent Management is discriminative towards said Jaganathan by not giving promotion to him as Office Superintendent in Traffic Department is noi correct. On the other hand , on the basis of the materials available in this case, it is seen that the demand of the I Party Union for the promotion of Sri E. Jaganathan as Office Superintendent from the post of Assistant Superintendent of Traffic Department is not justified . Hence , the concerned workman Sri E. Jagana- than is not entitled for any relief. Thus , the points are answered accordingly .

S.O. 998. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 44/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndi- cate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-2-2003 .

[No. L - 12012/ 74/ 2002- IR (B - II ) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy . ANNEXURE

8. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the de- mand of the Madras Port United Labour Union for creation of supernumerary posts as per the Arbitration Award to accommodate SC/ ST employees is justified. Hence , the Res- pondent Chennai Port Trust management shall create such supernumerary posts as per the Arbitration Award and accommodate the eligible SC/ ST employees to those posts by giving promotion from the date of vacancy of such posts . The other demand of the Petitioner Union in respect of pro- motion for the workman Sri E. Jaganathan as Office Superintendent in the Traffic Department is not justified . Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. No Cost.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT "SHRM SADAN " , 111 MAIN , III CROSS, II PHASE , TUMKUR ROAD , YESHWANTHPUR . BANGALORE

(Dictated to the Stenographer , franscribed and typed by him , corrected and oronounced by me in the open cour on this day the 14th February , 2003 ) .

Dated 3rd February , 2003 K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

PRESENT :

Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None

۰۲۱

Documents, Exhibited :-

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

For the. I Party Workman : --

C.R. No. 44 2002

1 Ex. No. Date

Description

I PARTY :

W1 31-10-94 Xerox copy of the judgement of High Court of Madras in W.A. No. 93/94 .

W2 03-02-96 Xerox copy of the Government of India Notification.

W3 13-01-97 Xerox copy of the proceedings of the Chairman , Chennai Port Trust .

22-08-97

Shri Vasant Gururao Kusanur, Co M. Ramarao, No. 9 , Corporation Building , Bubli-580 020 Broadway, Karnataka

II PARTY :

W4 Xerox copy of the proceedings of Traffic Manager promotion to the post of Office Superintendent as per Sankaran Committee Award .

For the II Party/Management :-

Ex . No. Date

Description

M1 Nil

The General Manager (P ) , Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal-576 119, Karnataka

Xerox copy of the Traffic Department grade- tion list as on 1-1-94.

M2 Nil

AWARD

Xerox copy of the Traffic Department grada- tion list as on 1-1-97.

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2003

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub- section 2A of the Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12012 74/2002- IR(B - II ) dated 12th August , 2002 for ad- judication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

का.ग्रा . 998. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बंगलौर

"Whether the action of the Syndicate Bank management in terminating the services of Shri Vasant Gururao Kusanur , Pigmy Agent from Vishweshwar Nagara, Hubli 2585

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22 , 2003/ चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

man as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred above . Accordingly I proceed to pass the following Order :

Branch w.e.f. 26-8-1991 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

ORDER

2. The first Party was working as Pigmy Agent with the Management . He was terminated and there- fore . Industrial Dispute is raised.

The reference is partly allowed . The Management is directed to regularize the services of the workman as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . Accordingly reference is disposed off 3. Partics appeared. First party filed Claim State- ment . No Counter Statement is filedby the Manage- ment .

4. The case of the workman in brief is as follows :

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 3rd February, 2003 ) . V. N. KULKARNI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2003 5. The first party workman joined as Pigmy Agent with the management w.e.f. 16th June , 1975 and worked upto 29th August, 1991 .

का.आ. 999. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं . 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजोआईटी-216 ऑफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करतो है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

6. It is the further case of the workman that on 26th August , 1991 the management refused work to him. Management has illegally terminated his ser- vices . The workman has not cominitted any miscon- duct. No notice was givento him. No enquiry was held against him . The order of termination is illegal . The workman has made representations to the man- agement to give him work but the management went on saying that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has not considered the representation of the workman ,

[सं. एल-40012/480/ 2000-ग्राई.आर . (डी.यू.) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th February, 2003 7. It is the further case of the workman that the Supreme Court of India in the recent decision has held that the Pigmy Agents are workman and there is direction to regularize the workman. Workman for these reasons and for some other reasons has prayed to pass award in his favour.

8. It is seen from the record that many adjourn.. ments were granted to the management . But the man- agement for the reasons best known to it has not filed Counter Statement at all. Time was refused. Work- man was examined during Hubli Camp .

of S. O. 999.- In pursuance Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/ 16 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 Deptt. of Post and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-2-2003.

9. With great difficulty camp court is held at the request of the workman . Adjournment was refused atHubli . Workman was examined as WWI . He has given evidence that he was working as Pigmy Agent to the Bank . He further says he has not committed any misconduct . He is cross examined but nothing is made out from his cross examination .

[No.L 40012/480 /2000 - I.R. ( DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

10. Thereafter I have heard the arguments of the learned representative appearing for the workman and also the learned counsel appearing for the man- agement Ex . WI is marked .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II MUMBAI . PRESENT

S. N. SAUNDANKAR PRESIDING OFFICER

REFERENCE NO . CGIT - 2 /16 of 2001 . EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF ASST. SUPDT . OF RAIL MAIL FOREIGN , AIR MAIL UNIT

11. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2001 AIR SCW 749 first party is a workman and the management has to con- sider bis case. Allegations made by the workman are not proved at all . Even the management has not filed Counter . Without the Counter the learned counsel appearing for the management participated in the proceedings . Absolutely there is nothingre is nothing on record to show that the workman has committed any miscon- duct.

Asst. Supdt. of Rail Mail Foreign , Air Mail Unit , Deptt . of Post , Dadar , MUMBAI 400014.

12. Keeping this in mind and as per thedirections of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above referred decision , the management has to consider the case of the workman and make a sebeme la regu- larize the workman because first party is the work- 2586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Smt . Parvati M. Amberkar , L/ R of deceased Shri Vilas M. Amberkar , BDD Chawl . M.H. Joshi Maig , MUMBAI 400013 .

APPEARANCES :

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. M. H. Rodge

Representative.

FOR THE WORKMEN Mr. V. J. Amberkar Advocate.

Mumbai Dated 3rd February, 2003

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-40012 /480 /2000/ IR (DU ) dtd. 18-01-2001 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 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjucdication :

"Whether the action of the management of Deptt . of Post . Rail Mail Foreign by dismis- sing Sh . V. M. Amberkar is justified and proper ? If not. to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. Workman V. M. Amberkar filed his state- ment of Claim ( Exhibit - 6) which was resisted by the management Postal Department vide Written Statement ( Exhibit - 8 ) and that on the basis of the pleadings issues were framed at Exhibit - 12 . During the pendency of the matter Advocate for the workman vide purisish ( Exhibit - 9 ) pointed out that the workman expired on 3-6-01 and vide purshis ( Exhibit- 11 ) his mother Parvati M. Amberkar be brought on record as Legal Representative . Consequently note thereof was taken to Schedule . The said L/ R Mrs. Parvati M. Amberkar vide application (Exhibit - 13 ) pointed out that she had received the legal dues from the management Postal Department and hence she does not wish to prosecute the reference . Since the mother of decseaseddoes not wish to prose- cute the matter following order is passed :

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of for non-proce- cution vide purshis ( Exhibit- 13) .

S. N. SAUNDANKAR , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , AT MUMBAI ( Ref . CGIT No. 16/2001 )

Asst . Sundt . of Rail

Mail Foreign , Air Mail ,

Mumbai .

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) AND

Their Workmen

..2nd Party MAY BE PLEASE THIS HOBN'LE COURT :

In the above matter , the undersigned has receiv- ed the legal dues from the Ist Party & hence the 2nd Party, does not wish to prosecute the present reference .

Hence , it is prayed that this Reference may disposed off as not pressed by me .

Mumbai :

Dated : 3-2-2003

( SMT. PARVATI M. AMBERKAR ) RHT Impression of Smt . P. M. Ambarkar Identified & explained by me :

(V J. Amberkar

Advocate

Matter Illegible नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2003

का. आ . 1000.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल एल्युमिनियम कं . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 305/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29025 /9/ 99- बाई. आर . ( विविध) ] वी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th February , 2003 S.O. 1000.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 305 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofNATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2003.

[No. L-29025 / 9 / 99 - IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR Tr . 1.D. Case No. 305 2001

.. Ist

Party

The General Manager , National Aluminium Company Ltd. , Captive Power Plant, Angul, Orissa .

[भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Vs.

Shramik Congress Union , NALCO

Order No. 29

Dated 6-2-2003

Representatives of both the parties are present . Copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court has been filed on behalf of the Management in which the order of this Tribu- nal has been quashed. In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court the reference is not maintainable . So no award is necessary to be passed . Copy of this order along with the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court be sent to the Government of India ( Ministry of Labour ) for their information.

Dictated

S. K. DHAL, Presiding Officer

2587

भारत को राजपत्त्र: मार्च 22, 2003/ चैत्र1 , 1925

Both the writ petitions are analogous . The point involved in both of them is identical . Therefore , for the sake of convenience , we have heard both the matters with the consent of counsel for parties . We are accordingly dispos- ing of both of them by this common order.

Telephone No. Office : 22507

FROM

No. 1192 2. In W.P. (C) No. 3425 of 2002 , the National Aluminium Company Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as the ' NALCO ') seeks to assail the validity of the order dated 29-7-2002 (Annexure- 3 ) passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Central) , Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 305 of 2001. In W.P. ( C) No. 3426 of 2002 , 'NALCO ' seeks quashing of the order dated 29-7-2002 ( Annexure - 8 ) passed by the said Tribunal in I.D. Case No. 308 of 2001. The Tribunal while deciding a priliminary issue by the impugned orders has held that although after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. National Union Water Front Workers , AIR 2001 S.C. 3527 , the State Government has become the ' appropriate Government ' for NALCO , the present references having been made prior to the decision of the Supreme Court , the Government of India which had made the references was the appropriate Government and , therefore , the references made by it which are pending consideration are valid ,

W.P. ( C) No. 3425/2002

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA To,

The Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar ,

At/ PO -Bhubaneswar , Dist . - Khurda .

Dated, Cuttack , the 24th January , 2003 Subject-

Sir,

In continuation to Court's memo No. 14936 dated 27-9-2002 I am directed to forward herewith a copy of Court's Judgment dated 4-12-2002 for your information and necessary action.

3. Following are the disputes which have been referred to by the Government of India to the Industrial Tribunal (Central ) , Bhubaneswar for adjudication .

WP ( C) No. 3425 2002

"Whether 10 per cent calculation to be made as per Clause 4.3 of Tripartite Settlement dated 14-12-95 will be done only on the basic pay or after adding basic pay with F.D.A. "

WP ( C) No. 3426 2002.

"Whether the action of the Management of Mis . NALCO in engaging the 67 workmen shown in the list attached, initially on direct basis subsequently through contractor , justified ? If not to what reflef the workmen are entitled ?"

Yours faithfully.

Superintendent

N.B .: Xerox copy of Judt . is enclosed herewith . HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P. ( C) NO . 3425 OF 2002

AND

W.P. ( C ) NO . 3426 OF 2002

In the matter of applications under Article 326 of the Constitution of India .

National Aluminium Company Limited ( In both)

Petitioner .

Versus

Union of India & another

Opp. parties .

For petitioner M/ s . B. B. Rath,

B. N. Rath , S. K. Jethy, J. Rath , S. B. Mohanty, P. R. Sahoo , P.S. Samantara and M. K. Panda ( In both) For opp . parties : Addl . Standing Counsel ( Central ) for O. P. I in both . Mis. D. P. Dhal , S. K. Tripathy ,

K. Dash and B. B. Mishra . for O. P. 2 in WP ( C) 3425/2002 Mis . Braja Kishore Sahoo and K. C. Sahoo for O.P. 2 in 4. Shri Rath appearing for the petitioner contends that for NALCO the appropriate Government' is the State Government both under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970. In support of this contention, he places reliance on paragraph - 11 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) . According to him , since the present references were made by the Government of India, they are null and void and, therefore , the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law .

Shri Sahoo appearing for the Workers ' Union on the other hand submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited ( supra ) is prospective in nature and , therefore , the references made by the Govern- ment of India to the Industrial Tribunal (Central ) , Bhubanes- war for adjudication are valid.

WP ( C) 3426/2002

PRESENT :

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. K. Patra . AND

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pradipta Ray .

R. K. PATRA . J.

5. It maybe stated that the Supreme Court in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union Vs. State of Bihar . AIR 1970 S.C. 82 has held that so far as Heavy Engineering Corpora- tion is concerned , the ' appropriate Government' is the State Government . It elaborately dealt with the question of 'appropriate Government ' and concluded that the mere fact that the entire share capital of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited was contributed by the Central Govern- ment and the fact that all its shares are held by the President and certain officers of the Central Government does not make any difference . The Company and the share- holders being distinct entities this fact does not make the Company an agent either of the President or the Central Government . In that case, the judgment was by a Two- Judge Bench . Validity of the ratio of that case was consi- dered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited ( supra ) and in paragraph -41 of the judgment , the Supreme Court upheld the finding that the State Government is the 'appropriate Government with regard to Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd.

2588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

of 6. NALCO is also like that of Heavy Engineering Cor- poration Ltd. a Government of India enterprise and has its Captive Power Plant at Nalco Nagar , Angul , within the State of Orissa , Paragraphs I and II of the Memorandum Association of NALCO provide that it is a Company which is a Government of India Undertaking and its regis- tered office is in the State of Orissa . The main objects for which the Company has been established are enumerated in Paragraph-til of the Memorandum of Association . Some of them are as follows :

"3. To act as an entrepreneur to identify new areas of economic investments and to undertake or help in the undertaking of such investments .

4. To formulate and recommend to the Central Govern- ment :

(a) A national policy for the development of alu- miniam and related input industries andto ad- vise them on all policy and technical matters ; and

tba to act as an instrument of the policy of the Central Government subject to such directives as may he issued by the President from time to time , with a viewto exercise control over strategic areas of economy."

Clause 32 of the Articles of Association provides that Directors of the Company may from time to time borrow and or secure the payment of any sum or sums of money for the purposes of the Company, by means of a resolution passed in the meeting of the Board subject to provisions of Section 292 of the Companies Act . Clause 62 deals with the Constitution of Board of Directors which lays down that the President shall from time to time determine in writing the number of Directors of the Company which shall not be less than four and not more than eighteen . The distribution of share -holding as on 30-10-2002 would show that Government of India was holding 100 per cent shares till 1991-92 since incorporation . Now the distribution has beer made amongst promoters and others .

7. The fact- situation prevailing in the case of NALCO is the same as that of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned above , we have no hesitation to hold that the ' appropriate Govern- ment as defined in Section 2 ( a) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and Section 2 ( 1 ) ( a) of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970 in relation to industrial disputes concerning NALCO is the State Government .

8. Since the references which are pending before the Industrial Tribunal (Central) , Bhubaneswar are at a prelimi- nary stage and for the reassons mentioned above , the im- pugned orders of the Industrial Tribunal ( Central) are not sustainable in faw. They are hereby quashed . It is open tothe Workers ' Union to raise dispute before the appropriate forum of the State Government if it so likes .

Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Iagree. PRADIPTA RAY . L S legible Orissa High Court . Cuttack . December 1, 2002 S.C. Dash .

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2003

का. था. 1001.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 19.17 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल एल्युमिनियम कं . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक बिबाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भवनेश्वर के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 308/2001 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-02-2003 को प्राप्त कृया था ।

17. 04-29011 /49/99 -मार्ट थर ( विविध) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 20th February, 2003 S.O. 1001. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government thereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 308 2001 ) of the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the management of National Aluminium Co. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 20-2-2003 .

[No. L - 2901149.99 - IR ( M ) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR Tr . I.D. Case No. 308'2001

The General Manager , National Aluminium Company Ltd. , Captive Power Plant , Angul , Orissa .

Vrs .

Shramik Congress Union , NALCO , Order No. 29 Dated 6-2-2003

Representatives of both the parties are present . Copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court has been filed on behalf of the Management in which the order of this Tribunal has been quashed. In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court the reference is not maintainable . So no award is necessary to be passed. Copy of this order along with the copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court be sent to the Government of India , ( Ministry of Labour ) for their information .

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer

!

From

No. 1192 W.P. ( C) No. 3425 2002 SUPERINTENDENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

To The Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar ,

At PO Bhubaneswar , District Khurda . Dated, Cuttack , the 24th January , 2003 Sir,

In continuation to Count's memo No. 14936 dated 27-9-2002 I am directed to forward herewith a copy [भाग II-- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

Court's Judgment dated 4-12-2002 for your infor- mation and necessary action .

Yours faithfully ,

Sd! -

2589

भारत का राजपत्रः मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र1, 1925

Government for NALCO , the present references hav- ing been made prior to the decision of the Supreme Court , the Government of India which had made the refcrences was the appropriate Government and, therefore , the references made by it which are pend- ing consideration are valid.

Superintendent

N.B .. Xerox copy of fudt . is enclosed herewith .

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA , CUTTACK W.P. ( C ) No. 3425 of 2002

AND

W.P. ( C ) No. 3426 of 2002

In the matter of applications under Article 326 of the Constitution of India

Petitioner .

National Aluminium Company Limited ( In both )

Versus

Union of India & another

..Opp . parties .

For petitioner :

M.s. B. B. Ratho , B. N. Rath , S. K. Jethy , J. Rath , S. B. Mohanty , P. R. Sahoo , P. S. Samaniara and M. K. Panda ( In both)

For opp . parties :

Addl . Standing Counsel ( Central ) , for O.P.I. in both .

K. Dash and B. B. Mishra for O.P. 2 in WP(C ) 3425: 2002 .

M.s. D. P. Dhal , S. K. Tripathy, Mis . Braja Kishore Sahoo and K. C. Sahoo for O.P. 2 in WP ( C) 3426 2002 .

PRESENT :

Honourable Shri Justice R. K Patra .

AND

Honourable Shri Justice Pradipsa Ray.

R. K. PATRA , J. Both the writ petitions are analogous . The point involved in both of them is identical , Therefore , for the sake of convenience , we have heard both the matters with the consent of counsel for parties . We are accordingly disposing of both of them by this common order .

2. In W.P. ( C ) No. 3425 of 2002 , the National identical . Therefore , for the sake of convenience the 'NALCO' ) seeks to assail the validity of the order dated 29-7-2002 ( Annexure -8 ) passed by the Indus- trial Tribunal (Central ) , Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 305 of 2001. In W.P. ( C ) No. 3426 of 2002 , NALCO seeks quashing of the order dated 29-7-2002 (Annexure - 8 ) passed by the said Tribunal in L.D. Case No. 308 of 2001. The Tribunal while deciding a preliminary issue by the impugned orders has held that although after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. National Union Water Front Workers , AIR 2001 S.C. 3527 , the State Government has become the ' appropriate 3. Following are the disputes which have been re- ferred to by the Government of India to the Indus- trial Tribunal ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar for adjudica- tion.

WP ( C) No. 3425 2002

"Whether 10 per cent calculation to be made a per Clause 4.3 of Tripartite Settlement dated 14-12-95 will be done only on the basic pay or after adding basie pay with F.D.A.

WP ( C ) No. 3426-2002 :

"Whether the action of the Management of Mis . NALCO in engaging the 67 workmen shown in the list attached initially on direct bas's subsequently through contractor , justified ? If not , to what relief the work- men are entitled ? "

4. Shri Rath appearing for the petitioner contends that for NALCO the ' appropriate Government ' is the State Government both under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970. In support of this contention , he places reliance on paragraph - 41 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited ( supra) . According to him, since the present references were made by the Government of India , they are null and void and, therefore , the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.

Shri Sahoo appearing for the Workers' Union on the other hand submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited (supra) is prospective in nature and, therefore , the references made by the Government of India to the Industrial Tribunal ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar for ad- judication are valid .

5. It may be stated that the Supreme Court in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union v . State of Bihar , AIR 1970 S.C. 82 has held that so far as Heavy Engineer- ing Corporation is concerned, the ' appropriate Gov- crnment' is the State Government . It elaborately dealt with the question of ' appropriate Government' and concluded that the mere fact that the entire share capital of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limit- ed was contributed by the Central Government and the fact that all its shares are held by the President and certain officers of the Central Government does not make any difference . The Company and the share - holders being distinct entities , this fact does not make the Company an agent either of the Presi- dent or the Central Government. In that case , the judgment was by a Two - Judge Bench . Validity of the ratio of that case was considered by the Consti- tution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Autho- rity of India Limited ( supra ) and in paragraph - 41 2590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

==

of the judgment , the Supreme Court upheld the find- ing that the State Government is the ' appropriate Government ' with regard to Heavy Engineering Cor- poration Ltd.

6. NALCO is also like that of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. a Government of India enterprise and has its Captive Power Plant at Nalco Nagar, Angul , within the State of Orissa . Paragraphs I and II of the Memorandum of Association of NALCO provide that it is a Company which is a Government of India Undertaking and its registered office is in the State of Orissa . The main objects for which the Com- pany has been established are enumerated in Para- graph - III of the Memorandum of Association . Some of them are as follows :

" 3. To act as an entrepreneur to identify new. areas of economic investments and to under- take or help in the undertaking of such in- vestments .

4. To formulate and recommend to the Cen- tral Government :

( a) A national policy for the development of aluminium and related input industries and to advise them on all policy and technical matters ; and

(b) to act as an instrument of the policy of the Central Government subjeet to such directives as may be issued by the Presi- dent from time to time , with a view to exercise control over strategic areas of economy."

Clause 32 of the Articles of Association provides that Directors of the Company may from time to time borrow and or secure the payment of any sum or sums of money for the purposes of the Company. by means of a resolution passed in the meeting of the Board subject to provisions of Section 292 of the Companies Act . Clause 62 deals with the Consti- tution of Board of Directors which lays down that the President shall from time to time determine in writing the number of Directors of the Company which shall not be less than four and not more than cighteen. The distribution of share -holding as on 30-10-2002 would show that Government of India was holding 100 per cent shares till 1991-92 since incorporation . Now the distribution has been made amongst promoters and others .

7. The fact situation prevailing in the case of NALCO is the same as that of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned above , we have no hesi- tation to hold that the ' appropriate Government ' as defined in Section 2 ( a ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 2 ( 1 ) ( a) of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 in re- lation to industrial disputes concerning NALCO is the State Government .

8. Since the references which are pending before the Industrial Tribunal ( Central ) , Bhubaneswar are at a preliminary stage and for the reasons mentioned above , the impugned orders of the Industrial Tribu- nal ( Central ) are nat sustainable in law . They are hereby quashed . It is open to the Workers ' Union to

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) raise dispute before the appropriate forum of the State Government if it so likes .

Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. PRADIPTA RAY , J. I agree.

Sd- Orissa High Court , Cuttack, December 4 , 2002 S. C. Dash .

नई दिल्ली , 27 फरवरी , 2003

का . आ . 1002:- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतारिनी आयरन माईन के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियो- जकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 155/2001 ) को प्रका- शित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं.एल.-26012/35/ 97 -आई . आर. (विविध ) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th February , 2003

S.O. 1002.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 155/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bai- tarini Iron Mines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-2-2003 .

[ No. L - 26012/ 35 / 97-1R( M ) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRI- BUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR Present :

Shri S. K. Dhal , OSJS , ( Sr. Branch ) , Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T.- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar . Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 155/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing 18th Feb. 2003 Date of Passing Award- 18th Feb. 2003

Between ;

The Management of the Agent , Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan , P. O. Barbil , Dist Keonjhar .

.... Ist Party - Management .

भारत का राजपत्त्रः मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

AND

Their Workmen Shri Pandu Munda, Ex-Watchman , At Jharau , P. O. Daduan , Dist. Keonjhar . ... 2nd Party- Workman.

Appearances :

Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan , Partner .... For the Ist, Party- Management.

None ... For the 2nd Party- Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Lab- our in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause ( d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) cf Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 26012/ 35/ 97- IR (Misc) , dated 29-1-1998 :

"Whether the termination of Shri Pandu Munda, Watchman , with effect from 12-1-1996 by the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines cf Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, is proper ard justified ? If not . to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the 2nd Party is that he joined service under the 1st Party- Management on 1-1-1989 as piece rated workinan . He worked upto 1-1-1996 and he was terminated from service with effect from 12-1-1996 without any written order . When the 2nd Party enquired for the written order of his termination he was informed by the Manager that the written order will come from Barbil. When no written order is received froin the Ist Party- Manage- ment the 2nd Party represented for his reinstate- ment . When ne action was taken by the 1st Party- Management en his representation he raised a dis- pute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Cen- tral) and after failure of conciliation the present reference has been made . The 2nd Party has prayed to hold the action of the Ist Party- Management is illegal and he may be reinstated with full back wages along with other consequential benefits .

3. The Ist Party- Management has filed their Written Statement . They have taken the stand that , the Government of India has got no jurisdic- tion to make reference to this Tribunal and he does not come under the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been further pleaded by the Ist Party- Management that the 2nd Party was engaged as a casual picce rated worker intermittently. The Ist Party - Manage- ment has never refused engagement to the 2nd Party . Further stand of the 1st Party - Management is that, Shri B. S. Pati whe is claiming to be the General Secretary of the said Union has get no lecostandy 650 G1 /2003-11

2591 to represent the 2nd Party- Workman . According to the 1st Party - Management the reference is totally invalid, misconceived , untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the above pleading of the parties , the follow- ing Issues have been settled .

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the 2nd Party is a workman ?

3. Whether the termination of service of Shri Pandu Munda without giving any notice and following laid down procedure by the Management is justified ?

4. If not, what relief the 2nd Party workman is entitled to ?

5. Before going to the merit of the case , it may be stated here that , objection was raised on behalf of the 1st Party- Management regarding representa- tion of the 2nd Party by Shri B. S. Pati . There are some other cases in similar nature in which Mr. B. S. Pati was representing the 2nd Party . After hearing of the parties , this Tribunal vide order dated 12-11-2001 passed in Tr . J. D. Case No. 136/2001 , the re- presentation of Shri Pati was not accepted and notice was issued to the 2nd Party to appear in person. In pursuant to the said notice the 2nd Party appeared in person and filed an application to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . Time was gran- ted . Thereafter the 2nd Party did not produce the stay order and remained absent for which he was set exparte and exparte hearing was taken on 15-1-2003. When the case was adjourned for passing of award a petition was received by post for time to produce the stay order . The Tribunal in the interest of justice, when the 2nd Party was appearing in person , without passing award allowed time to the 2nd Party to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. But the 2nd Party has failed . The Ist Party- Manage- ment was heard only.

FINDINGS ISSUE NOS . I , II , III & IV

6. As I have stated earlier the 2nd Party has not faced any oral or documentrary evidence before the Tribunal . When the 2nd Party has raised a dis- pute the initial burden lies on him to lead evidence to prove his case. But that has not been done . The averments made by the Ist Party - Management regarding maintainability of the reference and status of the 2nd Party as a werkman has not been challen- ged. Similarly in absence of any materials it can not be said that the termination of service of the 2nd Party without giving any notice or without following laid down procedures by the Ist Party - Management is illegal . So , when the 2nd Party has failed to make 2592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

eut a cac that he is a workman and that , the referen- ce is maintainable and that , the termination of service is illegal, he is not entitled for any relief. Hence all the four issue are answered in favour of the Ist Party- Management .

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me .

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2003

का.ग्रा . 1003:- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय मरकार वैतारिनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 143/2001) को प्रका- शित करतो है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.-26012/31/ 97-आई आर . (विविध) ] वी. एम . डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th February , 2003 S.O.1003 .-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Centrel Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 143/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarini Iron Mines and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 26-2-2003 .

[No. L- 26012/ 31/97-1R (M )] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR PRESENT:

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

Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 143/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing- 18th Feb ; 2003 Date of Passing Award- 18th Feb ; 2003

BETWEEN :

The Management of the Agent ,

Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan ,

P.O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar... Ist Party- Management AND

Their Workmen Shri Kalakar Naik , S/ o Shri Jagannath Naik, Vill . 2nd

Dharurjoypur , P.O. Balabhadrapur ,

Dist . Keonjhar .

..2nd Party Workman

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] APPEARANCES :

Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan , Partner' .. For the Ist

Party Management NONE

..For Himself- 2nd Party-

Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 26012/31 / 97 IR ( Misc . ) , dated 21-10-1997 :

"Whether the termination of service of Shri Kalakar Naik with effect from 20-5-1996 without giving any notice or following laid down proce- dure by the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan , P.O. Barbil , Dist.- Keonjhar is justified and proper ? If, not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the 2nd Party is that he joined service ünder the Ist Party - Management in June , 1994 as piece - rated workınan . On 20-5-1996 the 1st Party-Management created disturbance at the work site through the mining staff along with few other side workers as a result of which First Information Report was lodged before the Officer - in-charge . The agent of the Ist Party - Management was called to the Police Station and assured before the Officer- in - charge to settle the matter . But the matter was not settled for which the 2nd Party raised a dispute and after failure of the conciliation the present re- ference has been made . Prayer has been inade to declare the termination of the 2nd Party made by the Ist Party - Management as illegal and for direction for reinstatement with effect from 20-5-1996 with full back wages along with other consequential benefits .

3. The Ist Party- Management has filed their Written Statement . They have taken the stand that, the Government of India has got no jurisdiction to make reference to this Tribunal and he does not come under the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been further pleaded by the 1st Party - Management that the 2nd Party was engaged as a casual piece rated worker intermittently . He was required to work on daily attendance and piece/ rated basis . He was issued with attendance card for the month of May , 1996 but he never submitted the said card for renewal . He willfully and voluntarily absented from the work without any intimation or information . The Ist Party -Management has never refused engagement to the 2nd Party . Further stand of the Ist Party- Management is that , Shri B.S. Pati who is claiming to be the General Secretary of the said Union has भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II-- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

got not locostandy to represent the 2nd Party - Work- man. According to the Ist Party - Management the reference is totally invalid , misconceived, untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the above pleading of the parties , the fol- lowing Issues have been settled.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the 2nd Party is a workman ?

3. Whether the termination of service of Shri Kalakar Naik without giving any notice and following laiddown procedure by the Manage- ment is justified ?

4. If not , what relief the 2nd Party workman is entitled to ?

5. Before going to the merit of the case , it may be stated here that , objection was raised on behalf of the 1st Party - Management regarding represen- tation of the 2nd Party by Shri B.S. Pati . There are some other cases in similar nature in which Mr. B.S. Pati was representing the 2nd Party. After hearing of the parties , this Tribunal vide order dated 12-11-2001 passed in Tr . I.D. Case No. 136/2001 , the representation of Shri Pati was not accepted and notice was issued to the 2nd Party to appear in person . In pursuant to the said notice the 2nd Party appeared in person and filed an application to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . Time was granted. Thereafter the 2nd Party did not produce the stay order and remained asbent for which he was set ex -parte and ex- parte hearing was taken on 15-1-2003. When the case was adjourned for passing of award a petition was received by post for time to produce the stay order . The Trabunal in the interest of justice , when the 2nd Party was appearing in person , without passing award allowed time to the 2nd Party to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . But the 2nd Party has failed . The 1st Party - Management has heard only .

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . I , II , III & IV

6. As I have stated earlier the 2nd Party has not faced any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal. When the 2nd Party has raised a dispute the initial burden lies on him to lead evidence to prove his case . But that has not been done . The aveanments made by the 1st Party - Management regarding maintainability of the reference and status of the 2nd Party as a workman has not been challenged . Similarly in ahsence of any materials it can not be said that the termination of servico of the 2nd Party without giving any notice or without following laid down procedures by the 1st Party-

2593 Management is illegal. So , when the 2nd Party has failed to make out a case that he is a workman and that , the reference is maintainable and that , the termination of service is illegal , he is not entitlted for any relief . Hence , all the four issues are answered in favour of the 1st Party- Management .

7. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

S.K. DHAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2003

का. श्रा. 1004.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वैतारिनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संवद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 137/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26/2/03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.-26012/24/97-आई. आर . (विविध ) ] बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , 27th February , 2003

S.O. 1004.- 1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 137/2001) of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribuial- cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers relation to the management of Baitarini Iron Mines and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 26-2-03 . in

[No. L-26012/24/ 97-1R ( M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR

Present:

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

Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO.137/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing- 18th Feb. , 2003 Date of Passing Award - 18th Feb. , 2003 2594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

Between

The Management of the Agent , Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan ,

P.O. Barbil . Dist . Keonjhar .

IstParty- Management .

AND

Their Workmen Shri Shr Mitrabhanu Oram , Vill . 2nd Bhanurjoypur , P.O. Balabhadrapur , Keonjhar. 2nd Party -Workman.

Appearances

Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan , Partner ... For the Ist Party-

Management .

None

For Himself 2nd Party- Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section (i) and sub -section ? (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . , 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 26012/24/ 97/ 1R (M ) , dated 20-10-1997 :

"Whether the termination of service of Shri Mitrabhanu Oram with effect from 20-5-1996 without giving any notice or following laid down procedure by the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan , P.O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar is justified and proper ? If , not , what relief the workman is entitled to?"

as 2. The case of the 2nd Party is that he joined service under the Ist Party - Management in July 1994 piece rated workman . On 20-5-1996 the 1st Party - Management created dis- turbance at the work site through the mining staff along with few other side workers as a result of which First Information Report was lodged before the Officer-in-charge . The agent of the Ist Farty- Management was called to the Police Station and assured before the Officer- in-charge to settle the matter. But the matter was not settled for which the 2nd Party raised a dispute and after failure of the conciliation the present reference has been made Prayer has been made to declare the termination of the 2nd Party made by the 1st Party Management as illegal and for direction for reinstatement with effect from 20-5-1996 with full back wages along with other consequential benefits .

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3. The 1st Party - Management has filed their Written Statement . They have taken the stand that, the Government of India has got no jurisdiction to make reference to this Tribunal and he does not come under the Industrial Disputes Act . It has been further pleaded by the Ist Party - Management that the 2nd Party was engaged as a casual piece rated worker intermittently . He was required to work on daily attendance and piece rated basis . He was issued with attendance card for the month of May 1996 but he never submitted the said card for renewal . He willfully and voluntarily absented from the work without any intimation or infor- mation. The 1st Party - Management has never refused engagement to the 2nd Party . Further stand of the 1st Party - Management is that , Shri B.S. Pati who is claiming to be the General Secretary of the said Union has got no locos standi to represent the 2nd Party - Workman. According to the 1st Party -Management the reference is totally invalid , misconceived , untenable and un- sustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the above pleading of the parties , the following Issues have been settled .

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. wheiher the 2nd Party is a workman ?

3. Whether the termination of service of Shri Mitrabhanu Oram without giving any notice and following laid down procedure by the Management is justified ?

4. If not , what relief the 2nd Party workman is enütled to ?

5. Before going to the merit of the case . it may be stated here that , objection was raised on behalf of the 1st Party- Management regarding representation of the 2nd Party by Shri B.S. Pati . There are some other cases in similar nature in which Mr. B.S. Pati was representing the 2nd Party. After hearing of the parties , this Tribunal vide order dated 12-11-2001 passed in Tr. I.D. Case No.136/2001 , the representation of Shri Pati was not accepted and notice was issued to the 2nd Party to appear in person . In pursuant to the said notice the 2nd Party appeared in person and filed an application to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. Time was granted. Thereafter the 2nd Party did not produce the stay order and remained absent for which he was set exparte and exparte hearing was taken on 15-1-2003 ,. When the case was adjourned for passing of award a petition was 2595

भारत का राजपत्न: मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग 11 --खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

received by post for time to produce the stay order . The Tribunal in the interest of justice . when the 2nd Party was appearing in person , without passing award allowed time to the 2nd Party to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . But the 2nd Party has failed. The Ist Party Management was heard only.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NOS . I , II , III & IV

6. As I have has not faced any before the Tribunal . raised a dispute the stated earlier the 2nd Party: oral or documentary evidence When the 2nd party has initial burden lies on him to lead evidence to prove his case . But that has not been done . The averments made by the 1st Party - Management regarding maintaina- bility of the reference and status of the 2nd Party as a workman has not been challenged. Similarly in absence of any materials it can not be said that the termination of service of the 2nd Party without giving any notice or without following laid down procedure by the 1st Party- Management is illegal . So , when the 2nd Party has failed to make out a case that he is a workman and that , the reference is maintainable and that , the termination of service is illegal, he is not entitled for any relief. Hence , all the four issues are answered in favour of the 1st Party - Management .

7. Reference is answered accordingly . Dictated & Corrected by me.

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2003

का ग्रा . 1005. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार वैतारिनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियो- जकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यो- गिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 153/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-02-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल.- 26012/ 29/ 97-आई . आर . (विविध) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th February , 2003 S.O. 1005. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 153/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarini Iron Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-02-03 .

[ No. L - 26012/29 / 97- IR ( ( M ) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

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

Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 153/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing : 18th Feb. , 2003 Date of Passing Award : 18th Feb. , 2003 Between :

The Management of the Agent , Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan , P.O. Barbil ,

.... 1st Party/Management .

Distt . Keonjhar . And

2nd Party- Workman Their Workınen Shri Nishakar Naik , S / o . S. Naik , Vill . 2nd Dhanurjoypur , P.O. Balabhadapur , Distt. Keonjhar .

Appearances

.For the 1st Party- Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan , Partner .

Management None

..For Himself- 2nd Party- Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-26012/ 29/ 97/ IR ( M) , dated 31-12-1997 :

"Whether the termination of service of Shri Nishakar Naik with effect from 20-5-1996 with- out giving any notice or following laid down procedure by the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan , P.O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar is justified and proper ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 2. The case of the 2nd Party is that he joined service under the 1st Party Management in June , 1994 as piece rated workman . On 20-5-1996 the 1st Party Management created disturbance at the 2596

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

work site through the mining staff along with few other side workers as a result of which First Infor- mation Report was lodged before the Officer - in- charge . The agent of the Ist Party Management was called to the Police Station and assured before the Officer- in-Charge to settle the matter . But the matter was not settled for which the 2nd Party raised a dispute and after failure of the conciliation the present reference has been made . Prayer has been made to declare the termination of the 2nd Party made by the 1st Party Management as illegal and for direction for reinstatement with effect from 20-5-1996 with full back wages along with other consequential benefits .

3. The 1st Party Management has filed their Written Statement . They have taken the stand that , the Government of India has got no jurisdiction to make reference to this Tribunal and he does not come under the Industrial Disputes Act . It has been further pleaded by the Ist Party Management that the 2nd Party was engaged as a casual piece rated worker intermittently. He was required to work on daily attendance and piece rated basis . He was issued with attendance card for the month of May, 1996 but he never submitted the said card for renewal . He willfully and voluntarily absented from the work without any intimation or information . The Ist Party Management has never refused engagement to the 2nd Party . Further stand of the 1st Party Management is that , Shri B. S. Pati who is claiming to be the General Secretary of the said Union has got no locustandi to represent the 2nd Party Work- man . According to the Ist Party Management the reference is totally invalid, misconceived , untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the above pleading of the parties , the following Issues have been settled

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the 2nd Party is a workman ?

3. Whether the termination of service of Shri Nishakar Naik without giving any notice and following laid down procedure by the Management is justified ?

4. If not , what relief the 2nd Party workman is entitled to ?

5. Before going to the merit of the case , it may be stated here that , objection was raised on behalf of the 1st Party Management regarding representation of the 2nd Party by Shri B. S. Pati . There are some other cases in similar nature in which Mr. B. S. Pati was representing the 2nd Party . After hearing of the parties , this Tribunal vide order dated 12-11-2001 passed in Tr . I.D. Case No. 136/2001 , the represen- tation of Shri Pati was not accepted and notice was issued to the 2nd Party to appear in person . In pursuant to the said notice the 2nd Party appeared in person and filed an application to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . Time was granted. Thereafter the 2nd Party did not produce the stay order and remained absent for which he was set ex - parte and exparte hearing was taken on 15-1-2003 . When the case was adjuorned for passing of award a petition was received by post for time to produce the stay order. The Tribunal in the interest of justice , when the 2nd Party was appearing in person , without passing award allowed time to the 2nd Party to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . But the 2nd Party has failed . The 1st Party Management was heard only .

FINDINGS

Issue No. I , II , III & IV :

6. As I have stated earlier the 2nd Party has not faced any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal . When the 2nd Party has raised a dispute the initial burden lies on him to lead evidence to prove his case . But that has not been done . The averments made by the Ist Party Management regarding maintainability of the reference and status of the 2nd Party as a workman has not been chall- lenged. Similarly in absence of any materials it can not be said that the termination of service of the 2nd Party without giving any notice or without following laid down procedures by the 1st Party Management is illegal . So , whether the 2nd Party has failed to make out a case that he is a workman and that , the reference is maintainable and that , the termina- tion of service is illegal , he is not entitled for any relief. Hence all the four issues are answered in favour of the 1st Party Management .

7. Reference is answered accordingly. Dictated & corrected by me.

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2003

का. आ . 1006.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतारिनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अन्वन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 138/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-02-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 26012/ 25 / 97-याई . ग्रार . (विविध) ] बी.एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव [भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 27th February , 2003 S.O.1006: In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 138/2001) of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarini Iron Mines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-02-03 .

[ No. L - 26012 /25 /97 - IR ( M ) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

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

Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO.138/ 2001 Date of conclusion of hearing- 18th Feb. , 2003 Date of Passing Award- 18th Feb. , 2003 Between :

The Management of the Agent , Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan , P.O. Barbil , Dist. Keonjhar ... Ist Party- Management .

AND

Their Workmen Shri Rangadhar Mohakud , S/ o . Shri Narsing Mohakud , Vill . 2nd , Dharurjoypur , P.O. Balabhadrapuı , Dist. Keonjhar . 2nd Party -Workman .

Appearances :

Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan , Partner . For the Ist Party- Management .

None

For the 2nd Party-Workman .

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub - section and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 26012 / 25 /97 - IR (Misc. ) , dated 21-10-1997 .

2597

भारत का राजपत्त्र: मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र 1 , 1925

"Whether the termination of service of Shri Rangadhar Mohakud with effect from 20-5-1996 without giving any notice or following laid down procedure by the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan , P. O. Barbil , Dis't . Keonjhar is justified and proper ? If , not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. The case of the 2nd Party is that he joined service under the 1st Party - Management in July 1994 as piece rated workman . On 20-5-1996 the Ist Party - Management created dis- turbance at the work site through the mining staff along with few other side workers as a result of which First Information Report was lodged before the Officer - in- charge . The agent of the 1st Party - Management was called to the Police Station and assured before the Officer- in- charge to settle the matter . But the matter was not settled for which the 2nd Party raised a dispute and after failure of the conciliation the present reference has been made . Prayer has been made to declare the tormination of the 2nd Party made by the 1st Party- Management as illegal and for direction for reinstatement with effect from 20-5-1996 with full back wages along with other consequentinal benefits .

was The Ist Party- Management has filed their Written Statement. They have taken the stand that the Government of India has got no juris- diction to make reference to this Tribunal and he does not come under of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been further pleaded by the Ist Party-Management that the 2nd Party engaged as a casual piece rated worker intermi- ttently. He was required to work on daily attendance and piece rated basis. He was issued with attendance card for the month of May 1996 but he never submitted the said card for renewal. He willfully and volunitarily absented from the work without any intimation or infor- mation . The 1st Party - Management has refused engagement to the 2nd Party . Purther stand of the 1st Party- Management is that, Shri B. S. Pati who is claiming to be the General Secretary of the said Union has got no locustandi to represent the 2nd Party - Workman. According to the 1st Party- Management the reference is totally invalid , misconceived , untenable and un- sustainable in the eye of law. never 4. On the above pleading of the parties , the following Issues have been settled .

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the 2nd Party is a workman ?

2598

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

3. Whether the termination of service of Shri Rangadhar Mohakud without giving any no ice and following laid down proce- dure by the Management is justified ?.

4. If not, what relief the 2nd Party workman is entitled to ?

5. Before going to the merit of the case , it may be stated here that , objection was raised on behalf of the Ist Party - Management regarding representation of the 2nd Party by Shri B.S. Pati There are some other cases in similar nature in which Mr. B. S. Pati was representing the 2nd Party. After hearing of the parties , this Tribunal vide order dated 12-11-2001 passed in Tr. I.D. Case No. 136/2001 , the representation of Shri Pati was not accepted and notice was issued to the 2nd Party to appear in person . In pursuant to the said notice the 2nd Party appeared in person and filed an application to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. Time was granted . Thereafter , the 2nd party did not produce the stay order and remained absent for which he was sel exparte and exparte hearing was taken on 15-1-2003 . When the case was adjourned for passing of award a petition was received by post for time to produce the stay order . The Tribunal in the interest of justice , when the 2nd Party was appearing in person , without passing award allowed time to the 2nd Party to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. But the 2nd Party has failed . The Ist Party - Management was heard only.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . 1. 11. III and IV

6. As I have stated earlier the 2nd Party has not faced any oral or documentary evidence bofore the Tribunal . When the 2nd Party has raised a dispute the initial burden lies on him to lead evidence to prove his case. But that has not been done . The averments made by the Ist Party - Management regarding maintainability of the reference and status of the 2nd party as a workman has not been challenged. Similarly in absence of any materials it can not be said that the termination of service of the 2nd Party without giving any notice or without following laid down procedures by the Ist Party- Management is illegal . So , when the 2nd Party has failed to make out a case that he is a workman and that , the reference is maintainable and that , the ter- mination of service is illegal , he is not entitled for any relief,. Hence. all the four issues are answered in favour of the Ist Party - Management.

7. Reference is answered accordingly . Dictated and Corrected by me .

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2003

का.ग्रा . 1007.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में ' केन्द्रीय सरकार वैतारिनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 139/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल.-29012/ 26/ 97-आई . आर . ( विविध ) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th February , 2003

17 of S.O.1007 . In pursuance of Section the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 139/2001 ) of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Baitarini Iron Mines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-02-2003 .

[ No. L - 26012/ 26/ 97 - IR ( M ) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , BHUBANE- SWAR

Present :

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

Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 139/2001

Date of conclusion of hearing - 18th Feb .. 2003 Date of Passing Award - 18th Feb. , 2003 Between :

The Management of the Agent , Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan , P.O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar . Ist Party- Mana- gement.

AND

Their Workmen Shui Sadhu Naik , S/ o Shri Laxmidhar Naik , Vill . 2nd Dharurjoypur , P.O. Balabhadrapur ,

Dist . Keonjhar .

2nd Party - Workman .

2599

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22 , 2003/चैत्र1 , 1925

[भाग II-- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

APPEARANCES

Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan, Partner . For the 1st Party- Management.

None For the 2nd Party- Workman .

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 26012/ 26 / 97- IR ( Misc . ) dated 21-10-1997 :

"Whether the termination of service of Shri Sadhu Naik with effect from 20-5-1996 without giving any notice or following laid down procedure by the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan , P.O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar is justified and proper ? If, not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the 2nd Party is that he joined service under the 1st Party- Management in July 1994 as piece rated workman . On 20-5-1996 the 1st Party-Management created disturbance at the work site through the mining staff along with few other side workers as a result of which First Information Report was lodged before the Officer- in-charge. The agent of the 1st Party- Management was called to the Police Station and assured before the Officer- in -charge to settle the matter . But the matter was not settled for which the 2nd Party raised a dispute and after failure of the conciliation the present reference has been made . Prayer has been made to declare the termination of the 2nd Party made by the 1st Party- Management as illegal and for direc- tion for reinstatement with effect from 20-5-1996 with full back wages along with other consequential benefits .

3. The 1st Party- Management has filed their Written Statement . They have taken the stand that, the Government of India has got no jurisdiction to make reference to this Tribunal and he does not come under the Industrial Disputes Act . It has been further pleadedby the 1st Party- Management that the 2nd Party was engaged as a casual piece rated worker inter- mittently. He was required to work on daily attendance and piece rated basis . He was issued with attendance card for the month of May 1996 650 GI/ 2003-12

but he never submitted the said card for renewal. He willfully and voluntarily absented from the work without intimation or information . The 1st Party- Management has never refused engagement to the 2nd Party . Further stand of the 1st Party- Management is that , Shri B. S. Pati who is claiming to be the General Secretary of the said Union has got no locusstandi to represent the 2nd Party-workman . According to the 1st Party-management the reference is totally in- valid , misconceived , untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the above pleading of the parties , the following Issues have been settled .

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the 2nd Party is a workman ?

3. Whether the termination of service of Shri Sadhu Naik without giving any notice and following laid down procedure by the Management is justified ?

4. If not, what relief the 2nd Party work- man is entitled to ?

5. Before going to the merit of the case , it may be stated here that , objection was reaisd on behalf of the 1st Party - Management regarding representation of the 2nd Party by Shri B. S. Pati. There are some other cases in similar nature in which Mr. B. S. Pati was representing the 2nd Party . After hearing of the parties , this Tribunal vide order dated 12-11-2001 passed in Tr. I. D. Case No. 136/2001 , the representation of Shri Pati was not accepted and notice was issued to the 2nd Party to appear in person. In pursuant to the said notice the 2nd Party appeared in person and filed an application to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. Time was granted . Therefore , the 2nd Party did not produce the stay order and remained absent for which he was set exparte and exparte hearing was taken on 15-1-2003 . When the case was adjourned for passing of award a petition was received by post for time to produce the stay order. The Tribunal in the interest of justice , when the 2nd party was appearing in person , without passing award allowed time to the 2nd Party to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . But the 2nd Party has failed . The Ist Party - Management was heard only .

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ) 2600 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

ANNEXURE

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . I , II , III, & IV

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri S.K. Dhal , OSJS , ( Sr. Branch) ,

Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. - cum- Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 142/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing 18th Feb. 2003 Date of Passing Award 18th Feb. 2003

Between

The Management of the Agent ,

Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan , P.O. Barbil, Dist. Keonjhar- 1st Party- Management And

S/o . Shri Dasuru Naik , Vill . 2nd Dharu joypur , P.O. Balabhadrapur ,

Their Workmen Shri Rabikanta Naik , Dist . Keonjhar . Appearances : -211 Party - Workman .

6. As I have stated earlier the 2nd Party has not faced any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal . When the 2nd Party has raised a dispute the initial burden lies on him to lead evidence to prove his case . But that has not been done . The averments made by the 1st Party -Management regarding maintainability of the reference and status of the 2nd Party as a workman has not been challenged. Similarly in absence of any materials it cannot be said that the termination of service of the 2nd Party without giving any notice or without following laid down procedures by the 1st Party - Manage- ment is illegal . So , when the 2nd Party has failed to make that he is a workman and that , the reference is maintainable and that, the termination of service is illegal , he is not entitled for any relief. Hence , four issues are answered in favour of the 1st Party Management . out a case all the

Referernce is answared accordingly.

None

Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan , Partner- For the 1st Party- Management -For 2nd Party -Workman .

Dictated & Corrected by me .

AWARD

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 फरवरी , 2003

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub -section (1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 26012/30/ 97- IR ( Misc . ) dated 21-10-1997 :

का. आ . 1008.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियय , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार वैतारिनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 142/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-03 को प्राप्त हुआा था ।

"Whether the termination of service of Shri Rabikanta Naik with effect from 20-5-1996 without giving any notice or following laid down procedure by the Management of Baitarini Iron Minos of D:. Sarojini Pradhan , P.O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar is justified and proper ? If, not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

[सं. एल.-26012/30/ 9/7-आई . आर . (विविध) ] बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi the 27th February , 2003

S.O. 1008.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 142/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Iron Mines and their workman, which was by the Central Government on 27-2-03 . Bait

2. The case of the 2nd Party is that he joined service under the 1st Party- Management in June 1994 as piece rated workman . On 20-5-1996 the 1st Party-Management created disturbance at the work site through the mining staff along with few other side workers as a result of which First Information Report was lodged before the Officer- in - charge . The agent of the 1st Party - Management was called to the Police Station and assured before the Officer- in-charge to settle the matter . But the matter was not settled for which the 2nd Party raised a dispute and after failure of the conciliation the present referenc has been made . Prayer has been made to declare the termination of the 2nd Party made by the 1st [No. L- 26012/30/97- IR(M ) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy .

2601

भारत का राजपत्न: मार्च 22, 2003/ चैत्र 1 , 1925

[भाग 11-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Party-Management as illegal and for direction for reinstatement with effect from 20-5-1996 with full back wages along with other consequential benefits .

justice, when the 2nd Party was appearing in person , without passing award allowed time to the 2nd Party to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . But the 2nd Party has failed. The 1st Party- Management was heard only.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. I, II , III & IV

3. The 1st Party - Management has filed their Written Statement. They have taken the stand that , the Government of India has got no jurisdiction to make reference to this Tribunal and he does not come under the Industrial Disputes Act . It has been further pleaded by the 1st Party - Management that the 2nd Party was engaged as a casual piece rated worker intermittently . He was required to work on daily attendance and piece rated basis . He was issued with attendance card for the month of May 1996 but he never submitted the said card for renewal . He willfully and voluntarily absented from the work without any intimation or information . The 1st Party-Management has never refused engagement to the 2nd Party. Further stand of the 1st Party- Management is that , Shri B.S. Pati who is claiming to be the General Secretary of the said Union has got no locostandy to represent the 2nd Party - Work- man. According to the 1st Party- Management the reference is totally invalid , misconceived , untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law.

6. As I have stated earlier the 2nd Party has not faced any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal . When the 2nd Party has raised a dispute the initial burden lies on him to lead evidence to prove his case . But that has not been done . The averments made by the 1st Party- Management regarding maintainability of the reference and status ofthe 2nd Party as a workman has not been challen- ged. Similarly in absence of any materials it cannot be said that the termination of service of the 2nd Party without giving any notice or without following laid down procedures by the 1st Party- Management is illegal. So , when the 2nd Party has failed to make out a case that he is a workman and that , the reference is maintainable and that, the termination of service is illegal, he is not entitled for any relief. Hence , all the four issues are answered in favour of the 1st Party- Management .

4. On the above pleading of the parties , the fol- lowing Issues have been settled.

ISSUES

7. Reference is answered accordingly. Dictated & Corrected by me .

(1 ) Whether the reference is maintainable?

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer (2) Whether the 2nd Party is a workman ?

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2003 (3) Whether the termination of service of Shri Rabikanta Naik without giving any notice and following laiddown procedure by the Manage- ment is justified ?

(4) If not, what relief the 2nd Party workman is entitled to ?

का. आ . 1009.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतारिनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 140/2001 ) को प्रसाभित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/2/2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 26012/ 27/97-आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]

बी.एम. डेक्डि, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th February , 2003

S.O. 1009.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 140/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of 5. Before going to the merit of the case , it may be stated here that , objection was raised on behalf of the 1st Party- Management regarding representation of the 2nd Party by Shri B.S. Pati . There are some other cases in similar nature in which Mr. B.S. Pati was representing the 2nd Party. After hearing of the parties , this Tribunal vide order dated 12-11-2001 passed in Tr. I.D. Case No. 136/2001 , the represen- tation of Shri Pati was not accepted and notice was issued to the 2nd Party to appear in person . In pursuant to the said notice the 2nd Party appeared in person and filed an application to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. Time was granted. Thereafter the 2nd Party did not producc the stay order and remained absent for which he was set exparte and exparte hearing was taken on 15-1-2003 . When the case was adjourned for passing of award a petition was received by post for time to produce the stay order . The Tribunal in the interest of 2602 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

Baitarini Iron Mines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-2-2003 .

[ No. L- 26012/ 27/ 97 - IR (M )] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR

Present :

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

Tr . INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 140/2001 Date of conclusion of hearing 18th Feb. , 2003 Date of Passing Award : 18th Feb. , 2003 Between:

The Management of the Agent , Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan , P.O. Barbil ,

Ist Party Management Distt . Keonjhar . And

Their Workmen Shri Surman Sethi ,

S/ o . Shri Ramo Sethi ,

Vill . 2nd Dharurjoypur,

P.O. Balabhadrapur ,

Distt. Keonjhar .

2nd Party Workman Appearances :

Shri Sabyasachi Pradhan , Partner.

For the 1st Party Management

None

For the 2nd Party Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 26012/ 27 / 97 - IR (Misc .) dated 21-10-1997 :

"Whether the termination on service of Shri Surman Sethi with effect from 20-5-1996 without giving any notice or following laid down proce- dure by the Management of Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan , P.O. Barbil , Distt. Keonjhar is justified and proper ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the 2nd Party is that he joined service under the Ist Party Management in June , 1994 as piece - rated workman . On 20-5-1996 the Ist Party Managem at 10ated distritance at the

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] worksite through the mining staff along with few other side workers as a result of which First Infor- mation Report was lodged before the Officer - in- Charge. The agent of the Ist Party Management was called to the Police Station and assured before the Officer - in- Charge to settle the matter . But the matter was not settled for which the 2nd Party raised a dispute and after failure of the conciliation the present reference has been made . Prayer has been made to declare the termination of the 2nd Party made by the 1st Party Management as illegal and for direction for reinstatement with effect from 20-5-1996 with full back wages along with other consequential benefits .

3. The 1st Party Management has filed their Written Statement . They have taken the stand that the Government of India has got no jurisdiction to make reference to this Tribunal and he does not come under the Industrial Disputes Act . It has been further pleadedby the 1st Party Management that the 2nd Party was engaged as a casual piece rated worker intermittently. He was required to work on daily attendance and piece - rated basis . He was issued with attendance card for the month of May , 1996 but he never submitted the said card for renewal. He wilfully and voluntarily absented from the work without any intimation or information . The Ist Party Management has never refused engagement to the 2nd Party. Further stand of the Ist Party Management is that , Shri B. S. Pati who is claiming to be the General Secretary of the said Union has got no locostandy to represent the 2nd Party Workman. According to the 1st Party Manage- ment the reference is totally invalid , misconceived , untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law.

4. On the above pleading of the parties , the following Issues have been settled .

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the 2nd Party is a workman ?

3. Whether the termination of service of Shri Surman Sethi without giving any notice and following laid down procedure by the Management is justified ?.

4. If not, what relief the 2nd Party workman is entitled to ?

5. Before going to the merit of the case , it may be stated here that , objection' was raised on behalf of the 1st Party - Management regarding representa- tion of the 2nd Party by Shri B. S. Pati . There are some other cases in similar nature in which Mr. B.S. Pati was representing the 2nd Party . After hearing of the parties , this Tribunal vide order dated 12-11-2001 passed in Tr . ID . Case No. 136/2001 , the repre- [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

sentation of Shri Pati was not accepted and notice was issued to the 2nd Party to appear in person . In pursuant to the said notice the 2nd Party appeared in person and filed an application to bring the ' stay order from the Hon'ble High Court . Time was granted. Thereafter the 2nd Party did not produce the stay order and remained absent for which he was set exparte and exparte hearing was taken on 15-1-2003 . When the case was adjourned for passing of award a petition was received by post for time to produce the stay order . The Tribunal in the interest of justice, when the 2nd Party was appearing in person , without passing award allowed time to the 2nd Party to bring the stay order from the Hon'ble High Court. But the 2nd Party has failed. The 1st Party- Management was heard only .

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO . I , II , III and IV

6. As I have stated earlier the 2nd Party has not faced any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal . When the 2nd Party has raised a dispute the initial burden lies on him to lead evidence to prove his case . But that has not been done . The averments made hy the 1st Party- Management re- garding maintainabiilty of the reference and status of the 2nd Party as a workman has not been chal- lenged. Similarly in absence of any materials it cannot be said that the termination of service of the 2nd Party without giving any notice or without fol- lowing laid down procedures by the 1st Party- Management is illegal . So , when the 2nd Party has failed to make out a case that he is a workman and that , the reference is maintainable and that , the termination of service is illegal , he is not entitled for any relief . Hence , all the four issues are answered in favour of the 1st Party - Management .

7. Reference is answered accordingly . Dictated and Corrected by me .

S. K. DHAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2003

का. आ . 1010:-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मर्मगांव पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबन्ध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं . 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी.-2/40 ऑफ 2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 36011/ 13/ 2001-आई .11/ 13 / 2001 -आई. आर . ( विविध ) ] बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

2603

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 22 , 2003/ चैत 1 , 1925

New Delhi , the 27th February , 2003 S.O.1010.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes, the award (Ref . No. CGIT - 2/40 of 2002) of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal-cum- Lahour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofMormugao Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-2-2003 ,

[No. L- 36011/ 13/2001 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 , MUMBAI .

PRESENT

S.N. SAUNDANKAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE CGIT - 2/ 40 OF 2002 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGE- MENT OF MORMUGAO PORT TRUST The Chairman

Mormugao Port Trust Mormugao Harbour Goa 403 803 .

AND

Their Workmen . The General Secretary Mormugao Port & Railway Workers Union Zaiboon Apartment Near Cine El -Monte Vasco-de-Gama Goa 403 802 .

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Mr. M.B. Anchan , Advocate For the Workmen : Mr. L. Rodrigues , Representative Mumbai , the 11th February , 2003 AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L -36011/ 13/2001 - IR( M) , dated 22-4-02 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 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion :

Whether the 1 % donation amount to the Union recovered from arrears of the Wage Revision Settlement dt . 20-8-2000 of the workmen of Mormugao Port Trust. Goa 2604

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1924

on their written authorisation and payable to the Mormugao Port Trust and Railway Workers Union , Goa which is withheld by the Management is legal and justified ? If not, what is the remedial direction to the management of Mormugao Port Trust ?

2. Mcrmugao Port and Railway Workers Union by the claim statement Ex- 5 pleaded that the management Mormugao Port Trust unautho- risedly withheld the 1 % donation amount to the Union recovered from arrears of the Wage Re- vision Settlement dt. 20-8-2000 . Management by the written statement Ex - 8 averred that due to dispute regarding the office bearers of the Union , the amount in question has not been remitted to the Union.

3. By joint purshis Ex- 13 of the Union and the Management it is pointed out that since there is no dispute between the two actions , the management would remit the amount in question to the Union and therefore the reference be disposed of. Therefore the following order is passed:

ORDER

Reference stands disposed of as sttteled vide prushis Ex . - 13.

S.N. SAUNDANKAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2003

का.ग्रा . 1011.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केरल मिनरलस् एण्ड मेटल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबन्ध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रौद्योगिक अधिकरण, कोलाम के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27/2/03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 29012/109/ 98-आई. आर. (विविध ) ] बी.एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 27th Feburary , 2003 S. O. 1011. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Kollam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betwem the employers in relation to the mana- gement of Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 27-2-03 .

[ No.L-29012/ 109/ 98 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNXEURE

IN THE COURT OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBU- NAL , KOLLAM

(Dated, this the 10th day of February , 2003) PRESENT:

SRI C.N. SASIDHARAN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 3/99

BETWEEN

The Managing Director , Kerala

Minerals and Metals Ltd. , Kovilthottam ,-Managemen Chavara .

(By M/ s Menon & Menon, Advocates , Kochi )

And Sri . V. Suseelan , Ambiyil Shivalayam, Mulavana P.O. , Kundara , Kollam. (By Sri R. Bahuleyan , Advocate , Kollam) Workman

AWARD

The Government of India as per Order No. L- 29012/ 109/ 98 /IR ( M) dated 18-1-1999 referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudi- cating the following issue :

"Whether the action of the management of Kerala Mineral and Metals Ltd. Chavara , Kollam in removing the name of Sri V. Suseelan a casual worker from the list of casual workers thereby denying employment to him from 8-9-1997 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

sit 2. The case pleaded by the union is briefly as under : The workman Sri . Suseelan originally joined duty with the management under the contrac- tor Sri Kunjukrishnan in the unload mycaud section from 29-5-1991 . The management issued identity card and muster cards in this regard . The contractor was collecting Provident Fund on behalf of the management from the wages . Consi- dering the above work in the MS unit of the company he was appointed as casual worker under the manage- ment from 4-4-94 and management was directly paying wages . Management was collecting Provident Fund from the wages . The workman was getting all benefits allowed to similar workers and he was regularly employed. On 2-7-1995 the worker moved leave application along with medical certificate due to illness as due to illness he could not attend duty. Leave applications and medical certificates are regularly submitted through regis- tered post . On 3-7-1997 the worker obtained a notice from the management requiring explanation for the absence from duty . The worker.submitted 2605

भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 22 , 2003/चैल 1 , 1925

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

reply. In the meanwhile the workman recovered from illness and submitted fitness certificate on 8-6-1997 along with representation for joining duty. Though the officials of the management promised to consider the matter favourably , it was later informed that due to the rivalry among the trade unions it has become difficult to permit him to join duty. In the counter statement submitted to the Asst . Labour Commissioner by the management it has been stated that the workman was employed at abroad during the period mentioned in the medical certificate . The workman as demanded by the officials of the management submitted explanation regarding impounding of his passport and that he was abroad. during the period 1980 to 1990 only . The manage- ment has conducted enquiries behind the back of the workman and taken a decision that the statement submitted by the workman was not true mainly on the ground that the number of passport impound differs from the number of original passport. The workman was accordingly denied employment . The action of management is wrong, arbitrary and illegal . Similar workers under the management are employed as casual workers . The workman is entitled to be reinstated in service from 8-9-1997 with all benefits .

alone in a span of 45 days rotation . The workman was not available for doing casual work from August, 1995 onwards . The company therefore issued show cause notice . He submitted reply and copies of medical certificates . Such show cause notices were issued to other casual workers who were absented from work like Sri Suseelan. As the company was not satisfied with the replies , a fact finding enquiry was conducted through Asst . Mines Manager . The workman submitted medical certificates for three diseases and the certification in some certificates were also doubtful . The Medical certificates were incongruous on the face of them and were not accep- table to the company . When two medical certificates certified that the workman was suffering from Apabahukam, other two certificates stated that from Pakshakhatham suffering he was and Rhumatic Arthritis . The medical certificates were issued for a few dates as well. It was also reported that Sri . Suseelan was employed in Gulf Countries during the period of absnece . There was difference in the number of passport and the number of passport impound. The statement that he was not in a position to get any other passport was not found convincing . The medical certificates submitted by him were inconsistant and strengthen suspicion of the company that the workman was abroad during the period of his absence . The company was taken a policy decision as per the directions of the Government that request of casual workers who have gone abroad for employment , upon their return need not be entertained . Hence the workman had not been reengaged for casual work on rotation basis . The workman had not put in continuous service of one year as defined in the Act and not entitled to get protection of any of the provisions of the Act. A casual worker cannot claim work from the company as of right . After two years of absence he has no legal right to claim that he should be reengaged . The management is not bound to entertain his leave application even if the medical certificates were genuine and he was not employed abroad. The casual workers who were regularly reporting for work have sub- mitted representations against reengaging casual workers who are not available for work for long period . The company has not collected Provident fund from the wages of the workman. The amount deducted from his wages was against contribution to a welfare Forum for the benefit of casual workers . The management denies all other allegations . According to the management the workman is not entitled to any relief and this reference is illegal and without jurisdiction , 3. The case of the management is briefly as under: Sri Suseelan was only a casual worker . He is not legally entitled to raise an industrial dispute as. defined under Sec. 2(k) or Sec . 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( ' the Act ' for short ) against the management . A casual worker is not holding any post and he cannot be treated as a workman with any legal right to claim employinent from the company. This dispute is frivolous and vaxacious in nature . The company has two units namely , Titanium Dioxide Pigment Unit and Mineral Separation Unit (M.S. Unit ) . The first one is registered under the Factories Act . and the M.S. Unit is ' Mine ' as defined in the Mines Act . The present claim pertains to MS unit . This being a Mine is not liable to be covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 52 (E.P.F. Act) . Sri Suseelan was engaged by one of the con- tractors Sri T.V. Kunjukrishnan. The company had not issued any identity card or muster card to Sri Suseelan . The contractor had issued cards . The workman was never appointed as an employee of the company. The company enlisted 527 casual workers for doing the available casual work in the MS unit. The requirement was only 75 persons but due to the pressure exerated by unions the company enlisted 527 and started engaging 75 persons per day on weekly rotation basis w.e.f. 4.4.1994 . The company had issued identity card to these casual workers . Each casual worker was able to get work for six days 2606. THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003 /CHAITRA 1 , 1925

4. The workman has failed a replication dis- puting the case of management and reaffirming his contentions .

5. The workman examined himself as WW 1 . Two witnesses were also examined on his side as WW 2 and 3. Exts . W1 to W 15 have been marked on his side . The Deputy Manager ( P&A) of the management has failed an affidavit of proof in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined as MW 1. Exts . MI to M 16 have also been marked on the side of management.

6. The workman involved in this dispute claims reinstatement in service . According to him he had worked continuously under the management for more than 212 days and the management without rejecting his leave application supported by medical certificate for leave for illness for a period of two years . did not permit him to attend duty. Admittedly he was a casual worker under the management . But according to the workman he was initially appointed under a contractor from 29-5-1991 and while continuing SO the management has appointed as casual worker w.e.f. 4-4-1994 and continued till 1-7-1995 . Reliance was placed on Exts . WI to W4 docu- ments in support of this contention . Exts . Wil to W 3 are Muster Cards in the name of the worker issued from Sri . Kunjkrishnan, contractor for doing work in the management company. As per Ext . W1 the workman had worked only for 29 days from 29-5-1991 to 10-8-1991 . As per Ext . W 2 he had worked for 29 days from 9-11-1992 to 17-12-1992 . As pe : Ext . W 3 he had worked for 71 days during the period from 25-10-1993 to 30-7-1994 . Ext . W 4 is the identity card issued to the workman from the contractor . Exts . W1 to W4 show that he was employed under the contractor only. Ext . W 5 identity card alone was seen issued by the management to the workman. He has not preduced any other documents to prove the number of days worked by him . On the other hand the management has contended that the workman was employed as a casual worker from 24-4-1994 and he had worked only for 31 days in the year 1994 and 16 days in the year 1995 under the management . In support of this contention the management has produced and proved Exts . M1 to M8 documents .

7. The case of the management is that in April 1994 the management has prepared a list of 527 persons to work as casual workers though the re- quirement was only 75 casuals and due to pressure exerated by the unions representing the contract

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] labourers , the company has drawn such a list , It has come out in evidence through the management witness , MWI , as well as WW2 and WW3 examined on the side of the workman that each casual worker who was enlisted was able to get work for six days alone in a span of 45 days rotation . WW3 has cate- gorically deposed in cross - examination that the workman was getting only six days work in a span of 30 days . Exts . M2 to M5 are list of contract workers consisting of 75 persons who were afforded work for the period from 4-4-1994 to 30-4-1994 . These documents also prove that the enlisted casual work- ers could work only on rotation basis in 4 batches and only after lapse of 45 days persons who are listed would get work for a period of six days . Ext . M8 is the Attendance Register of casual workers kept by the management for the period from 4-4-1994 to 4-2-1995 in which the attendance details of the worker are recorded and the relevant folio num- bers have been marked as Ext . M8 - A to M8- F. These folios will also reveal that the workers was engaged by the management only on 31 days in the year 1994. Ext . MI is the attendance card issued to the worker during the year 1995 which is not disputed also. As per Ext. M1 he was engaged by the manage- ment only for 16 days in the year 1995. Even if the period worked under the contractor is also included that will not establish that the workman had worked 212 days in a period of 12 months as claimed by him but had worked only 47 days during 1994-95.

8. The worker who had worked only 31 days in the year 1994 and 16 days in the year 1995. that too on casual basis , cannot claim any legal right under the provisions of the Act . He cannot therefore con- tend that the denial of employment to him if any, as a casual worker amounts to retrenchment . Only it is established that he had continuous service of one year as defined under Sec . 25B of the Act ( 240 days) he is entitled to claim protection under the Act. Inthis state of affairs Sec . 2 (00) and 25 - F of the Act will not also come to the rescue of the document . This being the position the claim of the work man is unsustainable .

9. According to the learned counsel for the worker the workman is entitled to get reinstatement as he had worked continuously from 1991 first under the contractor and then under the mana- gement directly. It is also contended that when the management has not given employment the contractor has engaged the workman as spoken to by WW2, union secretary . Further asdeposed by the workman he had put signature in several registers whenever he was empolyed by the mana- gement and the management has suppressed those 2607

भारत का राजपत्न: मार्च 22, 2003/चैव 1, 1925

[भाग - खंड 3(ii) ]

medical certificates regularly. But the management without considering those applications and me- dical certificates and without rejecting the same , issued him show cause notice dated 3-7-1997 absence from requiring explanation for the duty. Admittedly he was absent from duty for a period of two years . But according to the management the medical certificates produced by the workman were not acceptable as different illness are stated and also that the medical cer- țificates were incongruous on their face . The copies of medical certificates submitted by the workman to the management have been produced here and marked as Ext . M11 - a to Mll-d. In Ext . M11 - a it is certified that the worker was under treat- ment for Apabahukam from 2-7-1995 and he needs six months treatment. In Ext.M11 - b it is certified that he is suffering from Apabahukam and requires rest for a period of six months from 2-1-1996. In Ext . Mil 1 - c it is seen certified that the worker requires rest from 12-12-1996 as he was suffering from Paksha- khatham . In Ext.M11 -d it is seen certified that the worker is suffering from Rhumatic Artjritis and needs rest for a period of six months from 12-6-1997. But in Ext . M12- a medical certificate dated 8-9-1997 which is for two years from 2-7-1995 to 8-9-1997 it is certified that he was suffering from Apabahukam for a period of two years which is against Extx.M11 - с and M-11d certificates . As a matter of fact in Ext . M11 -c certificate dated 12-6-1996 it is seen certified that the worker requires period of absence from duty for six months w.e.f. 12-12-1996. The Medical Officer has issued this certificate in June 1996 itself for a future date i.e .; December , 1996 and for six months thereafter . Further the very same Medical Officer who has recommended rest for six months from 12-6-1997 as per Ext . M11 -d, issued Ext . M12-b fitness certificate on 8-9-1997 itself. Ext.M11 -b certificate dated 2-1-1996 is for a period of six months from that date and in Ext . M11 -c dated 12-6-1996 recommendation is for six months absence w.e.f. 12-12-1996 only. There is no certificate certifying the absence for the period from 17-6-1996 to 11-12- 1996.

records . Reliance was also placed on two reported decisions . One decision is that of the High Court of Kerala and another decision is of the Supreme Court in support of the contention of the learned counsel. As I have held above even if the period worked under the contractor is also included that will not establish the employment of 240 days to get protection under the provisions of thae Act- Under the management he had worked only for 47 days during the year 1994-95 and it was not proved otherwise . The claim of the workman that he had put signature in several registers is not suppported by any other evidence. Even the witness examined of on his side have not stated anything about such registers . The management was also not called upon to produce any such registers . Though WW2 stated that whenever the company has not empolyed casual workers , the contractor had given employment to them, there is no supporting evidence to show that after 24-4-1994 there was any such employ- ment by the contractor . Even according to WW2 the workman was getting only six days work in a span of 45 days . In this state of affairs the present contention of the learned counsel is de- void of merit. Now with regard to the decision of the High Court of Kerala in FACT V. Chandramohanan Nair (01 (3) KLT 830) , it was a case under the Contract Labour (Regu- lation and Abolition) Act 1978. In that case the question arose as to whether on the abolition of the contract labour system the contract la- bourers would become direct employees of prin- cipal omployer. In the case before me there is no such dispute. The workman was enlisted as a casual worker after his employment under the contractor and he had worked till 1-7-1995. On this ground alone the above decision has no application here , according to me. In the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2002- (2)KLT 64 (short notes case No.78) relied on by the learned couisel also the effecting issuance of notification under Sec.10 of that Act was considered and court held that the section does not contemplate implicit requirement of automatic absorption of contract labour by principal em- ployer. The court has further held that where the contractor is found to be a camouflage , the workmen infact , be employees of principal employer. Both these points are not involved in the instant case . Hence this decision also , according to me, will not come to the rescue of the workman .

11. From what is stated above it is clear that different iliness are stated in the medical certificates for same period and the certification creates doubt and this fully support the contention of the manage- ment that these medical certificates are incongrous on the face of them and were not acceptable to the management. Even though the management has taken such a definite contention , no attempt has been made to cite or examine the Medical Officer before this Tribunal who had issued these certificates . There is no explanation also for not doing so . No doubt according to the learned counsel for the workman 10. The definite case of the workman is that while working under the management from 2-7-1995 onwards he could not attend duty due to incapacity and filed leave applications with 650 GI/2003-13 2608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003/ CHAITRA 1 , 1925 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

as Ext . M7 for the period 1991-96. In Ext.M7 contributions towards this forum has been deducted from the workman as recorded in Folio No. 11 which is marked as Ext.M7 - a. In the absence of any evidence to support the contention of the workman , particularly when there is nothing to disbelieve . the statement of the management supported by Ext.M7 registar . I am not persuaded to accept the present contention of the workman and to hold that he was a regular employee of the management .

these certificates were issued by a Government Ayurve- dic Doctor . But in the absence of evidence of the Medical Officer and particularly when the genuine- ness is disputed by the management , it is not proper to accept and act upon these certificates by this Tri- bunal which is not technically equipped for doing so. Therefore the non acceptance of these certifi- cates by the management company cannot be held as unjust or improper. Further there is a break of six months periodfrom 12-6-1996 to 11-12-1996 as stated above which is not supported by any medi- cal certificate . No doubt according to the learned counsel for the worker the worker has submitted leave applications supported by medical certificates for the full period of absence of two years as evi- dent from Exts . W6 to W9 postal receipts and ack- nowledgements and the management has not pro- duced all the certificates here . It is true that Exts . W6 to W9 prove that letters had been sent to the management . But that itself does not prove that medical certificate for the period from 12-6-1996 to 12-12-1996 also was sent to the management . The worker has not produced copy of the same and the management was not called upon to produce that particular certificate . It is also specific to note that Sri . Suseelan was only a casual worker and was able to get six days work only within a period of 45 days and he has no legal right to claim re - engagement when admittedly he was not available for work for more than two years . Therefore the company is not bound week to entertain the leave application and medical certificates even if these were genuine and he was not employed abroad . In these circum- stances the contention of the learned counsel for the workman relying on the medical certificates and the leave applications cannot be accepted in support of the case of the workman to cover the period of absence from work in the management company.

13. According to the management the workman was away in Gulf Countries during the period he absented from work In the affidavit of proof filed by MW1 it is stated that as 527 casual persons are enlisted there is no reason for the management to condone the unauthorised 'absence of casual workers . Further since absenteeism among casual was affecting the system, the management issued show cause notices to such casuals including the worker who were not reported for work and ordered a fact finding enquiry by the Asst. Mines Manager : Ext M10 is stated to be the enquiry report . But that was not properly proved by examining the enquiry officer when the findings are seriously disputed by the worker. It was reported by the enquiry officer that section of co - workers have alleged that the worker was employed in a Gulf Country for the past two years . But the enquiry officer has not recorded the statement of any such workers . According to the worker. he was away in the Gulf Country prior to 1990 and he had lost his original passport and for: coming back to India he had obtained passport through the Indian Embassy . To prove this aspect the workman has produced Ext . M13 passport impound slip . The management has not accepted this as there is difference in the original passport number and number stated in the impound slip. Itisnot proved by the management that the workman had obtained another passport and was away in the Gulf Country during the disputed period . The workman has also not produced any evidence to prove that there was no possibility of getting new passport in his name after he had lost his original passport as alleged by him . In the nature of the contentions it is not material to find out whether he was in a Gulf Country or not. The only point to be considered is whether he has absented from work . The workman failed to establish that he was under: medical treatment and was not in a position to attend. duty during the disputed period . As matters stand : now it can only be concluded that he has unautho- risedly absented from work for more than two years period.

14. The learned counsel for the workman would contend that the management has re - engaged persons like the workman and the refusal of management to 12. The worker has a contention as spoken to by him that contribution towards EPF has been doiucted from his wages by the management company which shows that he was a regular employee of the management . In the written statement filed by the management as early on 3-6-1999 before this Tribu- nal it is specifically stated that MS unit of the company is a Mine as defined in the Mines Act which is not liable to be covered under the EPF Act. The work- man has not brought to the notice of this Tribunal any provision under any statute showing liability of the management company to cover MS unit under the Act . Further according to the management since MS unit is not liable to be covered under that Act, a welfare forum was constituted for the benefit of the contract labourers and remittances were made to the said forum . In support of this the management has produced the relevant register which is marked 2609

भारत का राजपत्रः मार्च 22, 2003 /चैत्र1, 1925

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

re- engage the workman is a clear case of discrimi- nation towards the worker. In support of this contention reliance was placed on Ext .W15 order of the Government of Kerala. As per Ext.W15 Government has ordered to re - engage some casual workers . The circumstances under which such an order has been issued are not known . It is also not known as to what was the reason for the absenteeism by those casual workers and how long they absented from work. Further it is notworthy that as per Ext.M16 order dated 7-11-1997 the Government has declined the request of one casual worker Sri George Stepher for reengagement . Therefore the worker can- not claim re -engagement on the strength of Ext .W15 order . Of course he will at liberty to approach the Government and to get special order if any as Ext. W15 . In this state of affair the claim based on Ext . W15 cannot be entertained.

not 15. As I have held above Sri . Suseelan was only a casual worker of the management and had not worked more than 47 days during the year 1994-95 . He has no legal right to claim reengagement and he cannot be treated as a ' workman ' as defined in the Act. He is legally entitled to raise an industrial dispute as defined under Sec . 2 (k) or Sec. 2 (A) of the Act and he is not legally entitled to get any protec- tion under the provisions of Sec 2 (00) and 25-F of the Act . This reference is therefore illegal and without jurisdiction .

16. In view of what is stated above , an award is passed holding that there was no denial of employment to Sri. Suseelan, the worker involved in this dispute by the management company and that he is not entitled to any relief .

C. N. SASIDHARAN , Industrial Tribunal

APPENDIX

Witnesses examined on the side of the Workman WW 1. Sri . V. Suseelan

WW 2. Sri . Santhosh

WW 3. Sri . K. P. Jayachandran

Documents marked on the side of the Workman Ext. W 1. Muster card in the name of Sri . V. Suseelan for the period from 29-5-1991 to 10-8-1991

Ext. W 2. Muster card in the name of Sri . V. Suseelan for the period from 9-11-1992 to 17-12-1992

Ext. W 3. Muster card in the name of Sti . V. Suseelan for the period from 25-10-1993 to 30-7-1994

Ext. W 4. Identity card in the name of Sri . Suseelan issued by Sri T.

V. Kunjukrishnan , Contractor Ext. W 5. Identity card in the name of Sri . Suseelan issued by the management Company

Ext. W 6. Postal receipt

Ext . W 7- series (2 nos .) Postal acknowledgement Ext. W 8 - series (2 nos. ) Postal receipt

Ext . W 9- series (2 nos. ) Postal receipt

Ext. W 10. Postal receipts

Ext. W 11. Notice issued to Sri. Suseelan from the management company dated 23-6-1997

Ext. W 11- a . Envelope

Ext . W 12 - series (5 nos .) Reply letter applies to the management from Sri . Suseelan with copies of medical certificates Ext. W 13. Passport impound slip

Ext . W 14. Photostat copy of letter addressed to the management from Sri . Suseelan dated 20-10-1997

Ext. W 15. Photostat copy of the order of Govern- ment of Kerala dated 26-3-2001 .

Documents marked on the side of the Manage- ment

Ext . M 1. Attendance casual card for the year 1995 in the name of Sri . Suseelan Ext . M 2. Copy of notice and list of contract workers for engagement for the Period from 4-4-1994 to 9-4-1994

Ext . M 3. Copy of notice and list of contract workers for engagement for the period from 11-4-1994 to 16-4-1994

Ext . M 4. Copy of notice and list of contract workers for engagement for the period from 18-4-1994 to 23-4-1994

Ext . M 5. Copy of notice and list of contract workers for engagement for the period from 25-4-1994 to 30-4-1994

Ext . M 6. List of casual workers as on 1-9-1999 in the MS unit

Ext . M 7. Register for remittance of contribution to Welfare Forum for the period 1991-96

Ext . M 7- A. Folio No. 11 of Ext. M 7 Ext. M 8. Attendance tegister of casual workers in the MS unit of the company for the period from 4-4-1994 to 14-2-1995 2610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22 , 2003/ CHAITRA 1 , 1925

Ext. M 8 - a to M 8 -f . Folio Nos . 23 , 65 , 103. , 143, 185 and 223

Ext . M 9. Copy of letter dated 6-10-1997 issued by the management to Sri . S. Sree Kumar, Asstt. Manager appointing him as enquiry officer

Ext. M 10. Enquiry note dated 24-10-1997 Ext. M 11. Letter issued to the senior manager of the management from Sri . Suseelan dated 5-7-1997

Ext . M 11 - a to M - 11 b . Medical certificates dated 2-1-1996 , 12-6-1996 and 2-7-1995. , 12-6-1997

Ext . M 12. Letter issued to the Mine Manager of the management company from Sti . Suscelan dated 20-7-1997 Ext . M 12- a . Medical certificate dated 8-10-1997 Ext . M 12 - b . Medical certificate for fitness dated 8-9-1997

Ext. M 13 - a. Photostat copy of passport impound slip

Ext . M 13 -b . Photostat copy of pass port particulars of Sri . Suseelan

Ext . M 14. Memorandum dated 14-10-1997 sub- mitted to the management by 69 casual workers

Ext . M 15. Memorandum dated 14-10-1997 sub- mitted to the inanagement by 69 casual workers

Ext. M 16. Photostat copy of the order of Govern- inent of Kerala dated 7-11-1997 .

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी , 2003

का. आ. 1012 केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिये प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा श्रम मंत्रा- लय के अधीन खान सुरक्षा महानिदेशालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को अधिसूचित करती है:--

1. खान सुरक्षा उप महानिदेशक का कार्यालय , दक्षिणी जोन, 16-11-5111/ 222, सांलिवाहन नगर , मुसर्रमबजार, दिलशुख नगर, पोस्ट मनकपेट , हैदराबाद , पिन-500036 (आंध्र प्रदेश)

2. खान सुरक्षा, निदेशक का कार्यालय , हैदराबाद क्षेत्र सं. 1 एवं 2, 16-11-5111/ 222, सांलिवाहन नगर, मुसर्रमबजार, दिलशुख नगर, मनकपेट , हैदराबाद , पिन-500036 ( आंध्र प्रदेश ) ।

3. खान सुरक्षा निदेशक का कार्यालय, भुवनेश्वर क्षेत्र 158, शहीदनगर, भुवनेश्वर ( उड़ीसा ) ।

[फाइल संख्या ई-11011/ 1/ 93-रा. भा. नी. ( भाग) ] के. के. मरवाहा, उप सचिव

[PART H- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 24th February , 2003 S.O. 1012. In pursuance of Sub- rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official purpose of the Union) Rule , 1976, the Central Gov- ernment, hereby, notifies following offiees under the Directorate General of Mines Safety working under the Ministry of Labour :

1. Office of the Dy . Director General of Mines Safety, Southern Zone , 16-11-5111 222, Sanlivahan Nagar , Musarrambazar Dilsukh , Nagar , Post Majakpet , Hyderabad, Pin-500036 (Α.Ρ. )

2. Office of the Director of Mines Safety , Hyderabad No. 1' ahd 2, 16-11-5111 /222, Sanlivahan Nagar , Musarrambazar, Dil- sukh , Nagar, Post Majakpet , Hyderabad, Pin -500036 (Α.Ρ. )

3. Office of the Director of Mines Safety, Bhubaneshwar Region 158 , Shaheednagar , Bhubaneshwar (Orissa) .

[File No. E - 11011 193 - RBN ( Pt . ) ] K. K. MARWAH , Dy . Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च , 2003

का. आ. 1013.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (ढ) के उप-खण्ड ( VI ) के उपबन्धों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2810 दिनांक 20-8-2002 द्वारा बैंकिंग उद्योग जी कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 2 में शामिल हैं , को उक्त अधि- नियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 19-9-2002 सेछः मास की कालार्वाध के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है,

अतः अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप-खण्ड ( VI) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए 19-3-2003 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[फा.सं.एस.-11017/ 5/97-आई. आर . (पी.एल. )] श्रीमती बी. आर . विज , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th March , 2003 S.O. 1013. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so re- quired that in pursuance of the provisions of sub- clause ( vi ) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the In- dústrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the 2511

भारत को राजपत्र: मार्च 22, 2003/चैव 1, 19:25

[भात 11--खंड 3 (ii ) ]

Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 2810 dated 20th Aug- ust, 2002 the services in the Banking Industry which is covered by item 2 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 19th Sep- tember, 2002.

And whereas , the Central Government is of opin- ion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers confer- red by the proviso to sub- clause (vi ) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said in- dustry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 19th March , 2003 .

[No. S- 11017/ 05 / 1997 - IR ( PL ) ] Smt . B. R. VIJ, Under Secy .

नईदिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2003

का. आ . 1014.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 को 14) की 'द्वारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैण्डर्ड चार्टड बैंक के प्रबंधसंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 195/98) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12011/ 46/97-आई. आर. (बी-1) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003 S.O. 1014.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 195/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Standard Chartered Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2003.

[No.L- 12011 /46/97- IR(B - 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI B. N. PANDEY I. D. No. 195/98

(LOK ADALAT)

The Secretary ,

-Workmen The Chartered Bank Employees Union , C/ o Standard Chartered Bank, P. Box No. 344, 17 Sansad Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

Versus

The Senior Manager ,

Standard Chartered Bank, Human Resources ' North' , 17, Sansad Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

Management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No.L- 12011 /46/97 - IR (B- I) Dated 11-9-98 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the demand of the Chartered Bank Employees Union that the Management of Standard Chartered Bank , New Delhi in not converting the unavailed casual leave of employees for the calendar year ending on 31-12-95 and 31-12-96 into sick leave as per Bipartite Settlement is justified and legal ? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

2. Shri Inderjit Singh A/R of the workmen has moved an application that the workmen have settled their matters with the management and , therefore , they are not interested in contes- ting the present case . So the case be decided accordingly.

3. Authorised Representative of the Manage- ment Shri S. K. Bhatnagar has no objection to it .

4. In view of the above 'No dispute award ' is passed in the case leaving the parties to bear their own costs . Award is given accordingly.

Dated : 20-2-2003

B.N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer .

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2003

का.आ. 1015.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैण्डर्ड चार्टड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कम-लेबर कोर्ट चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी.नं. 37/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-02-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 452/ 99-आई . आर. (बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 2612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2003 S.O. 1015. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( I.D. No. 37/2001) of the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Standard Chartered Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2003.

[No. L- 12012/452/99 - IR (B- 1 )J AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 24th February, 2003 .

Present : K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 37/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 79/2000)

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication 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 Workmen and the management of Standard Chartered Bank. ]

BETWEEN

Sluri M. Solai

: I Party/ Workman.

AND

1. The Regional Director, HR (MESA)

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai .

2. The Manager ,

Standard Chartered Bank, Chennai .

: II Party/Management

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Appearance :

For the Workman : M/ s . K. Desingh , S. Aruna- : chalam, & C. Reghurajan , 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 (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , have referred the concerned industrial dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 12012/452/99- IR(B- I) dated 14-02-2000 .

This reference has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai , where the same was taken on file as I.D. No. 79/2000 . When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal , Government of India , Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case also from the file of Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal to this Tribunal . for adjudica- tion. On receipt of records from that Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , this case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 37/2001 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 and to prosecute this case further Accordingly, they have appeared and prosecuted this case further.

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

"Whether the action of the management of Standard Chartered Bank in terminating the services of the workman Sri M. Solai with effect from 31-07-1999 is justified ? If not , to what relief is he entitled ? " 2. This industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner against the management of Standard Chartered Bank, challeng- ing the action of the management for terminating the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 31-07-1999 as illegal and unjustified.

3. The Petitioner himself has examined as WWI , a common witness for all these cases I.D. Nos . 30 to 37/2001 . The documents relied upon by the Petitioners have been marked separately in their respective cases as workmen's exhibits .

4. When the matter is pending enquiry , an attempt has been made by both the parties to arrive at a settlement of these disputes amicably among themselves . A joint memo has been filed by the parties to the dispute contending that both the parties are agreed that there is no scope for employment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the petitioner is not pressing his claim for enmployment and that additional monetary compensation for the petitioner can be [भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

considered on humanitarian grounds and fixation of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioners may be left with the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal and the decision given by this Tribunal awarding compensation to the Peti- tioner shall not be challenged or questioned by either of the parties before any Court and that the Tribunal also mention a date within which the additional compensation to be paid to the peti- tioner and this Hon'ble Tribunal can pass an award on the basis of the joint memo : This joint memo has been recorded .

5. In the joint memo , it is mentioned that the Petitioner had put in twenty- one years of service and his last drawn wage was Rs . 3,150/- per month and the Petitioner was paid Rs . 44,850/ - at the time of settling his dues .

6. While advancing arguments on the side of the Petitioner , the learned counsel for the Peti- tioner has filed a memo along with the xerox copy of 2A petitions filed by two other workmen against the same management of Standard Char- tered and Grindlays Bank and also the xerox copy of the cheques issued to those Petitioners by the bank while amicably settling their claims . They are one Mr. Mathivanan and the another Mr. Elumalai , who were working as supplier and cook respectively and their last drawn salary was Rs . 1400/- and Rs . 2200/- respectively per month and they have put in service of 8 years and 7 years respectively. Each of them was given a monetary compensation of Rs . 1,25,000/ - against their claim of reinstatement in service. This has not been denied by the Respondent/Bank management.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent /Bank relying upon judgement of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 II LLJ 509 between O.P. BHANDARI and INDIAN TOURISM DEVE- LOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that " compensation equivalent of 3.33 years salary on the basis of last drawn pay and allo- wances would be a reasonable amount to award in lieu of reinstatement. " In that case , the con- :

2613

भारत का राजपूत: मार्च 22, 2003/चैत्र 1, 1925

cerned employee had eight years for service of his superannuation. Considering all the aspects , the Supreme Court was of the view that 50 % of the annual salary and allowances can be taken into consideration in fixing up the quantum of compensation.

8. So on the basis of the representation made by the learned counsel on either side , the following Award is passed as Settlement Award : - This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that compensation equivalent to 50% of the total salary of the workman calculated on the basis of the total years of service to that of his last drawn - pay can be a reasonable amount that can be awarded as a monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in service . In that total amount calculated , the amount that has already been paid to the Petitioner has to be deducted and the balanée amount has to be paid to the Potitioner by the Respondent/Bank Management within a period of one month , failing which the Respondent shall pay that ainount inclu- sive of interest at the rate of 12% per annum , from this date till the date of payment .

9. The Petitioner Sri M. Solai had put in twenty- one years of service and had drawn Rs . 3,150 per month as his last drawn pay and he was paid Rs . 44,850 at the time of settling his dues , as per the joint memo filed by both the parties.

10. For 21 years of service on the basis of last drawn pay Rs . 3,150/ - per month , the total amount comes to Rs . 7,93,800 /- . Out of which 50 % is Rs. 3,96,000/- . In this , the amount he has been paid at the time of settling his dues by the Respondent /Bank Rs . 44,850/ -has tobe de lucte and the balance amount of Rs . 3,52,050/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Fifty only) has been fixed as additional monetary compensation to be paid by the Respon- dent/Bank management within a period of one month from this date, failing which the Respondent/Bank shall pay interest at the rate of 12 % per annum to this additional monetary compensation from this date till the date of its actual payment to the Peti- tioner.

2614

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 22, 2003 / CHAITRA 1 , 1925

11. The Joint Memo filed by both the parties dated 2nd December, 2002 shall form part of this Award.

(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th February, 2003 ) .

K. KARTHIKEYAN , Presiding Officer Encl : Copy of Joint Memo dated 02-02-2002 .

Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party/ Workman : WWI Sri M. Solai

common witness for

ID Nos . 30 to 37/2001 For the 11 Party /Management : None

Documents Exhibited :

For the I Party / Workman : --

Ex . Date

Description

No.

WI 30-04-98 Xerox copy of the receipt given by Petitioner for Rs . 2530 towards salary of April , 1998 .

W2 30-07-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent sent by Petitioner to Respondent .

W3 31-07-99 Xerox copy of the termination notice sent by Respondent with cheque.

W4 20-08-99 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Respondent to Petitioner's advo- cate.

W5 10-01-2000 Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by Petitioner to Respondent .

W6 25-11-99 Xerox copy of the failure of conci- ciliation report Subinitted by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) To Government of India,.

For the II Party/Management :-Nil.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI.

C.G.I.D.No. 37 of 2001

..Petitioner M. Solai

Vs.

Standard Chartered Gridlays Bank .. Respondent JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES 1. It is agreed that the Petitioner has served the Respondent for twentyone years on the date of ces- sation of engagement . His last drawn wage was Rs . 3150 per month . The Petitioner was paid Rs . 44,850 at the time of settling his dues.

2. It is agreed that there is no scope for employ- ment of the Petitioner and accordingly , the Peti- tioner is not pressing his claim for employment .

3. It is agreed that the Petitioner could on hu- manitarian grounds , be considered for additional monetary compensation .

4. It is agreed that the question of additional monetary compensation payable to the Petitioner may be left to the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal .

5. It is agreed that any decision given by this Hon'ble Tribunal awarding compensation shall not be challenged or called in question by either of the parties before any Forum.

6. It is also agreed that the Tribunal will also mentioned the date , within which the additional compensation to be paid to the Petitioner .

7. It is agreed that this Memo may be kept as part of the record of this Hon'ble Tribunal and an award may be made on the basis of this Memo .

Dated at Chennai, this the 2nd day of December , 2002 .

Sd-

Counsel for Petitioner

Sd- Counsel for Respondent Sd-

Petitioner

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054, 2003