This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्रीसं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

REOD. NO. D. L. (N ) 04/0007 /2003-05

Phinthe भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं० 3 ]

नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 11 जनवरी17 , 2004, शनिवार पौष 21- पौष 27, 1935

No. 3 ] NEW DELHI , JANUARY 11-JANUARY 17 , 2004, SATURDAY/PAUSA 21- PAUBAT7, 1925

भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii)

PART II Section 3 ( ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालयों को छोड़कर ) 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, 8 जनवरी, 2004

गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्‌भूत किसी अन्य अपराध और अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करतीहै ।

[सं. 228/96/2003- डी. एस. पी. ई. ] शुभा अकुर, अवर सचिव

CABINET SECRETARIAT

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2004 का. आ. 87.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा 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 210पीसीआर 2003 दिनांक 13 अक्तूबर, 2003 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के कुछ अज्ञात अधिकारियों एवं किन्हीं अन्य लोक सेवकों अथवा व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120- बी सपदितःधारा 419 , 420, 380, 467, 468 , 471 तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम सं. 49 ) की धारा 13(2) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( डी) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उप अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रय , दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्यंत्र तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए

S.O. 87. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,Act. I1946 (Act No. 25of1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Karnataka, vide Notification No. HD 210 PCR 2003 dated 13m October , 2001, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of 33G1/04-1

(197) 198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004 /PAUSA 27 , 1925

(1) the State ofKarnataka for investigation of offences against certain unknown officials of State Bank of India and any other public servants or persons under Section 120 -B read with 419 , 420, 380, 467, 468, 471 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and Section 13 ( 2 ) read with 13 ( 1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988 ) and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more of the offence mentioned above and any other offence and offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/96/2003 -DSPE ] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

गृह मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 27 नवम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 88.- सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार कथित अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के पद के समतुल्य होने पर निम्न तालिका के कालम ( 1 ) में वर्णित अधिकारी को कथित तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट लोक परिसर के लिए उसके क्षेत्राधिकार कीसीमाओं के अंतर्गत सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है : -

तालिका

अधिकारी का पदनाम

लोक परिसर की कोटि तथा क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमा

(2)

(1)

पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक (परिचालन ) , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, अगरतला (त्रिपुरा )

उषा बाजार काम्पलैक्स, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, अगरतला (त्रिपुरा ) में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिया जाने वाला परिसर । [संख्या ए- II- 1 /2003- प्रशा. (उ.म.नि./परि)/केरिपुबल/ गृ. मं. - पी एफ तीन ]

एम. एस. कलानिया, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi , the 27th November , 2003 S.O. 88. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Table below, being officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of Government to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act , within the limits

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2 ) of the said Table :-

TABLE

Designation of the Officer Categories of public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction

(2)

Deputy Inspector General ofPolice (Operations) . Central Reserve Police Force, Agartala (Tripura)

Premises belonging to or taken on lease on behalf of Central Reserve Police Force at Usha Bazar Complex, Central Reserve Police Force , Agartala (Tripura).

[No. A. II . 1/2003 - Adm. I ( DIG )/Ops ) / CRPF/MHA -PF -III ] M. S. KALANIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 89.- सरकारी स्थान ( अनाधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा -3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार नीचे सारणी में वर्णित निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को भारत सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी होने के नाते कथित अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है, जो कथित सारणी के कालम ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट उनके संबंधित लोक परिसरों के क्षेत्राधिकारों की सीमाओं के अंदर कथित अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अथवा उसके द्वारा सौंपे गए कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन और प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे :-

सारणी

क्रम अधिकारी का पदनाम सं.

सरकारी आवास की श्रेणी एवं स्थानीय क्षेत्राधिकार

1. कमान्डेन्ट-99 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

हाकिमपेट, सिकन्दराबाद ( आन्ध्र प्रदेश ) में द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर ।

2. कमान्डेन्ट -100 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

वस्त्राल, अहमदाबाद ( गुजरात ) में द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर ।

3. कमान्डेन्ट-101 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

केवेलरी लाईन , तेलियारगंज इलाहाबाद ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) में द्रुत कार्य बल , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर । [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

क्रम अधिकारी का पदनाम सं.

सरकारी आवास की श्रेणी एवं स्थानीय क्षेत्राधिकार 4. कमान्डेन्ट -102 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

तलौजा, पंचनंद पनवेल, नवी मुंबई (महाराष्ट्र) में द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर ।

5. कमान्डेन्ट-103 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

वजीराबाद, दिल्ली -110094 में द्रुत कार्य बल , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर । 6. कमान्डेन्ट-104 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

रामघाट रोड, अलीगढ़ ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) में द्रुत कार्य बल , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर ।

7. कमान्डेन्ट-105 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिर्जव पुलिस बल।

पोडानूर, कोयम्ब्तूर ( तमिलनाडु) में द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर । 8. कमान्डेन्ट -106 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

टेल्को काम्प्लैक्स , जमशेदपुर (झारखंड ) में द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर ।

9. कमान्डेन्ट-107 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

गोविंदपुरा , भोपाल ( मध्य प्रदेश ) में द्रुत कार्य बल, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर । 10. कमान्डेन्ट-108 बटालियन, द्रुत कार्य बल , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल ।

परतापुर मेरठ ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) में द्रुत कार्य बल , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल का अथवा उसके लिए पट्टे पर लिया गया परिसर । [ संख्या ए- II.1 /2003- प्रशा.1 ( दु. का. ब. )/केरिपुबल/

गृह मंत्रालय/पी . एफ. - 3 ]

एम. एस. कलानिया, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 5th December, 2003 S.O. 89. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act , 1971 ( 40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the following Officers ofthe Central Reserve Police Force posted to RAF Bns as

199

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

Commandant as mentioned in the table below, being Gazetted Officers of the Government of India to be the Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions in respect ofthe publicpremises specified in column (2) of the said Table:-

TABLE

Sl . Designation of the No. Officer

Categories of public premises and local limits ofjurisdiction 1. Commandant 99 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force .

Premises belonging to , or taken on lease on behalf of Rapid Action Force , Central Reserve Police Force at Hakimpet , Secunderabad (Andhra Pradesh).

2. Commandant 100 Battalion, Rapid Action Force , Central Reserve Police Force.

Premises belonging to, or taken on lease on behalf ofRapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force at Vastral, Ahmedabad (Gujarat).

3. Commandant 101 Battalion, Rapid Action Force , Central Reserve Police Force .

Premises belonging to, or taken on lease on behalf of Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force at Cavalary Line , Teliarganj , Allahabad (UttarPradesh).

4. Commandant 102 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force .

Premises belonging to, or taken on lease on behalf of Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force at Taldia, Panchnand Panvel , Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra) .

5. Commandant 103 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force .

Premises belonging to, or taken on lease on behalf of Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force at Wazirabad , Delhi -94.

6. Commandant 104 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force ,

Premises belonging to , or taken on lease on behalf of Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force at Ramghat Road, Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) .

200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

Sl . Designation of the No. Officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction 7. Commandant 105 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force.

Premisesbelonging to, or taken on lease on behalf ofRapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force at Podanur, Coim- batore (Tamil Nadu) .

8. Commandant 106 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force .

Premises belonging to, or taken on lease on behalf of Rapid Action Force , Central Reserve Police Force at Telco Complex, Jamshedpur ( Jharkhand) .

9. Commandant 107 Battalion, Rapid Action Force , Central Reserve Police Force.

Premises belonging to, or taken on lease on behalf ofRapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).

10. Commandant 108 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, Central Reserve Police Force .

Premises belonging to , or taken on lease on behalf of Rapid Action Force , Central Reserve Police Force at Partapur, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) .

[No. A- II- 1/2003 - Adm. I (RAF)/CRPF/ MHA/PF - III]

M. S. KALANIA, Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग )

(केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

(आयकर)

का. आ. 90. आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 -ग ) के उपखंड ( v ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा " श्री चित्रपुर मठ, बंगलौर" को वर्ष 2002-2003 से 2004-2005 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उप खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अनुमोदित करती है, अर्थात्:-

(i ) कर-निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगी जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है ;

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (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 आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) कानिवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा;

( iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो 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 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 इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियाँ और परिसम्पतियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 357/2003/फा. सं. 197/147/97- आई. टी. ए-1 ]

आई. पी. एस. बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES New Delhi , the 19th December, 2003 ( INCOME TAX)

S.O. 90. In exercise of powers conferred by the sub -clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 ofthe Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the " Shri Chitrapur Math, Bangalore " for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 subject to the following conditions , namely : -

(i) 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 fund (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 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specifed in sub- section (5) of Section 11 ;

[ भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]

201 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी, 2004

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

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

का. आ. 92.-बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदश शविक्यों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर , एतद्वारा घोषित करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 ख की उप- धारा ( 9 ) के उपबंध, इस सीमा तक कि वे बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी के कार्य करने के लिये चार माह से अधिक की अवधिके लिये किसी व्यक्ति को नियुक्त करने से प्रतिबंधित करेंगे, आई.डी.बी.आई. बैंक लिमिटेड पर, 22 दिसम्बर, 2003 से 21 मार्च , 2004 तक, अथवा उक्त बैंक के लिये एक नियमित अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के नियुक्त होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, लागू नहीं होंगे । (v) that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives .

[फा.सं. 13/8/2003-बी.ओ.ए. ] [Notification No. 357/ 2003 /F.No . 197/ 147/ 2003 - ITA- 1 ]

डी.पी. भारद्वाज, अवर सचिव P.S. BINDRA , Under Secy.

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2004 ( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैकिंग प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2003

S.O. 92. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) , the Central Government on the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of sub - section (9 ) of section 10B of the said Act shall not to the extent they preclude the bank from appointing a person to carry out the duties of the chairman and Chief and Chief Executive Officer beyond a period exceeding four months , apply to the IDBI Bank Ltd. , from 22nd December , 2003 to 21st March, 2004 or till the appointment of a regular chairman and Chief Executive Officer for that bank, whichever is earlier .

[F.No. 13/8/2003 -Β.Ο.Α का. आ. 91.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एतद्‌द्वारा घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) उपखंड ( i ) और ( ii ) के उपबंध बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पर लागू नहीं होंगे, जहां तक कि श्री एम. वेणुगोपालन , अध्यक्ष और प्रबंध निदेशक की नियुक्ति कृषि वित्त निगम लिमिटेड के बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में किए जाने से सबंद्ध है ।

D.P. BHARDWAJ , Under Secy.

[फा.सं. 20/ 13/2000- बी.ओ. -1 ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2004

रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव

(Department of Economic Affairs)

(Banking Division)

New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2003

का. आ. 93.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एतद्‌द्वारा घोषित करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 ख की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और ( 2) के उपबंध , आई.डी.बी.आई. बैंक लिमिटेड पर, तीन माह की अवधि के लिए 22 दिसम्बर , 2003 से 21 मार्च , 2004 तक, अथवा उक्त बैंक के लिये एक नियमित अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के नियुक्त होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , लागू नहीं होंगे ।

[फा.सं. 13/8/2003- बी.ओ.ए. ]

डी.पी. भारद्वाज, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2004 S.O. 91. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949 ) , the Central Government on the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provisions of sub -clause ( i) and ( ii ) of clause (c) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Bank of India in so far as it relates to the appointment of Shri M. Venugopalan, Chairman and Managing Director, as a director on the Board of Agriculture Finance Corporation Limited.

[F.No. 20/ 13/ 2000-Β.Ο.Ι]

S.O. 93. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949) , the Central Government on the recommendations of the Reserve Bank of India , hereby declares that the RAMESH CHAND , Under Secy.

202

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/ PAUSA 27 , 1925

New Delhi , the 7th January, 2004 provisions of sub - section ( 1 ) and (2) of section 10B of the said Act shall not apply to the IDBI Bank Ltd. for a period ofthree months from 22nd December, 2003 to 21st March , 2004 or till the appointment of a regular chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer for that bank , whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 13/8 /2003 -BOA]

D.P. BHARDWAJ , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 जनवरी , 2004

S.O. 95. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government on the 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 Jalgaon District Central Co-operative Bank Limited , Jalgaon , Maharashtra State , from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette till 31 March 2005.

[F.No. 1 (32)/2003 -AC]

MANGAL MARNDI , Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यविभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 94.- निक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 47 ) की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के खंड ( ii ) के साथ पठित धारा 6 को उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके एतद्वारा , नाबार्ड की अध्यक्ष श्रीमती रंजना कुमार को श्री वाई सी नंदा के स्थान पर निक्षेप बीमा और प्रत्यय गारंटी निगम (डी.आई.सी.जी.सी. ) के निदेशक बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में अधिसूचना की तारीख से 31-12-2005 अर्थात् उनकी अधिर्षिता की तारीख तक या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, नामित करती है ।

[फा.सं. 7/12/95- बी.ओ. I ]

रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th January, 2004

का. आ. 96.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा -3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में डा. शीरीश श्रीवास्तव, डीन, चिकित्सा संकाय, सरदार पटेल विश्वविद्यालय को विश्वविद्यालय की सीनेट द्वारा इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से 31-03-2006 तक भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् का सदस्य निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

उक्त अधिसूचना में ' धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख) के अन्तर्गत निर्वाचित ' शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत , क्रम संख्या 73 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित कीजाएंगी, अर्थात्: -

S.O. 94. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 read with clause (ii) of sub - section 2 of Section 6 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961) , the Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Smt . Ranjana Kumar , Chairperson, NABARD as a director on the Board of Directors of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC ) from the date of notification and upto 31-12-2005 i.c. the date of her superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier vice Shri Y.C. Nanda .

सरदार पटेल [F.No. 7/ 12/ 95 -Β.Ο.Ι . ]

विश्वविद्यालय " RAMESH CHAND , Under Secy.

" 73. डा. शीरीश श्रीवास्तव, बी-5, श्रीकृष्ण हास्पिटल कैम्पस, करमसाड-388325 ( गुजरात)

नई दिल्ली, 7 जनवरी, 2004

[संख्या वी-11013/ 2/2003 - एम ई ( नीति -1 ) ]

पी. जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health)

New Delhi , the 31st December, 2003 का. आ. 95.- 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 उप- धारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध , सरकारी राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च, 2005 तक जलगांव जिला मध्यवर्ती सहकारी बैंक लि. , जलगांव , महाराष्ट्र राज्य पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।

[फा.सं. 1 ( 32 ) /2003- ए सी ]

मंगल मराण्डी, अवर सचिव

S.O. 96. Whereas in pursuance of clause (b) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Dr. Shirish Srivastava, Dean , Faculty of Medicine , Sardar Patel University has been 203

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

elected by the Senate of the University to be a member of theMedical Council of India from the date of issue of this Notification upto 31-3-2006 .

J. N. Medical College, Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) has been elected by the Court of Aligarh Muslim University to be a member of the Medical Council of India from the date of issue of this notification upto 2-10-2004.

Now, therefore, in pursuance ofthe provision of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 , dated the 9th January , 1960 , namely :-

Now, therefore, in pursuance ofthe provision of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 , dated the 9th January, 1960 , namely :

In the said Notification, under the heading , 'Elected under clause (b ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , for serial number 73 and the entry relating thereto the following serial number and entry shall be substituted, namely :-

In the said Notification, under the heading , ' Elected under clause (b) of sub- section (1 ) of Section 3 ' , for serial number 42 and the entry relating thereto the following serial number and entry shall be substituted, namely :-

Sardar Patel University"

AligarhMuslim University" "73. Dr. Shirish Srivastava, B-5, Shree Krishna Hospital Campus , Karamsad-388325 (Gujarat)

"42. Prof. M. Mobashir, Principal, J. N. Medical College, Aligarh-202002 (U.P. )

[No. V- 11013/2/2003 -ME (Policy-1) ] P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003

[No. V- 11013 /2/2003 - ME (Policy- I) ] P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003 का. आ. 97.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा-3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में प्रो. एम. मोबाशिर, प्राचार्य, जे . एन. मेडिकल कालेज, अलीगढ़ ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से 2-10-2004 तक भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् का सदस्य निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

का. आ. 98.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा -3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय के चिकित्सा संकाय के सदस्य डा. येमुल वी. एल. को शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय की सीनेट द्वारा इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् का सदस्य निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना, का.आ. संख्या 138 में एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्: - उक्त अधिसूचना में ' धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख) के अन्तर्गत निर्वाचित ' शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत , क्रम संख्या 42 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्: -

प्रो. एम. मोबाशिर,

"42.

उक्त अधिसूचना में ' धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अन्तर्गत निर्वाचित' शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत, क्रम संख्या 32 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित कीजाएंगी , अर्थात्: -

अलीगढ़ मुस्लिम विश्वविद्यालय"

प्राचार्य,

जे. एन. मेडिकल कालेज, अलीगढ़ -202002 (उत्तर प्रदेश )

शिवाजी विश्वविद्यालय "

" 32. डा. येमुल वी. एल. , डा. वी. एम. मेडिकल कालेज, शोलापुर (महाराष्ट्र)

[संख्या वी-11013/2/ 2003 - एम ई ( नीति-1 ) ]

[संख्या वी-11013/2/2003 - एम ई ( नीति-1) ] पी. जी. कलाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st December, 2003

पी. जी. कलाधरण, अवर सचिव

पाद टिप्पण: मूल अधिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 9-1-1960 की का.आ. संख्या 138 के तहत प्रकाशित हुई थी । S.O. 97. Whereas in pursuance of clause (b) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956 ) Prof. M. Mobashir, Principal , 204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 31st December , 2003

संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी, अर्थात्: -

" 39.

बेरहामपुर विश्वविधालय"

डा. राधा माधव त्रिपाठी एसोसिएट प्रोफेसर, सामुदायिक चिकित्सा विभाग, एम . के. सी. जी. मेडिकल कालेज, बेरहामपुर (गंजम ) -उड़ीसा

S.O. 98. Whereas in pursuance of clause (b) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. Yemul V. L. , member of the Faculty of Medicine of Shivaji University, has been elected by the Senate of the Shivaji University to be a member of the Medical Council of India from the date of issue of this notification.

[संख्या वी-11013/2/2003- एम ई ( नीति - Ⅰ ) ]

पी. जी. कलाधरण, अवर सचिव

पाद टिप्पण: मूल अधिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 9-1-1960 की का.आ. संख्या 138 के तहत प्रकाशित हुई थी ।

New Delhi , the 31st December, 2003 Now, therefore, in pursuance ofthe provision of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 , dated the 9th January, 1960 , namely :-

In the said Notification, under the heading, 'Elected under clause (b ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , for serial number 32 and the entries relating thereto the following scrial number and entry shall be substituted, namely: ---

S.O. 99. Whereas in pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Dr. Radha Madhab Tripathy, member of the Medical Faculty of the Berhampur University, has been elected by the Senate of the Berhampur University to be a member of the Medical Council of India for the period from the date of issue of thisnotification upto 7-10-2004 .

Shivaji University"

" 32. Dr. Yemul V. L. , Dr. V. M. Medical College, Solapur (Maharashtra)

[ No. V- 11013/2/ 2003 - ME (Policy-I ) ]

P. G. KALADHARAN , Under Secy.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision ofsub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health , number S.O. 138, dated the 9th January, 1960 , namely :-

Footnote : The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, vide S.O. 138 dated 9-1-1960 .

In the said Notification, under the heading , ' Elected under clause(b) of sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , for serial number 39 and the entry relating thereto the following serial number and entry shall be substituted, namely :-

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003

Berhampur University"

" 39. Dr. Radha Madhab Tripathy, Associate Professor, Deptt. of Community Medicine, M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur (Ganjam ) , Orissa .

[No. V- 11013/2/2003 - ME (Policy- I ) ] P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

का. आ. 99.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा -3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में बेरहामपुर विश्वविद्यालय के चिकित्सा संकाय के सदस्य डा. राधा माधव त्रिपाठी को बेरहामपुर विश्वविद्यालय की सीनेट द्वारा इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से 7-10-2004 तक भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् का सदस्य निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

Footnote : The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, vide S.O. 138 dated 9-1-1960 .

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003

उक्त अधिसूचना में ' धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) के अन्तर्गत निर्वाचित' शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत , क्रम संख्या 39 तथा उससे

का. आ. 100.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा-3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में डा. यू. एस. धालीवाल, प्राचार्य , श्री गुरु राम दास आयुर्विज्ञान तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान, अमृतसर को बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्य विज्ञांन विश्वविधालय , फरीदकोट की सीनेट द्वारा इस अधिसूचना के जारी [ ( ii) ]

205

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/ौन 27, 1925

होने की शिमि से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्का सदस्य निर्वाचित्त किया गया है ।

FootNote : ThePrincipal notification, was published in the Gazette of India, vide S.O. 138 dated 9-1-1960.

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003 अतः, अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में , केकेन्द्र सरकार तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की दिवांक 9 जनवरी, 1960 की अधिसूचना, का.आ. संख्या 138 में सादात औिर करती है, अर्थात्:-

का. आ. 101.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 कर 102.) के प्रभोकल हेतु यूनिवर्सिटी आफ बेसल द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता बेसिक मेडिकल डिग्री; उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;

उक्त अधिसूचना में' बारा 3 की उप- वारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अन्तर्गत निर्वाचित ' शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत , क्रम संख्या 78 तथा उससे संबंकित प्रविष्टियों के बाद निम्मलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी, अर्थात्: -

बाबा फरीद

" 79. डा. यू. एस. धालीवाल,

प्राचार्य,

और, डा. पवन सरा वेलुपिल्लई, मलेशिया नागरिक जिनके पास उक्तअर्हता है श्री सत्य साई इंस्टीट्यूट आफ हावर मेडिकल साइंसेज, प्रशान्तिग्राम, अनंतपुरा जिला ( आंध्र प्रदेश ) से धमार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय"

श्री गुरु राम दास आयुर्विज्ञान

तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान,

अमृतसर ( पंजाब)

अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है किभारत में डा. पवन सरा वेलुपिल्लई द्वारी आयुधिशन की प्रक्टिस करने की अवधि:-

[संख्पा बी-11013/2/2003- एम ई ( नीति-1 ) ]

पी. जी. कलावरण , अबर सचिव (क) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से एक वर्ष की अवधिः अथवा

पाद टिम्मण: मूल अभिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 9-1-1960 की बरःआ. संख्णा 138 के तहत प्रकाशित हुई थी ।

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2003

(ख) उस अवधि जिसके दौरान डा. पवन सरा वेलुपिताई, श्री सत्य साई इंस्टीटयूट आफ हायर मेडिकल सांइसेज , प्रशान्तिग्राम, अनंतपुरा जिला ( आंध्र प्रदेश ) से जुड़े हैं, जो भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी ।

[संख्या वी-11016/1/2003- एम ई (नीति -1) ]

पी. जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st December , 2003 S.O. 100. Whereas in pursuance ofclanse. (b) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Dr. U. S. Dhiliwal , Principal , Sri Guru Ram Das Institute ofMedical Sciences & Research, Amritsarhas been elected by the Senate ofthe Baba Farid University ofHealth Sciences, Faridkot to be a member oftheMedical Council of India with effect from the date of issue of this notification .

S.O. 101. Whereas medical qualification Basic Medical Degree granted by University of Basel is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical CouncilAct, 1956 (102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision ofsub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health, number S.O. 138, dated the 9th January, 1960, namely :-

Iwthe said Notification, under the heading,'Elected under clause (b) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , after serial number 78 and the entries relating thereto the following entries shall be inserted, namely:-

And, whereas, Dr. Pavan. Sara Velupillai , Malaysian national, who possess the said qualification is attachedto Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Prashanthigram, Ananthapura Distt. (Andhra Pradesh) for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

"79. Dr. U. S. Dhiliwal,

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences"

Principal, Sri Guru Ram Das hstitute ofMedical Sciences &Research,

Amritsar (Punjab)

Now, therefore,, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section ( 1 ) of the Section 14 of the said.Act, the Centual Government hereby specifies that the period of practice of medicineby Dr. Pavan Sara Velupillai in India shall be limited to:

[No. V-11013/2/2003 -ME (Policy-1) ]

(a) a period of one year from the date of issue notification; or

P. G. KALADHARAN , Under Secy.

33.G1/04-2 206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

(b) the period during which Dr. Pavan Sara Velupillai is attached to Sri Sathya Sai Institute ofHigher Medical Sciences , Prashanthigram, AnanthapuraDistt. (Andhra Pradesh ), whichever isshorter.

[No. V- 11016/ 1 /2003 - ME ( Policy - I) ]

P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 102.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु यूनिवर्सिटी आफ कोलंबो द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता एम.डी.; उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;

और, डा. एम. विजिया तुंगे , श्रीलंका के नागरिक जिनके पास उक्तअर्हता है, मेडिकल रिसर्च फाउंडेशन, कालेज रोड, चेन्नई-600006 से धर्मार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है कि भारत में डा. एम. विजिया तुंगे द्वारा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिस करने कीअवधि:-

(क) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से छह माह की अवधि; अथवा

(ख ) उस अवधि जिसके दौरान डा. एम. विजिया तुंगे मेडिकल रिसर्च फाउंडेशन , कालेज रोड, चेन्नई -600006 से जुड़े हैं, जो भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी ।

[संख्या वी-11016/1/2003 - एम ई ( नीति- I ) ]

पी. जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 31st December, 2003 S.O. 102. Whereas medical qualification M.D. granted by University of Colombo is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 19:56) under Section 14 of the said Act;

And, whereas , Dr. M. Wijiya Tunge , Srilankan national , who possess the said qualification is attached to Medical Research Foundation, College Road, Chennai- 600006 for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section ( 1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] of medicine by Dr. M. Wijiya Tunge, in India shall be limited to:-

(a) a period of six months from the date of issue of thisnotification; or

(b) the period during which Dr. M. Wijiya Tunge is attached to Medical Research Foundation, College Road, Chennai -600006 , whichever is shorter.

[No. V- 11016/ 1/2003 -ME (Policy- I) ] 7. G. KALADHARAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर , 2003

का. आ. 103.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु आन्ध्र यूनिवर्सिटी द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता एम.बी.बी.एस. , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है ;

और, डा. काकराला जानकी रमैय्या, अमेरिकी नागरिक जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है श्री सत्य साई इंस्टीट्यूट आफ मेडिकल सांइसेज , प्रशान्तिग्राम , जिला-अनंतपुर ( आन्ध्र प्रदेश ) से धर्मार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है किभारत में डा. काकराला जानकी रमैब्बा, द्वारा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिस करने की अवधि:-

(क ) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से छह माह की अवधिः अथवा

(ख) उस अबधि जिसके दौरान डा. काकराला जानकी रमैय्या, श्री सत्य साई इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ हायर मेडिकल सांइसेज, प्रशान्तिग्राम, जिला-अनंतपुर ( आन्ध्र प्रदेश ) से जुड़े हैं , जो भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी ।

[संख्या वी-11016/1/2003 - एम ई ( नीति- I ) ]

पी. जी. कलाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 31st December, 2003 S.O. 103. Whereas medical qualification MBBS grantedby Andhra University is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose ofthe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act;

And, whereas , Dr. Kakarala Janaki Ramaiah , American national , who possess the said qualification is attached to Sathya Sri Sai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Prashanthigram , Distt . Anantapur ( Andhra Pradesh) for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

207

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौत्र 27, 1925

Institute ofChild Health, Dr. Bireah Guha Street, Kolkata- 700017 for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section (1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice of medicine by Dr. Kakarala Janaki Ramaiah in India shall be limited to :-

(a) a period of six months from the date of issue of this notification; or

Now, therefore, in pursuance of caluse(c) of sub- section ( 1) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifics that the period of practice of medicine by Dr. Chandon Chattopadhyay in India shall be limited to :-

(a) a period ofone year from the date of issue of this notification; or

(b) the period during which Dr. Kakarala Janaki Ramaiah is attached to Sri Sathya Sai Institute ofHigher Medical Sciences , Prashanthigram, Distt. Anantapur ( Andhra Pradesh) , whichever isshorter.

(b) the period during which Dr. Chandon Chattopadhyay is attached to Institute ofChild Health, Dr. Biresh Guha Street , Kolkata-700017, whichever is shorter.

[No. V- 11016/1/ 2003 -ME (Policy-I) ] P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 31 दिसम्बर , 2003

[No. V- 11016/ 1/2003 -ME (Policy- I) ] P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003 का. आ. 104. भास्तीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु यूनिवर्सिटी आफ बेसल द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हत्ता बेसिक मेडिकल डिग्री; उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अईता है;

का. आ. 105.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु बम्बई यूनिवर्सिटी द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता एम.बी.बी.एस.; उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;

और, डा. चंदन चट्टोपाध्याय, स्वीस नागरिक, जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है इंस्टीट्यूट आफ चाइल्ड हैल्थ , डा. विरेश गुहा स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता- 700017 से धर्मार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

और, डा. यतीश बिचारदास मर्चेन्ट, जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है श्रीसत्य साई जनरल हास्पिटल , प्रशान्तिनिलयन, अनंतपुरा जिला (आन्ध्र प्रदेश ) से धर्मार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

अत्तः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है किभारत में डा. चंदन चट्टोपाध्याय, द्वारा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिस करने कीअवधि:-

अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है किभारत में डा. यत्तीश बिचारदास मर्चेन्ट द्वारा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिस करने की अवधि:-

(क) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से एक वर्ष की अवधिः अथवा

(क) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से छह माह की अवधि; अथवा

(ख) उस अवधि जिसके दौरान डा. चंदन चट्टोपाध्याय , इंस्टीट्यूट आफ चाइल्ड हैल्थ , डा. बिरेश गुहा स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता- 700017 से जुड़े हैं, जो भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी ।

[संख्या वी-11016/1/2003 - एम ई ( नीति -1 ) ]

(ख) उस अवधि जिसके दौरान डा. यतीत विचारदास मर्चेन्ट, श्री सत्य साई इंस्टीट्यूट जनरल हास्पिटल , प्रशान्तिनिलयम , अनंतपुरा जिला ( आंध्र प्रदेश ) से जुड़े हैं, जो भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी ।

पी. जी. कलाधरण, अवर सचिव

[संख्या वी-11016/1 /2003 - एम ई ( नीति-1 ) ] New Delhi , the 31st December, 2003

पी. जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st December, 2003 S.O. 104. Whereas medical qualification Basic Medical Degree granted by University of Basel is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the IndianMedical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act ;

S.O. 105. Whereas medical qualification MBBS granted by Bombay University is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act;

And, whereas, Dr. Chandon Chattopadhyay, Swiss national, who possess the said qualification is attached to 208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act;

And, whereas , Dr. Yatish Bechardas Merchant, who possess the said qulification is attached to Sri Sathya Sai General Hospital , Prasanthi Nilayam , Ananthapur Distt. (A.P. ) , for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

And, whereas, Dr. Ashok Bhaskaran Pillai , AmericanNational , who possess the said qualification is attached to Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Amrita Lane, Flamakkara PO. , Coobin- 682026 for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

Now, therefore , in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section ( 1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice of medicine by Dr. Yatish Bechardas Merchant in India shall be limited to :-

(a) a period of six months from the date of issue of this notification ; or

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause ( c) of sub- section (1 ) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice of medicine by Dr. Ashok Bhaskaran Pillai in India shall be limited to :-

(a) a period of six months from the date of issue of this notification; or

(b) the period during which Dr. Yatish Bechardas Merchant is attached to Sri Sathya Sai General Hospital, Prasanthi Nilayam, Ananthapur Distt. , (A.P. ) , whichever is shorter.

[No. V- 11016/1 /2003 -ME (Policy -I) ] P. G. KALADHARAN , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर , 2003

(b) the period during which Dr. Ashok Bhaskaran Pillai is attached to Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre , Amrita Lane , Elamakkara P.O. , Cochin-682026, whichever is shorter.

[No. V- 11016/ 1 /2003 - ME (Policy- I ) ]

P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

का. आ. 106.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु इण्डियाना यूनिवर्सिटी द्वारा प्रदत्त चिकित्सा अर्हता एम.डी.; उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003

और, डा. अशोक भाष्करण पिल्लई, अमेरिकी नागरिक जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है अमृता इंस्टीट्यूट आफ मेडिकल साइंसेज एंड रिसर्च सेन्टर, अमृता लेन, एलमक्कारा पी.ओ. , कोचीन-682026 से धर्मार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं;

का. आ. 107.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 (1956 का 102 ) के प्रयोजन हेतु यूनिवर्सिटी आफ होडलबरी द्वारा प्रदत चिकित्सा आईता एम.डी.; उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 के अधीन एक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता है;

अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है किभारत में डा. अशोक भाष्करण पिल्लई द्वारा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिस करने की अवधि:-

और, डा. मैथ्यु कुरूनथोटिकल उम्मेन , जर्मन नागरिक जिनके पास उक्त अर्हता है क्रिश्चियन सेंटर फार टोटल डेवलपमेंट, तिरूवनन्तपुरम से धर्मार्थ ( चैरिटेबल ) कार्य हेतु और न कि व्यक्तिगत लाभ हेतु जुड़े हैं ;

(क) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से छह माह की अवधिः अथवा

अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 14 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है कि भारत में डा. मैथ्यु कुरूनथोटिकल उम्मेन, द्वारा आयुर्विज्ञान की प्रैक्टिसकस्ने की अवधि:-

(ख ) उस अवधि जिसके दौरान डा. अशोक भाष्करण पिल्लई, अमृता इंस्टीट्यूट आफ मेडिकल साइंसेज एंड रिसर्च सेन्टर, अमृतालेन, एलमक्कारा पी.ओ. , कोचीन-682026 से जुड़े हैं, जो 'भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी ।

(क ) इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तिथि से एक वर्ष की अवधिः अथवा

[ संख्या वी-11016/1/2003- एम ई ( नीति-1 ) ]

पी. जी. कलाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st December , 2003

(ख ) उस अषधिजिसके दौरान डा. मैथ्यु कुरूनथोटिकल उम्मेन, क्रिश्चियन सेंटर फार टोटल डेवलपमेंट, तिरुवनन्तपुरम- 695004 से जुड़े हैं, जो भी कम हो, तक सीमित रहेगी ।

[संख्या वी-11016/1/ 2003 - एम ई ( नीति- I ) ] S.O. 106. Whereas medical qualification Doctor ofMedicine granted by Indiana University is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose ofthe Indian Medical

पी. जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

209

आरत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 3004 /सौम 27, 1925

New Delhi, the 31stDecember, 2003 S.O.107. Whereas medical qualification M.D. granted by University of Heidelbery is a recognised medical qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) under Section 14 of the said Act;

Andwhereas,Dr. Mathew Kurumthotical Commen, German national , who possess the said qualification is attached to Christian Centre for Total Development , Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of charitable work and not for personal gain;

Now, therefore , in pursuance of caluse (c) of sub- section (1) of the Section 14 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby specifies that the period of practice of medicine by Dr. Mathew Kurunthotical Qommen in India shall be limited to :-

(a) a period of one year from the date of issue of this notification; or

(b) theperiod during which Dr. Mathew Kurunthotical Oommen is attached to Christian Centre for Total Development, Thiruvananthapuram- 695004 whichever is shorter.

[No. V- 11016/ 1/2003 -ME (Policy-I ) ] P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

(पी.एम.एस. अनुभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 8 जनवरी , 2004

का. आ. 108.-दंत चिकित्स अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 16 ) के उप खंड ( 2 ) की धारा 10 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् के साथ परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्‌द्वारा उपर्युक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

क्रम संख्या 59 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के पश्वात् अनुसूची के भाग 1 में निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी, अर्थात्:-

बेच्चलर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी बी.डी.एस.

60. एम.जे.पी. रूहेलखंड विश्वविद्यालय , बरेली, उत्तर प्रदेश ।

( BMS Bortion )

NowDelhi , the ath Jommary, 2004

6.0. 906. In concisc of the peerens confexred by sub-gestion (2) of Sostien 10 of the Bentists Act, 1948 (16 of1960), theGenical Government, aker consultation withDental Council of India, imeday amikots the following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In Part I of the Sobadule, after Sosial Number, 59, and the entries relating thereto, the following Serial Number and entries shall be added, namely:-

BDS Bachelor ofDental Surgery

MJP The dental qualification

Rohilkhand shall be recognised

qualification in rospect of University, 60. MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P.

theBDS students admitted Bareilly,

U.P. for the academic session

1996-1997, 1997-1998 and

1998-1999 inVinayaka

Mission'sDental College,

Sitapur, U.P. , if granted on orafter 20-1-2003 .

[F. No. C. 13013/35/2001 -PMS] A. K. SINGH, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 8 जनवरी , 2004

का. आ. 109.-दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 16 ) के उप खंड ( 2 ) की धारा 10 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् के साथ परावर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्‌द्वारा उपर्युक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

क्रम संख्या 47 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के सामने अनुसूचीके भाग 1 में निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी अर्थात्:-

मास्टर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी ( क ) एम.डी.एस.

ए .के.ई.एस.एस. निजलिंगप्पा ( घेरिश्रोबॅटिक्स)

राजीव गांधी इंस्टीट्यूट आफ डेंटल साइंसेज

47. राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बंगलौर ।

स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान एंड रिसर्थ, तुलबर्गा के

एम.डी. एस. छात्रों के संबंध विश्ववितालय,

संभौर । में निम्नलिखित दंत चिकित्सा

एम.जे.पी.

रूहेलखण्ड

विश्वविद्यालय ,

बरेली , उत्तर

प्रदेश ।

विनायक मिशन्स डेन्टल कालेज , सीतापुर, उत्तर प्रदेश में शैक्षिक सत्र 1996-1997,1997-1998 और 1998-1999 हेतु दाखिला लिए गए बी.डी.एस. नत्रों के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अर्हता मान्यताप्राप्त अर्हता होगी , यदि यह 20-1-2003 को अथवा उसके बाद दी जाएगी ।

[फा. सं. सी. 13013/35/2001-पी.एम.एस. ]

ए. के. सिंह, अचर काचिव

होगी , यदि यह 1-10-2001 को अथवा इसके पश्चात् दी जाएगी :

एम.डी.एस. ( चेरियोडोंटिक्स )

[फा. सं. वी. 12018/28/2002 - ची.एम.एस. ]

ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव 210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

New Delhi , the 8th January, 2004

S.O. 109. In exercise of the power conferred by sub- section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Central Government , after consultation withDental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:-

InPart I ofthe Schedule , against Serial Number 47, and the entries relating thereto , the following entries shall be added, namely :-

47. Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Sciences, Bangalore

( a) MDS (Periodontics) RajivGandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore.

Master of Dental Surgery The following dental qualification shall be recognised qualification in respect of MDS students of H.K.E.S.S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Sciences &Research, Gulbarga, if granted on or after 1-10-2001:

MDS (Periodontics)

[F. No. V. 12018/28/2002-PMS]

A. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 110.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , सोलापुर के पंचाट [संदर्भ संख्या ( आई . डी. ए. ) सं. - 20/98 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 12025/6/2003- आई . आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 17th December, 2003 S.O. 110.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [ ( I. D. A. ) No. 20/ 98 ] of the Labour Court , Solapur 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 received by the Central Government on 16-12-2003.

[No. L-12025/6/2003 -IR(B- 1) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

小

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE , II LABOUR COURT, SOLAPUR AT SOLAPUR

Reference (I. D. A. ) No. 20/98

Adjudication between:

TheRegional Manager -IV, : I party State Bank of India , EastStreet, Pune- I

AND

: II Party ShriP. V. Mane, 649, North Kasaba, NearGuruji's PrintingPress, GavandiGalli, Solapur

Coram : Shri K. B. Wagh , The Presiding Officer Appearances:

Shri N. R. Khandal , Advocate , for I Party.

Shri G. R. Joshi , Advocate , for II Party.

FINAL AWARD

(Delivered on 10-11-2003)

1.Present reference is referred by the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, for adjudication ofdispute between The Regional Manager- IV, State Bank ofIndia, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the IParty) and Shri P. V Mane, Solapur (hereinafter referredto asthe II Party).

2. In response to notice the II Party appeared and filed his Statement of Claim at Exh . U-6 stating that he was employedwith I party in February 1968 as a Messenger. In 1977 he was promoted as a clerk . He was dismissed from serviceby order dated 7-2-89. He has rendered continuous andunblemished service from the date of appointment till termination of his service . He was not issued any show cause notice, chargesheet nor any punishment was inflicted uponhim.

3. It is further submitted that the I party bank issued a chargesheet dated 20-7-88 to II party alleging charges of misappropriation and absenteeism . He has replied the chargesheet. The I partyBank had also issued chargesheet toone Shri A. V. Deshpande on 25-8-88 . Said Shri Deshpande wasworking as a Head Clerk. The charges levelled against said Shri Deshpande and II party are same and identical based on the same instance .

4. II party submits that one Shri Hardikar was appointed as an enquiry officer . II party was represented 211 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/ पौष 27, 1925

13thOctober 1987 was absolutely correct and did not raise anydoubts to the superiors or the II party. It is submitted that II party has not committed any misconduct alleged in the chargesheet . II party was made a scape goat to save Mr.Deshpande.

5. IIpartywas a member of the union namely S.B. I. Employees Union (Bombay Circle) which was not a recognised union. The II party has referred his case to S. B. I. and subsidy Bank Employees Union a recognised union and the case of the II party was defensed by then Assistant General Secretary Shri R. Y. Ghatge from Pune .

6. It is further submitted that papers of the II party were also misplaced. The defence taken by the II party duringthe course of enquiry regarding torn pages was not considered by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer travelled outside ofhis scope ofthe enquiry. It will reveal that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate punishment in the light of punishment givento Shri Deshpande . Therefore the II party has prayed for a declaration that termination order dated 7-2-89 is illegal and invalid and further prayed for setting asidethe same and to direct I party Bank to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service and to pass any other appropriate order in his favour.

7. Whereas I party has filed written statement Exh. C-8 stating that II party was dismissed from service by orderdated 7-2-89 . He has raised dispute in the year 1995 by filing application to Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Pune, after of about 6 years which is not legal and valid. It is submitted that the dispute raised in the present reference is suffering from latches and barred by Law of Limitation. The basic principle of Law helps only those person who are alert about their rights has been ignored bytheAssistant Labour Commissioner, while referringthe caseof the II partyto the Labour Court for adjudication of dispute and therefore reference is liable to be dismissed summarily.

8. It is further submitted that II party is no more in service ofthe I party at the time of filing present claim . Therefore present dispute is not an industrial dispute . It is denied that II party has worked continuously with unblamished record.

9. It is admitted that Shri A. V. Deshpande, Head Clerkwas also issued a chargesheet, but it is denied that charges levelled against said Shri A. V. Deshpande were same and identical .

by Shri Ghadage. Before the Enquiry Officer, no any statements ofwitness of the Management were recorded. Ifany statement ofwitnesses were recorded it was behind andbackofthe II party. Opportunity for cross -examination was not given to II party. The Enquiry Officer himself inspected some record and came to the conclusion ofhis own. Copy offinding was not issued tothe II party. Findings ofEnquiry Officer are perverse . Therefore enquiry conductedagainst the II party is illegal, invalid and the findings are perverse . The II party was issued a chargesheet containing false charges . Shri A. V. Deshpande who used to supervise the work of II party was also issued a chargesheet . After enquiry said Shri Deshpande was reinstated in service though he was held guilty of misconduct . When chargesheet was issued to the II party theofficebearers and superiors of the II party working in the Bank have instructed and advised not to contest the Departmental Enquirybecause the Head Clerk oftheBank wasalso chargesheeted. The officers and superiors of the II party assured II party that a minor punishment will be inflicted upon him and also advised not to contest the enquiry and induced II party to give apology to the charges levelled against him . The Superiors and the officials ofthe II party played pressure tactics and induced him to give apologywith a view to save Shri Deshpande from the grave and serious charges . The II party relying on the assurances given by the superiors and the officers of the I party, admittedapology to the charges levelled against him . But the superiors and officers of the Bank did not keep their promise andused the apology of the II party as a weapon against him. He was hopeful that the officials and the superiors will not take the matter seriously and he would be inflicted minor punishment. Therefore he pleaded guilt. However, II party was discriminated by terminating his service, whereas said Shri Deshpande was not dismissed. The II party submits that he was working as a Dispatch Clerk. Hewas entrusted duties of maintinance of postage books and registered letters , to dispatch registers . Hehas not made any superfluous entries in the record so also he did not place any fraudulant figures before sum total of postage in the postage and other related books . He did not make any deliberate mistakes in total . He did not tear out any page of the registers. The Head Clerk Shri Deshpande was supervising and checking the entries made in the books, he was also checking and inspecting the daily balances, cash in hand , postage at hand with the II party, books of account, registers and was signing the above said registers in token of the correct entries are made. If any mistake , any false entries would have noticed by ShriDeshpande, he would have filed reports against the II party tohis superiors and the II party would have issued memoes at that time only. As Shri Deshpande found the record was

intact and the balances of cash and postage were correct thereforehe had checked and signed in token of correctness ofthe entries. Therefore the work which was performedby the II party during the period from 23rd December 1985 to

10. It is admitted that enquiry officer was appointed by the I party, however, contentions regarding non- recording statement of any witness and not extending of opportunity for cross examination etc. are irrelevant and unwarranted considering the voluntary and unequivocal andunambiguous reply dated 20-8-88 submittedby II party 212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

3 ( ii )]

[PART II-SEC.

partyhas come with a false case only with aview of getting relief of reinstatement by taking disadvantage of case of ShriDeshpande.

11. It is deniedthat defence ofthe II party regarding torn pages ofthe register was not considered. It is denied that enquiry officer has travelled outside the scope of enquiry. It is submitted that I party is banking institute dealing with financial aspect with public at large . The II partywas required towork on all tables dealing with various subjects including handling of cash, in cash section and issue ofD. D. etc. In dealing with such duties, the employee of I party including the II party are required to possess high integrity, honest , faithfulness /confidence , good behaviour with high moral . In the case of II party the I partyhas lost alf these characteristics and found indulging ofmisappropriation to the extent ofFis. 20,641.90 andalso committing forgery and tearing of valuable registers and other such irregularities etc. and therefore it was thought fit to impose punishment of dismissal froma service and this cannot be called at any cost, shockingly disproportionate punishment. This punishment of II party cannot be considered with punishment of Shri Deshpande as Deshpande's case was altogether on different footing. It is submitted that Court cannot set in appeal on the order of the Ipartyand this Court has no power to interfere with discretion of the I party. The W. S. was amended stating that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the départmental enquiry was not valid the managementbe given opportunityto prove charges levelled against II party by leading evidence before the Court and to secure the ends of justice . Lastly it is prayed that reference be dismissed with costs .

12. Issues framedby learned predecessor and my findings thereon are as under:

ISSUES

FINDINGS

No. As per order passed он26-9-2000: videAward-I .

1. Does the II party prave that the enquiry conducted against him by the. I party is not fair, proper and in accordance with the principles ofnaturaljustice ?

Except the charge of absenteeism other charges levelled against the II party are proved.

2. Does the I party prove the charges levelled against the II party, on thebasis ofevi- dence recorded in the en- quiry and/or before the court to the satisfaction of the court ?

No.

to the charges levelled against him . The enquiry officer has rightly himself has inspected some records as it was necessary and expedient in order to make his enquiry impartial , objectively without making undue haste or injustice to either of the parties in order to come to the right conclusion and also to give proper reasonable opportunity to the II party. In view of ' Shastri Award' there is no obligation of the I party to issue copy of findings to the II party. It is denied that findings are perverse . It is denied that enquiry conducted against the II party is invalid stating that allegations of II party are by way of after thought because the enquiry is conducted as per principles of natural justice with fair play. It is submitted that charges levelled against Shri A. V. Deshpande were entirely different. As he was alleged of failure ofhis supervising duty which were less serious as compared to the charges leveled against the II party. It is submitted that Shri A. V. Deshpande against whom charges have been proved in the enquiry is also subsequently thrown out of service as he was compulsorily retired taking into consideration his age and number of years put service by him with I party. Therefore it cannot be said that there is discrimination in taking disciplinary action by the I party against the II party and Shri A. V. Deshpande. Punishment imposed on Shri A. V. Deshpande cannot be equivated as minor punishment. I party denied that when chargesheet was issued to II party the officers and supervisors of the I party assured to the II party that a minor punishment will be inflicted upon him and also advised not to contest the departmental enquiry or that induced II party to give apology to the charges levelled against him. It is denied that superiors and officers of II party played pressure tactics and induced II partyto give apology with a view to save Shri Deshpande from grave and serious charges . I party submitted that it is also false, concocted and after thought story that the II party relying on the assurances given by the Superiors and the Officers ofthe I party, admitted or submitted an apology to the charges levelled against him. After taking into consideration the reply dated 20-8-1988 given by the II partyto the charges levelled against him, it can safely be concluded by ordinary pridence that the apology submitted by II party by admitting his guilt with considered reasons thereof, becuase of which , he was helpless in indulging or in committing the misappropriation etc. among the other charges regarding him , the reply dated 20-8-88 of the II party is voluntarily , unequivocal with fair mind, with the guidance of his union representative. Taking into consideration the unequivocal reply ofthe II party and the graveness ofthe charges and after extending all reasonable and possible opportunities for defending the charges to II party and the enquiry report, the I party has taken an appropriate legal decision/ action of removal from service of II party in the interest of the I party. Therefore, the question of not keeping promises or using the apology of the II party as weapon does not arise at all. There is no discrimination in giving punishment to the II party. The II

3. Does the II party prove that the punishment imposed on him deserves interference ?

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

213

भारत का राजपन: जनवरी 17, 2004/पौत्र 27, 1925

No.

4. Does the II party prove that he is entitled for the reliefs asprayed or otherwise ?

5. What order ?

Thus it is alleged against the II party that he has misappropriated amount of Rs . 20,641,90 Ps . and defrauded the bank. It is alleged that II party has not closed the postage account properly and correctly as at the end of year 1985 following irregularities were observed.

Asperaward passedbelow.

REASONS

IssueNo. 1:

"The balance of postage as on 24-12-85 was Rs . 1,286. However, you have credited to charges Account Rs. 1,386 being the balance of postages. Thedifference of Rs . 100 has been adjusted bytaking advance for the same amount as on 1-1-1986. This means advane has not been accounted for in 1986. (9/92Register)".

13. With reference to this issue it is observed that as per Award - I dated 26-9-2000 this issue is already adjudicated and decided by learned predecessor in the negative and thus it stands answered accordingly.

14. Heard learned Advocates for both parties. Perused material on record and after considering the same I came to the findings as stated above for the following reasons.

IssueNo. 2:

Thus it is alleged that II party has neglected the bank work entrusted to him. It is further alleged that II partywas unauthorisedly absent from duty from 19-10-87 to 7-12-87 . During that period he had, submitted 5 leave applications . Branch Manager has advised him on 3 occasions that leave on medical grounds can not be granted andfurther advised him to report for duty immediately. The details of such occasions are narrated as below:

Managers

Branch Memo.

Duration & No. of days

Sr. Date of

No. application

1. 19-10-1987 19th Oct. 1987 to 21st Oct. 1987; 3days

2. 24-10-1987

Memo No. 48 dt. 4-11-87 15. With reference to this issue it is pertinent to mention that II party Shri P. V. Mane working as a Dispatch Clerk in the employment of the I party was issued a chargesheet dated 20-7-88 alleging that during the period from 23-12-85 to 13-10-87 at SolapurBalives Branch, he has committed serious irregularities in the maintenance of postage books & Registered letters Despatch Registers and perpetratod a fraud ofRs . 20,641.90Ps . by fabricating the said books and/or by adopting the following modus operandi.

24th Oct. 1987 to 31st Oct. 1987; 8days.

Rs. 12,241.40

3. 02-11-1987

c/110 dated 12-11-87

2nd Nov. 1987 to 11th Nov. 1987; 10days

(A) by way of making superfluous entries (Details as per Annexure 'A') to the chargesheet

4. 13-11-1987

Rs.200.00

12th Nov. 1987 to 28th Nov. 1987 : 17days (with medi- cal certificate)

5. 29/30-11-1987

Memo No. 60 dt. 3-12-87

8th Dec. 1987 10 days. 29th Nov, 1987 to

(B) byway of fraudulentlyplacing the figure ' 1 ' before the sum total ofpostage in the postage & other relatedbooks and carrying over in the mainpostage Book . (Details as perAnnexure 'B' ) to the charge- sheet

Rs.6,410.00

Itis further stated in the chargesheet that the II party neither replied the noes nor joined the duties and that superior'slegit orders havebeen disregarded by him:

Rs.10.50

(D) by way ofdeliberate mistake in totals/net results: (Details as per Annexure ' D' ) to the chargesheet

Rs.1,780,00

(E) by tearing out the pages of registers.(Details as per Annexure ' E' ) to the chargesheet

Rs.20,641.90

16. Charge. Jeet was replied on 20-8-88 and a show cause notice ofdismissal was issued on 28-8-88 which was. repliedby II party on 24-1-89 and thereafter services ofthe II party came tobe dismissed by an order dated 7-2-89. The IIpartyhad filedan appeal on 15-2-89 wewwever, said appeal cameto bedismissed. The II party , lind Podged a complaint through Govt. Labour Officer in 1994 and thereafter the reference is made to this court for audication of the dispute between the parties . As per Award Part I delivered bylearned predecessor on 26-9-2000 itis doclared that the 33 G1/ 04-3 214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004 /PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Exh. C- 195-A. The Inspection report (duplicate) dated 18- 11-87 of Shri S. N. Joshi is filed with list Exh . C- 127. Said report is at exh . C- 131A.

17. Whereas II party had adduced oral evidence at Exh. U- 14 and produced chargesheet dated 25-8-88 issued to another workman Shri A. V. Deshpande with list exh . U-7 and copy ofthe demand notice dated 2-6-94 with list Exh. U-15.

enquiry conducted against the II partyby the I party is not fair, proper being violative of principles of natural justice and that has been vitiated . The I party was given opportunity to prove charges before the court . Since the enquiry conducted against the II party workman is vitiated the evidence recorded in the enquiry cannot be used for proving alleged misconduct . Accordingly I party has adduced evidence before the Court by examining witnesses namely : ( 1 ) Subhash Bhumayya Pamul at Exh . C-24, (2) Shri M. V. Kher at Exh . C- 128 and (3) Mr. Sadanand Joshi at Exh. C - 131 . Departmental enquiry proceeding is filedwith list Exh . C-9 in a separate file comprising of page no. I to84.

18. Witnesses are examined and cross examined at length and the dispute involved in the case is being adjudicated on the basis of testified oral and documentary evidence of both sides.

Copy of letters dated 20-8-88 and 15-2-1989 of II party addressedto I party are filed with list Exh. C- 14. The I party hasalso produced original 9 registers with list Exh . C- 25 and they are:-

Sr. Particulars

Date

No.

1 .

28-1-86 to 14-5-86

Postage register no. 8 page no . 1 to 150.

2 .

15-5-89 to 14-8-86

Postage register no . 7 page no. 1 to 150 .

3 .

1-8-86 to 19-11-86

Postage register no. 6 page no. 1 to 150

21-11-86 to 5-3-87

Postage register no . 4 page no. 1 to 150

5-3-87 to 24-6-87

5. Postage register no . 3 page no. 1 to 150

24-6-87 to 26-8-87

6. Postage register no . 2 page no . 1 to 150

17-7-87 to 13-10-87

7. Postage register no . 1 page no . 1 to 150

16-2-87 to 10-5-87

8. Postage register no. A- t page no . 1 to 93

8-1-87 to 22-4-87

9. Postage register no . A- 13 page no . 1 to 111 S. B. I. register

The I party has also filed 3 original registers with list Exh . C - 95A and they are:-

19. As stated above the enquiry conducted by the I party is vitiated and therefore burden of proving the misconduct against the IP party is on the I party. Therefore according to the evidence of I party witness Shri Subhash Bhuanayya Pamul at Exh. C- 24 it has come on record that he was working at Balives Branch of the I party from May 1985 to September 1987 as an accountant in the account division wherein about 35 to 40 employees were working and functioning of the postage was under the control of saiddivision. During the period of this witness II party was looking after the work of postage. Witness knew the II party andhe is also aware about the nature of work of postage. Witness is also aware about the facts of the case. Witness has stated that for the purpose ofpostage there are separate registers meant for register post, regional post and the registers for the purpose of Head office . The concerned clerk is having right to take a cash ofRs . 1,000 daily. The concerned clerk looking after postage work is required to enter daily postage in the concerned register i.e. to say R. P. A. D. and Head office register. He is required tocarry forward the total in the registers . The witness being an accountant used to pass Vouchers prepared by the concerned clerk. This witness has specifically stated that II party has misappropriated amount ofRs. 20,641.90 Ps. It is explained that by making certain bogus entries the II party misappropriated amount of Rs . 12,241.90 and an amount of Rs . 6410 by carry forwarding the amount and the amount of Rs. 210.50 Ps . by doing calculations and Rs . 1780 by tearing some pages .

Particulars

Date

Sr. No.

30-10-85 -to-27-1-86

Postage register No.- 9 page No. 1 to 150 .

18-8-86 to 22-10-86

Postage register A- 7 ( SBI ) page No. 1 to 111 .

11-8-86 to 13-2-87

Postage register A- 11 other page No. 1 to 111 .

20. Witness has pointed out the amount misappropriated on particular date after going through the registers. It ispointed out that on 17-2-86 the II party has made superfluous entry of Rs . 82 against the title below 500.Thewitnesshas identified that the hand writing in the register is of II party. Zerox copy of page no. 38 is produced in support of his deposition. It is a zerox copy of page no. 38 attestedby the Branch Manager. His signature is identified by this witness. It is clarified that there is no separate account total below 500. The ordinary fegister is alsoknown as below 500 register. Page no. 38 ofregister No. 8which is appearing at Sr. No. I is at Exh. C- 26 . Entries The I party has also produced original service record of Shri P. V. Mane i.c. H party workman with list [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

215

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

page no. 12 for the sum of Rs . 110 and titled it as others. Page no. 12 ofthe register no. 4 is marked at Exh. C-43us the hand-writing ofthe II party is identified by the witness. On9-12-86 entry is made on page no. 26 for the sum of Rs. 120 which is titled as other . The Witness has identified that this entry is in the hand-writing of II party. Said dosument is at Exh . C -44 . It is on page no. 26 ofthis register. On 11-12-86 entry is made on page no. 28 for the sum of Rs. 110. It is titled as other. This entry on page no . 28 (0-44) is identified to be in the hand- writing of II party. On 18-12-86 entry is made on page no. 39 (C-46) and that is pertainingto the sum ofRs . 120. The entry is identifiedto be in thehand-writing of II party. On 24-12-86 entry is made onpage no. 50 (C-47) of the register for the sum ofRs . 112 andtitled it as others in the hand- writing of II party. Page no.51 ofdecument Exh. C-48 reflects an entry for the sum ofRs. 106 titled as others and it is proved to be in thehand- writing ofII party. On 9-1-87 entry is made on page no. 68 (C-49) of the register reflecting an entry for the sum of Rs. 140 titled as other. It is proved to be in the hand-writing ofII party. Entry made on 10-1-87 ofpage no. 70 (C-50) of the register reflects that it was made in hand-writing ofII party for the sum ofRs . 120 titled as others . On 14-1-87 entry ismade on page no . 77 (C- 51 ) which reflects that it is made for sum of Rs . 120. It is titled as others . It is also proved tobe in the hand -writing of II party. Page No. 94of the register (Exh . C-52) which reflects an entry for the sum ofRs. 160 titled as others . It is also proved to be in the hand-writing of II pastv Page no. 94 of the register carrying Exh. C-53 is an entry for the sum ofRs . 160 titled as others. It isprou tobe in the hand -writing of II party. On 31-1-87 an entry is made on page no. 98 for the sum ofRs. 150 titled asothers. It is the Exh. C-54 on page no . 99 and that is proved to be in the hand-writing of II party. On 2-2-87 entry ismade on page no. 101 (C-55) it is for the sum of Rs. 120 titled as others. It is proved to be in the hand-writing of II party. Page no. 104 of the register carry Exh. C-56 which reflects an entry for the sum ofRs . 160 titled as other in the hand-writing of II party. On 4-2-87 entry is made on page no. 105ofthe register which carry Exh. C-57 reflecting an entry for the sum of Rs . 150 titled as other in the hand- writingof II party. Witness has identified hand -writingof II party. It is further revealed that on page no . 107 an entry is made on 5-2-87 for them of Rs : 140 titled as others and thewitness had identified hand-writing is that of II party. This entry is at Exh . C- 58 on page no . 107 ofthis register. Onpage no. 110 entry is made on 7-2-87 for the sum of Rs. 150 and that is titled as others in the hand-waiting of II partyas pointed out and identified by the wit ess . It is on page no. 110 at Exh . C- 59 . Page no . 121 of the register is marked exh . C-60 which reflects an entry for the sum of Rs. 150 titled as others and that is in the hand -writing of II partyas identified by the witness. On 14-2-87 entry is made onpage no. 122 (C-61 ) which reflects an entry for the sum ofRs . 140 titled as others and it is also identified to be in the handwriting of II party. On page no . 127 (C-62) an entry at page no . 17 made on 28-6-86 reflect that amount of Rs . 151-10 is misappropriated. It is titled as ordinary S. B. I. Said entry is in the hand writing of II party. Witnesshas identifiedhis handwriting. Page No. 17 of register no. 7 is atexh . C -27. It is appearing at Sr. No. 2. Witness has pointed out date-wise amount of misappropriation such as on 30-8-86 entry appearing on page no. 35 ofbook no. 36 reflect the amount ofRs . 3,000. It is titled as S. B. I. ordinary. It is identified that the hand - writing is ofthe II party. Page no. 25 of register no . 6 is at Exh . C-28 . Page No. 44 of register no. 6which is marked Exh . C-29 reflects that amount ofRs. 220 titled as S. B. I. ordinary is in the hand -writingof II party. The witness has further identified that the hand- writing of II party on page no . 49 of register no. 6 which is atExh. C-30 is appearing tobe entry for the sum ofRs. 157. On 11-9-86 entry made on page no . 52 for the sum of Rs. 102 is titled as other ordinary and i.e. in the hand- writing of II party as identified by the witness. Page No. 52 ofregister no. 6 is at Exh. C-31 . Entry made on page no .66 on 23-9-86 is appearing for the sum of Rs . 110 titled as others inthehand -writing of II party. Page no . 66 ofregister no. 6 ismarked Exh . C- 32 . Entry on page no. 80 made on 3-10-86 is appearing for sum of Rs. 155 titled as other ordinary in the hand -writing of II party which is identified bythe witness . Page no . 66 at exh . C-33 is an entry made on 15-10-86 on page no . 99 for sum ofRs . 155 and it is titledas other register. Said entry is in the hand -writing of II party and that is identified by the witness . Exh . C- 34 is page no. 99 ofabovesaid register. On 17-10-86 the II party had made an entry on page no . 101 for the sum ofRs. 110 and 5 Ps . It is titled as other register. The hand -writing of II party on document exh . C- 35 (page no . 101 of said register) is identifiedby the witness. On 22-10-86 II party had made an entryonpage no. 109 at Exh. C-36. Said entry is for the sum ofRs. 140 titled as other. The hand-writing of the II partyat Exh. C-36 is identified by this witness . The witness has furtherpointed out that on 28-10-86 the II party had made anentry on page no. 116 (Exh . C-37) for the sum ofRs . 140. It is titled as other in the hand -writing of II party. Page no. 142 of the register marked as Exh . C-39 reflects that II partyhad made an entry for the sum ofRs . 120 and titled as other. It is in hand-writing of II party. The hand -writing of the II party is identified by the witness . On 18-11-86 the II party had made entry on page no. 146 for the sum of Rs. 120 titled as other. The hand-writing of II party on page no. 146 (Exh. C-40) is identified by the witness . The II party had made an entry on page no . 148 (C-41 ) for the sum of Rs. 90 and titled it as other . The hand -writing of the II party is identified by this witness. The witness had further pointedout that on 24-11-86 the Il party has made an entry on page no. 4 (C -42 ) for the sum of Rs . 90 titled as other. The hand-writing of the II party is identified by this witness . On 25-11-86 II party had made an entry on page no. 4 for the sum of Rs . 110 and titled it as others . Hand- writing of the II party on page no. 4(C -42 ) is identifiedby this witness . On 1-12-86 II party had made an entry on 216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

ismade for the sum of Rs . 127 titled as S. B. I. and it is proved to be in the hand-writing of II party. The S. B. I. register reflects as rightly pointed out by the witness that the figure 70-80 appearing on page no. 45 dated 17-2-87 is shown as 170-180 while carry forwarding said figure. Further more to summarise the amount misappropriated by the II party as pointed out by the witness is tabularised as following:

Date

Amount Exh. No. Page Regis- No. terNo.

132

21-2-87 150

C-63 135 4

23-2-87 151

C-64 4

137

24-2-87 141

C-65 4

143

28-2-87 160

C-66 145 4

2-3-87

140

C-67 147 4

3-3-87 141

C-68 6 3

9-3-87 121

C-69 23 3

20-3-87 161SBI C-70

140 others

32 3

26-3-87 154

C-71 33 3

27-3-87 120

C-72 34 3

28-3-87 144

C-73 37 3

1-4-87

142

C-74 42 3

3-4-87 141

C-75 43 3

4-4-87 144

C-76 47 3

7-4-87 148

C-77 49 3

8-4-87

148

C-78 53 3

10-4-87 148

C-79 55 3

15-4-87 150

C-80 57 3

16-4-87 150

C-81 58 3

18-4-87 148

C-82 61 3

21-4-87 155

C-83 63 3

22-4-87 150

C-84 67 3

24-4-87 155.

C-85 3

25-4-87 115

C-86 3

28-4-87 155

C-87 74 3

25-4-87 120

C-88

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

Date Amount Exh. No. Page No.

Regis- ter No.

81 3

6-5-87

120

C-89 3

133

16-6-87 160

C-90 135 3

17-6-87 150

C-91 138 3

18-6-87 130

C-92 145 3

22-6-87

120

C-93 1 2

14-6-87 110

C-94 8 2

27-6-87 140

C-95 11 2

29-6-87 135 SBI C-96 31 2

8-7-87 140

C-97 34 2

9-7-87

C-98

160 others

39 2

10-7-87 140

C-99 39 2

10-7-87 49.60VPR

41 2

11-7-87

C- 100

140 others

25R. Parcel

23-7-87 12.50

C- 101

R.Parcel

105 2

7-8-87 29.40 C-102

ordinary

7-8-87 500

24 1

29-8-87 140

C-103

ordinary

46 1

29-8-87 160

C-104

ordinary

11-9-87 14

C-105 1

12-9-87

C- 106

120 others

6.50VPR

57 1

15-9-87 145Ord. C-107 58 1

16-9-87 158 Ord . C- 108 62 1

17-9-87 140Ord. C-109 68 1

19-9-87

C-110

114Ord.

72 1

21-9-87 140

C- 111 77 1

22-9-87 140

C-112 106 1

5-10-87 145

C-113

200Diff,

109 1

6-10-87

C-114

29Ord.

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17 , 2004/पौष 27, 1925

217 Date Amount Exh. No.

Regis- terNo.

Page No.

123 1

12-10-87 140

C-115

74 3

29-4-87 1000Diff C-88

4-7-87

C-116

10Ord.

Total1000

51 2

15-7-87

C- 117

500 Diff.

75 2

24-7-87 500Diff C-118

85 2

29-7-87

C- 119

500Diff.

121 2

13-8-87 500Dff. C-120

138 2

20-8-87 800Diff. C-121

148 2

24-8-87 800Diff C-122

21. Witness Shri Pamul has further stated that on 1-1-86 he had passed a Voucher for the sum of Rs . 2,000 for advance against postage and the same was collected by the II party. The contents of said Voucher are contendedto betrue and that is appearing at Sr. No. 8 ofExh . C-95A. On 25-6-87 he has passed Voucher for sum of Rs . 2000. The witness has identified his signature on the Voucher and the signature of the II party; having made in token of amount collected by the II party. The same is appearing at Sr. No. 7 of C. 95A . On 4-4-87 witness had passed voucher for the sum of Rs . 2,000 . The voucher , signature of the witness and signature of II party on the reverse side ofthe document are identified by the witness.

22. Abovesaid evidence of the witness Shri Pamul is not refuted. In cross -examination material suggestions are denied by the witness and the some of the admissions given by the witness are of no substantiate gain to the IIparty.

23. Considering testified evidence of abovesaid witness Shri Pammul it is revealed that as pointed out by the witness the amount of misappropriation comes to Rs.20641.90.

to investigate the fraud and said Mr. Joshi has investigated intothe matter and submitted his report in duplicate. The I party has produced carbon copy of said report which is bearing the initials of Shri Joshi on each page . Learned advocate Shri G. R. Joshi for the II party has objected that original report is not produced and therefore this secondary evidence in the nature of carbon copy of said report should not be given any evidential value. However, witness Shri Kher has clearly stated that the original copy of the report is not traceable and therefore carbon copy is produced. As per Law ofEvidence it is well settled that as far as possible party should produce primary evidence. However, if primary evidence is not availale or it is not traceable or otherwise cannot be produced for want of other justified reasons then secondary evidence is admissible and therefore abovesaid objection of Shri Joshi (Advocate) is not sustainable . Any how this witness is examined only to identify the signature of Mr. Joshi , the Investigator and Author of the report . Abovesaid evidence of Mr. Kher reflects that the investigation was done by Mr. Joshi and that he had submittd a report . Witness Shri Sadanand Narayan Joshi was in the employment of the I party during the period from 1961 to 1998 and at Pune Region Office from 1986 to 1989. He is examined at Exh . C -131 . Testified evidence of thiswitness reflects that he was directed to investigate the matter of fraud at Balives Branch, Solapur. Alleged fraud was in respect of postage . Witness investigated into the matter from2-11-1987 and submitted report on 18-11-87 .He was directed to investigate on the basis ofreport ofInternal Auditor. He checked and verified 5 registers concerning postage. Said registers are known as original register, S.B.I. , other and 2 other registers . He checked the summaries of all registers and came to know that summaries appearing in the registers are in the handwriting of II party. The Head Clerkhas occasionally verified said registers and signatures tothat effectwere appearing. The Head Clerk informed the witness that he has not done physical verification. However, hebelieved II party and signed the registers. The witness explained that after verification he observed fraud of Rs . 20,783.50 Ps . He has also explained that the fraud appearing in the registers in the form of nature of super- fluous entries by reducing balance and by adding one to the total figure . He had done the work of cross tallying regarding the fraudulent accounts. While cross checking he had taken into consideration period from Dec. 85 toOct. 1987. The amount of fraudulent postage appears on consideration of total amount drawn by way of advance for postages, actual postage incurred during the said period and at the year returning the unspent balance. Witness has also stated that in his report he has prepared various monthwise Annexures with necessary details therein showing as to how the amount is appearing as fraud. Witness was confronted with the documents which is purporting to be a carbon copy produced on record at 24. Another witness Shri Mukund Vishnu Kher examined at exh. C- 128 deposed that he is in the employment ofthe I party for last about 25 years . During the tenure of employment he has worked on various posts. At present he is working at Regional Office , Pune as a Manager Staff Cell since 1-4-2001 . There are 5 regions to the Zonal office and the witness is looking after the work of region which contains Solapur and Satara Districts. Witness is required toperform the work of maintaining record of staff, transfers, promotions and disciplinary actions . The record in respect of II party is maintained and that is under the control and custody of this witness. The witness Shri Kher has stated that one Shri S. N. Joshi, Jr. Officer of the Bank was appointed Exh. C- 127 and he has stated that said report bears his 218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

committed by Shri P.V. Mane II party cashier-cum -clerk working on postage desk at the Branch . Report reflects that "Ordinary letter register" is used for recording the transactions and the dispatch of ordinary letter sent and summary ofdays transaction ofpostages from other postage registers and maintenance of daily balance . " SBI register letters" is the register used for recording the despatch and transaction such as register letters sent to office of S.B.I. The register named as "other register letters " is the register used for recording dispatch /transaction such as register letters sent to the parties other than S.B.I. office and the register known as " Instrument below 500 " is maintained for recording dispatch and pertaining to all instruments below 500 sent by ordinary dak and the register titled as V.P.P./insurance/foreign letters register is sued for recording dispatchand transaction ofV.P.P. , foreign letters, Air Mail , Insurance letter etc. Witness Shri Joshi had checked the summary of postage for the period from 23-12-85 to 13-10-87 during which period II party Shri P. V. Mane was working on dispatch desk. Annexure D filed with the report is a detail monthwise statement indicating daily expenditure on postage as recorded in the summary register, superfluous entries made, other errors, actual postage incurred, advance taken, day's closing balance as recorded in the register and the difference, ifany, in the closing balance etc. together with a summary ( Annexure ' C ' ) of all the months during the periodfrom 23-12-85 to 13-10-87 are enclosed which focus on a net fraud of Rs . 20,783.50 . It is more than defrauded amount alleged in the chargesheet. The break- up ofwhich is as mentioned in Annexure ' B ' as under:

Rs . 12,290.80

(i) By way of adding superfluous entries

Rs. 8,185.70

(ii) By way of fraudulently reducing balances

Rs. 200.00

(iii) By way of placing the figure 1 before the sum total in the register while carrying over to summary

Rs. 107.00

(iv) By way of carry over/ total mistakes. Netresult of fraud

Rs. 20,783.50 initials on each page and contents of his report are true and correct . He has verified that his report contains Annexure A to C and said Annexure are also bearing his initials.The report of the witness is marked as Exh. C- 131A. During the cross - examination the witness has denied material suggestions . It is denied that report in question was prepared by him after the reference is referred for adjudication . It is fortified during his cross -examination that registers contains 2 types of handwriting out of which summary is in the handwriting of II party and he is not aware about other handwriting. However, entries appearing in other register from 12-2-87 to 10-9-87 are in the handwriting of II party. The writness has stated that he is able to identify and state the handwriting off II party only and that he is not ina position to identify the handwriting of other employtes as he had no occasion to come across to handwriting of any other employees at Bailives Branch at Solapur even subsequent to submission of his report . The witness has also stated that he has identified the handwriting of the II party on the basis of summary written by him . The Head Clerk informed witness about the handwriting of II party appearing at Summary. Same was supported by Branch Manager and Accountant. The witness had rightly stated that he had no other source or procedure for verifying or identification of handwriting of II party except that of oral statement of Head Clerk , A ccountant and BranchManager. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the handwriting appearing at the summary is not of second party. It is an admitted fact that the registers produced in the Court do not contain two registers of below 500 and Insurance, Parcel , V.P.P. and foreign register. The witness has, however, mentioned in his summary that said 2 registers below 500 and other have also been referred. Witness has also denied the suggestion that his report is not on the basis of factual aspects and that II party was issued chargesheet and the action is taken against him only with a view to protect Mr. A.V. Deshpande , Head Clerk. In this way all material suggestions are denied and few admissions by the witness are off no uise for demolishing the case and the evidence of the I party. Thus, testified evidence of witness Shri S.N. Joshi reflects that on the basis of report ofInternal Auditor , he was directed to investigate into the matter and as sucla he has investigated into the matter and observed the frau fl of Rs . 20783.50 ps . The contents of the report comprising of Annexure A to Care proved. The oral evidence of the witness Shri Pamul at Exh. C- 24 , and evidence ofwitnesses at Exh. C- 128 and C- 131 is supported by original documents in the nature of registers maintained by I party's department during the normal course of working hours . It is also submitted at Exh . C- 131A with list Exh. C-127.

Mr. Joshi'sreport also reflect on the modus operandi ofthe II party such as:

25. The neport Exh. C- 131A reflects that as per instructions of the I party the witness Shri S.N. Joshi had visited the Bali ves Branch at Solapur on 22-11-87 for investigation into the matter of suspected fraud in postages

(a) Making superfluous entries within a range of Rs. 82.00 to Rs . 300 in the days summary. The 219 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

following two extracts from the summaryregister willelaborate the position:

Correct position

Itisrightlypointed out that amount ofRs . 135.80 is byway ofclubbing of2 different amount Rs. 87 + 48.80 and they shown SBI register letters and the amount of Rs. 151.00 shown against other register letters is by way of Superfluous entry.

Rs.

Entries appearing inthe registerRs.

(1) Date 14-2-1987

Correct position

28.95

Total ofordinary register

166,90

166.90

SBI Regd . letters

Entries appearing inthe registers Rs. Rs .

8.50

Regional Office letters

Nil

140.00*

OtherRegd. letters

(ii) Date8-4-1987

6.50

6,50

Foreignletters

75.20 75.20

Total ofordinary

210.85

350.85

Total

138.40

183.20*

SBI Regd. letters

44.80

148.00 **

OtherRegd. letters

*Superfluous entry

Clubbed & shown together & showin SBI (ii) Date 10-4-1987

7.20

Instruments below 500 7.20

Regd.

68.20

Total ofordinary register

8.50 letters

8.50

Regional office letters

208.70

SBIRedg. letters

Nil

148.00**

OtherRedg. letters

422.10 274.10

Total

6.60

8.60

Instruments below 500/-

12.50

Regional office letters

*clubbing of entries

446,00 298.00

Total

**Superfluous entry

It isrightly pointed out that amount of Rs . 183.20 mentioned in this extract is clubbing of 180.40 + 44.80 and the same is shown against SBI Register letters whereas the entryofamount ofRs . 148.00 shown against other register letters is by way of Superfluous entry.

Nextmodus operandi adopted by the II party is by way of reducing closing balance in the register. Following examples are supporting the contentions of learned Advocate for the I party.

Inthe abovesaid extract the entry ofRs . 148.00 against other register letters is a superfluous entry. Another model ofmodus operandi pointed out in the report ofMr. Joshi is that at some places the amount of postages incurred on registered letters sent to the officers of SBI and other parties areclubbed and shown as one entry in the summary against either SBI Regd. letters or other Redg. letters and then showing it as against one ofthese registers as a superfluous entry made within a range of Rs . 90 to Rs . 170.

Rs . Rs.

Dates

Rs . Rs. Rs .

Correct position

29-4-87

390.70 1452.80 452.80 1,000

1843.50

1791.75

221.40

791.75 1,000

4-7-87 2013.15

Entries appearing inthe registers Rs . Rs.

(i) Date 23-2-1987

1294.65

419.80

794.65 500

15-7-87 1714.45

75.60 75.60

Totalofordinary

20-8-87

348.70 2036.80 1236.80 800

Clubbed together

2385.50

& shown

135.80* 87.00

SBI Regd. letters

48.80 against

151.00**

Other Regd. letters

SBI

24.90

Regd.

Foreign letters

2.00 letters

2.00

Instruments below 500

238,30

389.30

Total

*clubbing of entries

Next type of fraud is due to carry over in summary the sum total of actual expenditure from supplementary register by placing figure 1 before the total e.g. on 27-7-1987 dailytotal of Rs. 48.40 in other register has been carried over as Rs . 148.40 in the summary of that day. Second instance is on 17-2-1987 where a sum total ofRs . 70.80 in SBI register has been carried over as Rs . 170.80 as rightly stated by witness at Exh . C-24 in his evidence. Moreover there are certain mistakes involving small **Superfluous entry 220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART I-SEC. 3(ii ) ] amounts , committed while writing the days summary such as:

Mr. Joshi . The summarised position of the amount embezzled is as under :

(i ) Total mistake in summary

Date

Amount embezzled

3rd & 4th June, 1987

(ii) Inversion of figures in carry over of the totals from other registers to the summary.

19th June, 1987

Rs. 180 (iii) Wrong carry overs of totals from the other registers to summary.

2nd Sept. , 1987

Rs. 1,000

Rs.600

23rd Sept. , 1987

( iv) Mistake ofRs . 100 in crediting unsent balance to charges account (credited excess) etc.

3rd to 5th June 1987

Nil*

26. Learned advocate for the I party has rightly pointed out that these mistakes are on higher (+) or lower (-) side. The net difference of these mistakes is Rs . 107 as shown in column 4 of summary of monthwise statements filedwith the report of Mr. Joshi. All the superfluous entries, wrong carry over and reduction in balance are apparently a creationof Shri P. V. Mane , a cashier -cum-clerk.

27. Witness Shri Joshi has admitted in his cross examination that he is not in a position to tell as towhether entries appearing on the torn pages were appearing in some other registers and that he is not in a position to tell as to how he constructed the amount oftorn pages total amount Rs. 1780. However, this is a matter of calculation and the reasons for the calculations are reflecting in the report of Mr. Joshi stating that few pages ofthe books were observed tobe torn out/ missing and therefore the quantum of postage in ordinary register in which summary has been taken has tobe reconstructed on an approximate basis having regard to the lines of pages missing average postages and subsequent closing balances . The details ofpages missing areas under:

Date

Pagesmissing

3rd and

Page no. 110 to 113

Ordinary letters Register where summary is taken 4th June 1987

19th June 87 Page no . 140 & 141

2nd Sept. 87 Page no. 32 & 33

23rd Sept. 87 Page no . 80 & 81

SBI regd , letters

3rd to 5th Page no. 91 one part

Jan. 1987 92both parts

93 one part

It follows that the amount of Rs . 1780 calculated against pages missing from the registers is an approximate amount but the fact remains that the amount more or less than the amount of Rs . 1780 has been defrauded.

The details of reconstruction of the quantum of ordinary postages are shown in Annexure ' A' of the report

Itisanadmitted fact that no one has seen the person tearing pages from the registers, however, these registers are the matter of concern with the II party and in view of abovesaid facts and circumstances it is probable that pages are torn to hide the amount embezzled and that reflects the intention of the wrong-doer. In view of rest of the allegations of fraud being proved against the II party the I party has rightly set the figures towards II party. The contentionoflearnedAdvocate for II party is that all these registers were verified to be true and correctly recorded. However, the totality of the evidence reflects that the Head Clerk Shri Deshpande used to check the register and to make his initials thereafter. However, it was not his dutyto do so even then he has made the same through randum checking. There was no absolute control over the work of II party. The report reflects that entries were verifiedby Mr. A. V. Deshpande Head Clerk on 17 occassions during theperiod from 3rd October 1986 to 11 September 1987 and said registers were verified by Mr. A. D. Kulkarni , Manager (Accounts) only on two occassions i.e. , on 28th Jan. 87 and 18th June 1987. All this goes to show that there was no daily and routine check over the registers and the checking on certain occasions was just by way of formality that is why Shri A. V. Deshpande was chargesheeted for gross negligence and punished after enquiry. Contention of learned Advocate for the II party is that the chargesheet issued to the II party and Mr. Deshpande were substantially the same in respect of same instance. It is true that Mr. A. V. Deshpande was also issued a chargesheet , however, nature of charges against Shri A. V. Deshpande is entirely different inasmuch as Shri Deshpande was charged for gross negligence whereas the charges against the II party are regarding a fraud and absenteeism . Thus chargesheet issued to the II party and the chargesheet issued to Shri A. V. Deshpande are distinctively different. Next contention of learned Advocate for II party is that Shri Deshpande was awarded punishment of stoppage of increment whereas Shri P. V. Mane II party awarded punishment of dismissal and therefore he has been victimised byway of discrimination. This line ofargument is of no assistance to the case of II party because the charges were different . Secondly Shri A. V. Deshpande is 221 [भाग - खंड (i)]

भारत काराजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

also no more continued in service. The II party has denied the allegations in the chargesheet in his defence at Exh. U-14. However, he has admittedly stated in chiefexamination that the Branch has maintained various registers for transactions ofdispatch section such as ordinary postage, SBI registers, Other registers, below 500 register, parcel , V. P. P. , Insurance, Head office register and Regd. post register. The correspondance with other Brariches of the I party used to be registered in S. B. I. register. The correspondancewith other banks including subsidiary bank use to be registered in other register. The important valuable documents and articles used to be registered in Insurance Register. The below 500 register is regarding instruments of value below 500 and the documents produced as regarding registers are concerning VPP, Insurance, Parcel register and below 500 registers are not produced in the proceeding by the I party. However, the fact remains that all the original registers produced bythe I party were in existance. Below 500 register is also in existance. So it is nobody's case that the registers are not genuine. II party has also adanitted that there use to be transaction around 140 articles every day and maximum transaction regarding SBI and other registers . He was looking after the SBI and other registers whereas Shri Khan use to lookafter ordinary postage alongwith Smt . Patvaldion,One Shri Chalappe use to assist in maintaining other registers and SBI register ifwork load is more . The registers produced bears the hand-writing of all the abovementioned persons and that includes handwriting of II party. Since registers were handled by number of persons witness Mr. Joshi was directed to investigate into thematter on the report of internal auditor. It is established duringthe investigation by Mr. Joshi as well as by orat and documentary evidence before the court that it is nobody except II party Shri P. V. Mane who has defrauded theBank.

checking the entries in the register has givest soupe for defrauding the amount. It is further contended that theec wone 2 audits even then I pastywas not held gally for mariation of Anditor is a amount. It is well acttled dog and not Pparty the next all tobe played The II party vidence it is proved beyond doubt that the li pany kis defrauded the amount of Rs.20,641.90 Ps. Demistute pors to bebywayof after thought with hetention to escape from the consequences. It is rightly pointed out by leamol Adrocac for the I party that II panty Sni ? V. Mane had letter dated 30-6-08 serRegional Manatus, State Bank of India, Raglan BV, Peak Manager ofState Bank ofIndia, Palivo This letter is 20-7-88 stating that, before giving reply to II party sincerely appealled to the Authorities to o bis family aspect andand circumstances he had undergone is showing was saltering from Cancer since 1981 tin her death in One For her purvival needless to and nursing inviting his sources . The Il party look after his you and required to a regularly. All this ha diture disproportions The II party ass forther stated that exhaust own afier death of his mother after him for the re he failed to observe the only consequence they have devel andwarted throntowin stated that he kas to who is ed relatives word ments given to them. Asa The would not repay the amount. Til party has further stated inthe letter ofappeal that during th in a confused and imbel completely beve Out offour andwith a knowing the consequence distress , compelling him to under duress , to how malicy ecomm involve as perAnnexure one and para II ofthe chargestecet further submitted that they are bonafide iht skatent dated 15-2-09 appealed to the Deputy Manager . und of bandia, Regional Office, notice and that he said ondor percly on hemanitarian grounds, tym 28. Next contention of learned Advocate for the II party is that witness Shri Pamul who deposed in this proceeding was working as accountant at Balives Branch. Said Shri Pamul was no way concerned or connectedwith disputed section. It is Arther submitted that said Shri Pamul was neither supervising the dispatch section nor usedto verify day-to-day registers and transactions thereof. Therefore his evidence should not be relied. However, this line of argument is not assisting the case ofII party because entire evidence of Shri Pamul is based on the original registers and the office record maintained by the I party during the course of its business and the witness has pointed out the entries disclosing defrauded amew time to time. k is Itis also contonded bythe II party that he was never askedasked or enquired with by Shri Deshpande Head Clerk about any difference in postage a mic propriation . It is als cum of the Kyung Sheshpande was negligent in checking the registers and he was chargeshooted and punished . The negligonco on the part ofDeshpande or other officer in the mattor of

said appeal he has cicarly stated that he has admitted 3301/94-4 222

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

charges against him and that he sincerely repent the lapses onhis part. In the same para it is further stated that he has beenpromoted from subordinate cadre.He has no lit-vices. Hehas been a victim of pressing monitory requirements of his family. Thus the II party has clearly admitted the misconduct alleged in the chargesheet, but he has prayed for sympathetic view. In the premises in view of oral and documentary evidence , testified sure and reliable evidence, as well as on the basis of aforesaid admissions of the II party given in his letter of appeal addressed to Regional Manager. Before replying the chargesheet dated 20-7-88 and Post dismissal letter of Appeal dated 15-2-89 I hold and conclude that the allegations as to misappropriation narrated in Clause ' I ' (ABCDE) regarding misappropriation ofamount is proved. Similarly it is proved that II party had not closed the postage Account properly and correctly as on 24-12-1985 was Rs . 1,286.00 . However , he had credited to charges Account Rs . 1,386.00being the balance of postages. The difference of Rs . 100 was adjusted by taking advance for the same amount as on 1-1-86. This goes to establish that advances has not been accounted for in 1986. This has been supported by register no . 9/92 .

29. As regards charge of absenteeism there is no iota ofevidence . Therefore I hold and conclude that except the charge of absenteeisin rest of the charges alleged in the chargesheet are proved . Hence I answer the issue no . 1 accordingly.

ISSUE No. 3 .

30. In view of findings to issue no. 1 it is established that the II party Shri P. V. Mane has committed serious misconduct of misappropriation of the amount of I party. Hehas admitted that I party is a Bank and bank transactions are done on the basis of confidence . He has also admitted that in the year 1988 he was punished by way of stoppage ofincremerit . The witness Shri S. N. Joshi has verified the service book of II party and stated that II party was punished by way of warning on one occassion . He was also awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment for6 months .

31. Learned advocate for the II partyhas relied upon the Judgement of our High Court in a case of State Bank of India v/s . (1 ) P. D. Apshankar. (2 ) Abdul Hamid G. Gazekhan in Writ Petition No. 1317/89 wherein petitioner was nationalised Bank and second respondent was a clerical employee in its service . The enquiry officer found that the charge with regard to accepting VPP/MO No. 148 dated 28-3-81 without crediting the amount in the account ofthe Bank had been established . However, his past service record of 19 years was unblamished and therefore in exercise of powers of Section 11A of I. D. Act the order of dismissal against the Second respondent has been substituted by an order of reversion to a lower post and the second respondent has been totally denied the back-wages .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Hon'ble Lordship held that this does substantial justice to the parties. The learned advocate for the II party prayed for interference with the quantum of, punishment in view ofabovesaid Judgement by exercising powers u/s . 11A of the I. D. Act . However, it is necessary that powers u/s . 11A should be judicially excercised. It depends upon the facts of the case. In a case before me II party workman has committed serious misconduct of misappropriation of amount ofBank which functions only on the basis of trust and confidence. The past service record of the II partywas also not clean. Therefore benefit of abovesaid Judgement cannot be extended to his case .

32. Whereas learned advocate for the I party has relied upon following cases:

(1) Learned advocate for the I party has relied upon theJudgement ofBombayHigh Court in a case of Sunil Devidas Damkondekar v/s . the Union of India and others, 2002 (3 ) -MLR- 941 wherein Hon'ble Lordships have held that quantum of punishment is a managerial decision . Looking at the seriousness of the charges , the Enquiry Officerhas held that the petitioner had defrauded theBank for an amount of Rs . 10,102 and it was not a case of human error or negligence alone . Both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the AppellateAuthority have considered all the pleas ofthe petitioner and held that he was not fit tobe retained in service . It is further held that this decision does not call for any interference at our hands while excercising our discretionary powers under article 226 of the Constitution .

(ii) Breach Candy Hospital and Research Centre Mumbai V/ s. Babulal B. Pardeshi and another reported in 2002(2) -Mh. L. J. - 227, wherein it is held that question asto whether punishment which hasbeen imposed is justified within the meaning of Sec. 11A must depend upon the facts and circumstances ofeach case . It is further held that the charge ofmisconduct in a disciplinary enquiry has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities and does not admit of the high standard of proof, a proof beyond reasonable doubt as would be required in the course of a criminal trial . Adisciplinary enquiry is not subject to the observance of the strict rules of evidence which are required in the case ofa criminal trial . It isfurther held that the Tribunal does not act as a court ofAppeal to substitute its own Judgement with that of theManagement. The Supreme Court held that the tribunal would interfere where (a) there is want of good faith; ( b) there is victimisation or unfair labour practice ; ( c) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of the principles of natural justice 223

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17 , 2004 /पौष 27, 1925

[भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

companies and their workmen . Said Award is known as "Shastry Award" which has laiddown procedure for taking disciplinary action. Theacts and ommissions are amounting to ' grass misconduct ' as well as minor misconducts are enlisted in the said Award. In view of abovesaid Award misconduct proved against the II party workman is also under the category of gross misconduct.

and(d) when on the material before the court the finding is completely baseless or perverse. Inthe instant Judgement reference is taken of Supreme CourtRuling incase of Christian Medical College casewherein it is held that the power u/ s . 11A of the Act has to be exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is expected to interferewith the decision of the Management u/s . 11A of the Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the degree ofguilt of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision.

(iii) Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai V/s. Ramesh Rajaram Jadhav reported in 2001 (2)- Mh.L.J. - 899 wherein it is held that setting aside order ofdismissal by the Industrial Tribunal was not justified when the dismissal was on the ground of proved misconduct.

(iv) Hawaldar Singh V/ s . M/s . Taigrania Metal and Steel Industries and other reported in 2000(2) .L.J.- 220wherein workman was guilty ofmisconduct ofabusing superiors and threatening to assault. He was dismissed after domestic enquiry. Challengewas negativated by Labour Court and Industrial Court and therefore Writ petition was dismissed.

33. Ratio and proposition of Law laid down in abovesaid Judgements are not in dispute and they are supporting to the case of I party. In a case before me it is provedthat II party has misappropriated amount of I party bankto the tune ofRs . 20,641.90 Ps . It is also proved that thebalance ofpostage as on 24-12-85 was Rs . 1286 but II party workman had not credited to charges account Rs . 1386 being the balance ofpostage. The difference of Rs . 100 hadbeen adjusted by taking advance for the same account on 1-1-86. This has proved that the advance had not beenaccounted for in 1986. Thus II party workman has committed serious misconduct for which the standing Orders as per Sastri Award applicable to his case provide forpunishment ofdismissal. His past service record is also not clean and therefore punishment of dismissal awarded to II party is proportionate and commensurate with the nature of the guilt established upon proof of the misconduct alleged in the chargesheet. In the result excercise ofpower u/s . 11A is not at all warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case: This is not a fit case for interfering with the punishment ofdismissal in view of the gross misconduct committedby II party workman. As such I am convinced to accept that exercise of powers u/s . 11A of the I. D. Act would only lead to interfering with the managerial function to the extent of destroying the discipline and conduct in the entire employment of the I party. Therefore I answer the issue no. 2 in the negative. ISSUE NO . 4 :

(v) Shashikant Bhagwant Kulkarni V/s . Indian Red Cross Society and another reported in 2000( 1 )- Mh.L.J..-page 625, wherein it is held that even if an order oftermination is held to be illegal it is not that in every case reinstatement with full back wages as a normal rule should follow. There can bedeparture from this normal rule in exceptional circumstances .

34. In view of findings to issue no . 1 and 2 it is very much clear that II party workman failed to establish his entitlement for any relief and therefore issue no . 4 is answered in the negative .

(vi) Ajaib Singh V/s . Sirhind Co-operativeMarketing- cum-processing Service Society Ltd. Sirhind Mandi & another reported in 1999( 1 )-LLJ- 109 wherein it is held that court can deny relief on the ground of laches .

35.After taking entire view ofthe case in the light of testified oral and documentary evidence and the legal position set out by abovesaid rulings I have answered the issues accordingly for the reasons claborately stated therefor and proceed to pass the following award. AWARD

I. Reference I. D. A. 20/98 is hereby dismissed and accordingly disposed off.

II. No order as to costs.

(vii) Radha D. Agarwal V/s . Union Bank of India and others reported in 2002 (3 )-Mh- L.J. -page 25 wherein it is held that doctrine of merger applicable to tribunals and authorities discharging quasi judicial functions . In the instant case review application was dismissed. It is held that order of appellate authority merger into the order of Reviewing Authority.

III. Award accordingly.

Dated:10-11-2003.

K. B. WAGH, Presiding Officer (viii) I party has also relied upon the Award ofAll India Industrial Tribunal (Bank dispute ) Bombay on the Industrial Disputes between certain Banking 224

THEGAZETTEOF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( i)] नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर, 2003

Dated. the 4th December 2003 .

AWARD

ByOrderNo. L-12012/99/95- I.R. (B-1 ) dated23-8-96 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section (1)ofSection 10ofthe Industial DisputesAct, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudicaroit to this Tribunal:

का. आ. 111.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, धनबाद नं. -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90 आफ 1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 12012/99/95- आई.आर. ( बी.- 1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur, Patna in terminatingthe services ofSh . Naresh Rajak is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" New Delhi , the 17th December, 2003

2.The case of the concerned workman, according to the written statement, submitted by him in brief, is as follows:

S.O. 111. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (90 of 1996) of the Central Government Industrial /Labour Court, Dhanbad No - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2003 .

[No. L- 12012/99/95 -IR (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, DHANBAD

Inthe matter ofa reference under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 90 of1996

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur.

AND

TheirWorkman .

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the Management : Shri Hari Dasan , Law

Officer.

The concernedworkman submitted that he was orally appointed as a temporary peon by the management of State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur at Tekari Branch, Gaya w.e.f. 4-1-1998 and worked thete upto 5-4-1992 . He submitted that in course ofdischarging his duties from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M.he had to perform different duties, Viz ( i) taking out ledgers, registers from the Almirah and placing the same onthe tables and counters; ( ii) carrying out Daks through DakDeliveryBook and handing over to the customers ; ( iii ) posting ofmails to Post Office; (iv) stitching of vouchers ; (v) serving water to the members of staff and customers and (vi ) making entries in Pass Book and other sundry jobs.He submitted that he worked under the management cotinuously. He farther submitted that initially the management paid him at the rate ofRs . 20 per day as his wages and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 25 per day from April , 1989 and the said payment was to be made through vouchers on weekly basis . He alleged that he was forced to take payment in different fictitious names like Sunil Prasad, Uma Shankar Prasad, Ajit Kumar, Anup Kumar, Vinod Kumaretc. by the Branch Manager. He disclosed that as there was a threat on the part of the management for his stopping from work he was compelled to sign on payment voucher in different names as he was a poorHarijan andhad no alternative way to maintain his livelihood. He submitted that during the period of his service he discharged his duties to the best of his ability and with full satisfaction to his superior. He alleged that in spite of rendering services diligently the management suddenly stopped him from work w.e.f. 6-4-1992 which amounted to terminationas per the provisions of Section 2(00) of the Industial Disputes Act . He alleged further that before such termination the management neither issued any notice to Onbehalf of the Workman :Shri B. Prasad , Authorised Representative.

STAFE:Bihar

him nor paid any compensation as per provisions laid down under Sec . 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Не disclosed that after his termination the management appointed Anirudh Singh Sharma as peon at Tekari Road, [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

225 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

Findingwith

GayaBranch of the said Bank in violation of Section77& 78 of the Industrial Disputes ( Central) Rules. He disclosed that after his termination he submitted representation to thehigher authorities of the Bank for his reinstatement but to no effect and for which he raised an industrial dispute on 17-1-1994 before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C), Patna for conciliation which ultimately resultod reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The concerned workman accordingly submitted his prayer to pass an award directing the management to reinstate him in service with other relief.

3.The management, on the other hand, after filing writtenstatement-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in hiswritten statement . They submitted that the concerned workman was engaged for the job of purely temporary nature for shifting of articles and arranging them etc. and not against any regular vacancy of peon. Accordingly he isdebarred from asserting any right for his regularisation inservice. As per contract for which he was employed, the service contract came to an end automatically on the expiry of the stipulated period . In view of the facts and circumstancesthe management submitted that the claim of the concerned workman is frivolous and baseless . They disclosedthat after expiry of the contract period automatic cessation of service does not constitute ' retrenchment ' and is therefore, outside the purview of Chapter V-A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . Such termination of service as a result of non - renewal of the contract has been excluded from the definition of Section 2 (00) (bb ) of the I.D. Act . They submitted that no retrenchment is involved in the present case and no justifiable issue of claim has been agitated for adjudication before this Tribunal . They further submitted that during the period ofcontract service neither the concerned workman completed 240 days of work in a year nor he has completed continuous service within the meaning of Sec . 25 -B of the Industiral Disputes Act , 1947 and for which he is not entitled to seek any relief. They submitted further that the provisions of Sec. 25 -G and 25-H of the I.D. Act is the part of the Chapter relating to the 'retrenchment' . Before any relief under this chapter is sought, the incumbent has to prove that he is wrongly retrenched and is entitled to the relief and if he can establish so the provisions of Sec. 25 -C and 25 -H is attracted. In view of the facts and circumstances stated by the management they submitted that the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer and accordinglyhis prayer is liable to be rejected.

Points tobe decided

4."Whether the action of the management of State BankofBikaner and Jaipur, Patna in terminating the services ofSh. Naresh Rajak is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

5. It transpires from the record that the concerned . workman in order to mibetantiate his claim examined two witnesses including himself, while the management also. examined two witnesses as MW- 1 and MW- 2 in support... oftheir claim. WW-2 who is the concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that he started working as Peon at StateBank ofBikaner and Jaipur at Gaya Branch with effect from 4-1-89 . He submitted that he worked there till 5-4-1992 in the said capacity continuously. He submitted further that as part of his duty he used to bring out ledgers, Accountsbooks etc. from the almirah and used to keep the same on the table of clerks . He also used to serve drinking water to staff and also used to carry daks etc. His duty hours was from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. This witness further disclosed that initially management used to pay him wages atthe rate ofRs. 20 per day and thereafter it was enhanced toRs . 25 per day. It is his allegation that though he put his attendance under the management for more than 240 days in a year with a view to discharge his duty as peon the management without giving any notice and also without paying him any compensation terminated him from his service. He further alleged that under coercion and threat of the Branch Manager he had to sign vouchers some times inhis own name and sometimes in the name ofSunil Prasad, Ganesh Prasad, Ajit Kumar, Kuldip Kumar, Sohan Singh, Benoy Mohan etc. on the reverse side of the vouchers . This witness , i.e. , concerned workman during his evidence identified those signatures as of his own. The copies ofvouchers during his evidence were marked as Exts . W-3 to W- 3/50 , while the signatures appearing on the reverse side of the vouchers in different names were marked as Exts . W-4 to W-4/50. This witness also during his evidence disclosed that local delivery books were also writtenby him . These books were identified by this witness in course of his evidence and marked as Exts . M-3 to M-3/37 . During cross -examination he admitted thathe did not receive any letter of appointment while he was engaged as Peon by the Branch Manager at Gaya Branch . He also admittedthathe did not demand for any appointment letter from the management. His appointment also was not made through Employment Exchange . he also admitted that he did not submit any application to the Bank for his appointment as sub- staff. On the contrary, from the evidence ofMW - 1 it transpires that from 16-5-88 toApril , 1991 he was posted at Gaya Branch under the management. He disclosed that the said branch at Gaya was opened by the management wherin he became its Branch Manager. At that time the said branch was provided with two permanent staff, namely, he himself and one Clerk-cum- Cashier. Apart from two permanent staff, 2-3 staff also were posted in the said branch on deputation . Just at the time of opening of the said branch no peon was posted. Thereafter one peon was posted there being a permanent staff. He disclosed that the concerned workman was engaged to 226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

posted as Peon at Gaya Branch after his selection. Prior to that date one Ram Sufal Mourya was posted as Peon at Gaya Branch . This witness categorically denied the fact that the concerned workman was engaged as peon for the period from 4-1-89 to 5-4-92 as no peon was posted there. WW- 1 is the Labour Enforcement Officer who on receipt ofan application dated! 15-2-93 of the concerned workman (Ext. W-2) inspected the Gaya Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. He submitted that during his inspection he inspected one register wherefrom it transpired that the management paid wages to the casual workers at different names from time to time . He asked the management to provide him the address of those casual workers in whose names payment was made for discharging their duties as casual workers, but the management could not supply the address of those casual workers accepting the address of the concerned workman . Then he wrote a letter to the management asking them to submit statement in relation to the concerned workman who performed his duty as casual worker. As the management refused to submit any such statement he advised the concerned workman to raise an industrial dispute . However, this witness admitted that in course of inspection he did not enquire how long the concerned workman worked under the management as casual worker. He submitted that after inspection he drew up a report on the basis of material facts collected from the record in course of enquiry. It is really curious to know that in course of evidence of this witness the concerned workman failed to submit the said report in order to consider the facts recorded therein by the Labour Enforcement Officer. This witness during his cross -examination disclosed that he forwarded his report to the A.L.C. (C) , Patna . The record ofthe A.L.C. ( C) was corroborated by this witness, but from the A.L.C. ( C) report he has failed to trace out that report which was submitted by him .

perform some jobs absolutely on contractual basis for limited period . The said contractual job was for fetching of water from outside , shifting and re -arranging almirah, table, chairs etc. in the branch. This witness categorically denied the fact that the concerned workman worked in the said branch from 4-1-89 to 5-4-92 continuously. This witness also categorically denied the fact that under coercion and threat the concerned workman was forced to sign the vouchers on its reverse side at different names before payment of wages to him. He also denied the fact that the concerned workman worked in the said branch continuously for more than 240 days in a year . He submitted further that question of his attending duty from 10 a.m. to 6p.m. did not arise at all as because of the fact that thejob entrusted to him on contractual basis was very menial in nature. He disclosed that as per circular issued by the Head Office there was no power on the part of the Branch Manager to appoint any sub - staff on temporary basis . This witness disclosed that in course of hearing before the A.L.C. (C ) direction was given to produce the other persons who worked in the said branch from time to time on contractual basis . He submitted that as it was not possible to locate the address of those persons the management could not comply the direction given by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( C ) . He submitted that for engagement of any workman on contractual basis it is not the procedure to keep any details or address of particulars of the contractual workers . He submitted that the Bank's records are preserved as per R.B.I. direction . The charge registers which are maintained by the Bank are preserved for five years and thereafter the same are destroyed. This witness in support of his claim relied on the vouchers through which payment was to the concerned workman and those vouchers during his evidence were marked Ext -M- 1 series while the signature of the concerned workman were marked Ext. M-2 series . MW- 2 during his evidence corroborated the facts disclosedby MW- 1 . He submitted that the concerned workman was engaged at Gaya Branch to perform some menial work in the month of January, 1989 and in total he did not work more than 59 days as per record.He worked during the months of January, February and March , 1989. He further submitted that for appointment in the post of Peon under subordinate cadre the Authority issued two circulars and as per the said circulars appointment ofpeon is controlled. The two circulars during his evidence are marked as Exts - M-4 and M -5 . He further submitted that no Branch Manager is permitted to violate the conditions and directions given in the said circulars . This witness further disclosed that in the months ofOctober, 1992 and November, 1993 the concerned workman submitted two applications to the management and the said two applications during his evidence were marked Ext . M -6 and M-7. The reply given to the A.L.C. (C) by the management dated 27-11-93 was marked Ext . M- 8 . During cross- examination this witness disclosed that with effect from 8-4-92 one Anirudh Sharma who was a Canteenboy was

6. Considering the evidence of the concerned workman as well of the management, I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman worked at Gaya Branch of the management's Bank . Now the question is how long the concerned workman worked there . As per submission ofthe concerned workman he was engaged by the Branch Manager , Gaya Branch to work as Peon from 4-1-89 and in that capacity he worked till 5-4-92 continuously. It is his further claim that during this period in each year he put his attendance for more than 240 days in a year. His further contention is that the management without giving any notice or paying him any compensation terminated him from his service with effect from 5-4-1992. On the contrary, from the contentions of the management it transpires that the concerned workman was engaged to perform some menial work absolutely on contractual basis from 4-1-89 to 5-4-92. MW-2 during his evidence disclosed that in all the concerned work man during his period worked for 59 days . It is seen from the record that both sides in support of their claims submitted vouchers through which payment was 227 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/ पौष 27 , 1925

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

the concerned workman's name was not forwarded by the Employment Exchange . He also did not submit any application for his appointment . He also did not receive any letter of appointment as subordinate staff and then underwhich capacity he started working in the saidBranch. No explanation on the part of the concerned workman is forthcoming satisfactorily why he did not place all these facts, to the higher authority while he was very much in service. Definitely it should be taken into consideration that the concerned workman was on the weaker side but for that reason there was no bar on his part to send a secret letter to the higher authority for holding proper enquiry in the matter of his appointment. On the contrary, it is the specific contention of the management that as the said Branch at Gaya was newly created branch temporarily for taking up some menial work they used to engage workers from time to time to perform the said jobs . It is their categorical submission that the said job was absolutely temporary in nature and for which question did not arise to work continuously for more than 240 days in each calendar year. They further disclosed that as the job was absolutely temporary in nature question of giving any notice or payment of any compensation as per Sec. 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act did not arise at all . The concerned worman during his evidence submitted 50 vouchers which he obtained during the period of his tenure . These 50 vouchers were issued for discharging duties for 50 days by the management and payment of his wages was made to him . Accordingly on the basis of these vouchers there is no scope at all to say that the concerned workman worked under the management continuously during the period in question and performed his duty for more than 240 days in a year. In view of the decision reported in 2003 (96) F.L.R. 492their Lordships ofHon'ble Apex Court observed clearly thatburden ofproof is on the workman to establish thathe worked for 240 days in a year under the management. The question of invoking provision of Sec . 25 -F comes in when it is established that the concerned workman was discharged from his work in spite of performing his duties for more than 240 days in a year, in view of the decision referred to above . Accordingly, the burden rested on the concerned workman to establish in view of the decision referred to above that he worked as subordinate staff at Gaya Branch for more than 240 days in a year during the period of his tenure . The representative of the concerned workman in course ofextending his argument relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court , Patna passed in connection with CWJC No. 9,141 /92 . I have carefully considered the said decision. It transpires that the case of the concerned workman has got its similarity with the case ofthe concerned workman who raised industrial dispute and on the basis ofaward passed by the learned Tribunal thewrit petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Patna and the Hon'ble High Court , Patna passed the order upholding the case of the concerned workman. In that it was the allegation ofthe workman that the Branch Manager made to the concerned workman . Vouchers submittedby the management were marked Exts . M- 1 to M - 1 / 12. The vouchers submitted by the concerned workman were marked Exts. W-3 to W-3/50 . The vouchers marked as Exts. M- 1 to M- 1/ 12 show payment of wages to the concerned workman for his work under the management on 7-1-89, 15-2-89,6-1-89, 22-12-90, 9-2-91, 18-9-90, 23-18-91,6-4-90, 14-7-90, 8-7-89 , 7-10-89, 28-12-91 and 9-1-92. These vouchers speak clearly that not only the concerned workman but also other persons also signed on the reverse sides . The vouchers marked Exts . W-3 to W-3/50 were also not only signed by the concerned workman but also signed bydifferent persons. Considering these vouchers there is no scope to draw any conclusion that the concerned workman drew wages from the management during the period in question. It is the specific allegation of the concerned workman that the Branch Manager under coercion and threat obtained his signature on the reverse side of the vouchers in different names for payment of wages to him in connection with discharge of his duty as peon. The management categorically denied this fact. Naturally onus shifted on the concerned workman to establish that the signatures in the name of different persons appearing on the reverse side of the vouchers were actually his signatures and he did so under threat of the Branch Manager. WW-1 , who is the Labour Enforcement Officer, on receiving a complaint from the concerned workman in the year 1993 inspected the said Branch and examined some registers . It is fact that in course of the said inspection of registers he found names of different persons who received wages as casual workers putting their signatures on the reverse sides of the vouchers . There is sufficient reason to believe that the management failed to furnish the particulars off all casual workers who received wages from the Bank on demand of the L.E.O. No doubt, the management have failed to furnish the names ofthose casual workers but until and unless it is establishedbeyond all reasonable doubt that the signatures appearing on the reverse side of the vouchers in different names were actually the signatures of the concerned workman there is no scope to draw adverse inference against the management . The concerned workman hadthe scope to submit prayer for examination of the signatures by the Handwriting Expert, but he did not consider necessary to do so . The management relying on the documents marked Exts . M -4 and M- 5 submitted categorically that they maintain Recruitment Rules in the matter of recruitment of subordinate staff and violating the said circular the Branch Managers are authorised to appoint any subordinate staff even on temporary or casual basis . The concerned workman admitted in course of his cross- examination that neither he received any letter of appointment nor his name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange . He admitted that he also did not submit any application for his engagement as subordinate staffunder the management. It is realy peculiar to note that 228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ]

प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवादे में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी.सं. 181/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल. 41012/68/2001- आई. आर. ( बी. - 1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 19th December, 2003

S.O. 112. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. - 181 /2001) of the Central Government Industrial/Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman,which was receivedby the Central Government on 19-12-2003.

[No. L-41012/68/2001- (B- 1 )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR-COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

Shrikant Shukla, PresidingOfficer

AND

used to obtain his signature on the vouchers at different names under force in spite of his discharging his duty as casual worker. Accordingly the said workman made a complaint dated 15-1-1987 to the D.C. , Dhanbad and thereafter on being directed the B.D.O. , Baliapur made an enquiry and after enquiry the B.D.O. submitted his report in April , 1987 to the effect that the management obtained signature of the concerned workman in different vouchers under different names under coercion and threat though the said workman continuously worked there as subordinate staff. Their Lordship of Hon'ble Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the management upholding the award passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of the concerned workman as the Hon'ble Court did not disbelieve the report submitted by the B.D.O. Here not an iota of evidence is forthcoming that the signatures appearing in different vouchers are the signature of the concerned workman and the same were obtained under coercion and threat by the management excepting from the evidence of the concerned workman. It is seen that the L.E.O. had the scope to make thorough enquiry about the allegation made by the concerned workman with a viewto arrive into definite conclusion ifthe signature appearing in different vouchers were the signatures of the concerned workman or not. I find no hesitation to say that L.E.O. did not perform his duty properly to help the Tribunal for un- worthing the truth . Just relying on the evidence of the concerned workman there is no scope to draw any definite conclusion that it was the concerned workman who signed the vouchers at different names on being threatened by the Branch Manager . There is also no material evidence on record to show that the concerned workman worked for the period in question and put his attendance of 240 days in a year. Until and unless this vital fact is established there is no scope to arrive into any conclusion that the stoppage of work of the concerned workman by the management has been vitiated for non -compliance of provisions of Sec. 25 -F of the I.D.Act .

L.D. No.: 181/2001 Ref.No.: L-41012/68/2001 - IR(B - 1) dated : 11-12-2001 BETWEEN Rakesh Kumar , S/o Radhy Shyam , Jhałasi Helper 566/K/ 130, Amrudibagh , Lucknow TheSr. Divisional Personal Officer, Nosthern Railway, DRMOffice,Hazratganj , Lucknow (U.P. )- 226001 . AWARD

7.Accordingly, after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I hold that the concerned workman has failed to establish his claim with reasonable certainty and for which he is entitled to get no relief according to his prayer.

8. Accordingly, the following is rendered:

TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabourvide their order No. L-41012/68/2001 -IR (B - 1) dated 11-12-2001 referred following issue for adjudicaion ofthis Tribunal :

The action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur , Patna in terminating the services ofSh. Naresh Rajak is legal and justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

"Whether the action of the management ofNorthern Railway, Lucknow in not assigning the seniority w.e.f. 1984and not calling and fixing the name in ESM's panel ofRakesh Kumar was legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर , 2003

का. आ. 112. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तरी रेलवे के

The workman's allegation is that he has worked as casual labour for long period and was called for the appointment ofpermanent signal khalasi against the short- fall of SC/ST quota vide DRM's letter No. 220E /11 - I /APP.

229

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17 , 2004/पौष 27, 1925

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Screening/SC & ST/84-85 dated 11 /14-5-84. The workerwas declared suitable for the post and was placed on serial No. 5 of the list of successful candidates . The worker was medically tested and being found fit vide memo No. 058293 hewas posted as substitute Khalasi . The next screening of all casual labours ofS & T branch was held in the year 1987 inwhich he was not called owing to the fact that he has already been selected in the screening test of SC/ST in the year 1984 against the shortfall quota. As the shortfall in SC/ST signal khalasis was not made up after the two screenings of 1984 and 1987 another screening was held in the year 1988 from the open market to fulfil the shortfall andto form a panel of signal khalasis. After all these three screenings a seniority list of signal khalasis was circulated inwhich the applicants name was not shown, hence the applicant made an appeal to the administration and he was told that his name was left by mistake and assured that it wouldbe corrected. After many representations for more than seven years he was again called for screening in 1994 for which he opposed as he had already been selected. The worker appeared on protest and got selected once again, but in the revised seniority list his name was placed below to those candidates who were selected and posted after him. The worker was promoted in the year 1995 as khalasi helper, which is considered as a safety post, i.e. the post onwhich an employee can be promoted only when he has worked continuously for at least two years as a signal khalasi . This promotion confirms his appointment of 1987 and shows that the applicants name should be clubbed in the seniority list of khalasi helper and not in the list of signal khalasi . The department having asked the signal khalasis of S& T deptt. to choose between the MSM or ESM side , the applicant opted for ESM side, but was not called for the trade test of ESM . Wherefore the applicant lodged a complaint against the two things before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Lucknow to protect the legitimate rights of poor schedule caste employee and to assign the seniority from the first test results of 1984 and to incorporate the applicants name in the ESM's panel inwhich hisjuniors were taken . It has therefore, been prayed bythe workman that seniority amongst the S&T khalasis be corrected and a separate seniority list of the khalasi helper be prepared. The workman has also requested that his name be incorporated in ESM's panel from the back date andthe arrears of the pay difference should be paid to him.

dated 28-11-84. It is stated that no screening was held in 1984 of workman, Rakesh Kumar and he has wrongly mentioned in para 4 that he was screened in 1984. This is also admitted that in year 1988 screening has been doneby the administration to fill up the vacancies of the shortfall of SC/ST quota from open market as per decision ofcompetent authority, accordingly as well as to meet out the ends of reservation policy and a seniority list of signal khalasi was circulated by administration. It is also submitted that workman was called for screening for regularization of services in year 1994 and his services was regularized as S&T khalasi vide letter No. 220E/II - I/ Sig./Screening/S &T/ 94 LKO dated 14-7-95 w.e.f. 4-10-94 accordingly and thereafterhewas promoted from khalasi to khalasi helper against shortfall of SC quota w.e.f. 24-11-95 . The management case is that the workman was called for screening in 1994 first time and screened accordingly by administration and the workman has appeared in the screening and selected, he has not submitted any protest at the time of screening but thereafter he raised this false case against the administration and the workman was placed onright seniority and no junior to him was promoted without adopting the process/rules laid down by Railway Board or Local Administration. It is also submitted the workman, Rakesh Kumar along with other four persons called for helper khalasi test by the officer concerned on 20-10-95 and workman was promoted to the post ofkhalasi helper from the post of signal khalasi against shortfall SC/ ST quota on 24-11-95 . The workman raised this industrial disputes on the fake and frivolous grounds and without any legitimate right . The opposite party's pleas are that workman was engaged as casual labour and subsequently in year 1984 he was selected as substitute khalasi in S& T deptt.But the workman failed to produce the detail period ofworking casual labour on the prescribed performa of whose casual labour/ substitute has engaged prior to 1-6-78 and 120days have also been completed on 21-12-84. Inthis connection the rules laid down in para 1515 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual of volume -I in revised edition 188 is clearly shows that the right and privilege admissible to substitues should be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants from time to time on completion of four months continuous service. Substitute school teacher may however be afforded temporary status after they have put in continuous service of three months and their services should be treated as continuous for all purposes except seniority on their eventual absorption against regular posts after selection . A seniority list has been prepared for the trade test and promotion of ESM Grade- II in which the name of workman, Rakesh Kumar was placed at serial No. 144 and he will be called for the same accordingly. The oppositeparty has also mentioned that recognised union URMUhad espoused the cause ofworkman in PNM meeting with administration and the same was consideredby the administration and decision taken i.e. the workman, Rakesh The opposite party has denied the claim of the workman . The management of railways has admitted that Rakesh Kumar was previously engaged as casual labour and called for temporary appointment for the post of substitute khalasi vide letter No. 220E/ II - I/Sub./8 dated 28-11-84 by the official concerned and selected as Stute khalasi on 29-11-84 . This is also admitted that wnan was found medically fit in class B- 1 in year 1984 and directed for pesting of substitute khalasi in S&T deptt. His name was placed at serial No. 5 of notice

33G1/04-5 230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii )] Kumar has been assigned corrected seniority. The matter was closed by the union after due satisfaction and the workman now raised the same dispute individually before thisTribunal which is not maintainable and he has no right to raise same dispute which is already settled by administration with the consent of recognised union.

The workman has filed rejoinder but has not contradicted the fact that his matter was taken for decision in PNM meeting by recognised union URMU.

Rakesh Kumar has tried to state in the cross- examination that he went through the screening 1984, however, he could not tell exact date and month when he wasscreened. He has also stated that the screening was conducted in 1984 and that it was also conducted in 1994. He has tried to state that he did not go through screening of1994 of his own but he was threatened to go through screening of 1994 else he would be terminated. He was made regular in 1994 and in theyear 1995 he was promoted onthe post ofhelper khalasi and previously he was working as substitute khalasi. Ir his cross -examination he has claimedthat his seniority be determined since year 84.

The workman and the opposite party have filed affidavit and the parties have been cross -examined.

The workman has filed the photo copy of the following documents:

1. Letter No. 220/ 2.I/Niukti/ Screening/ SC/ST/84.85 dated 14-5-94 for regularisation of substitute khalasis.

AssistantPersonal Office ofDRM, Northern Railway, Shri Raman Kumar Sharma has stated in his cross- examination that only those persons were appointed as substitute khalasi who were casual labour prior to 1-6-78 . The workman , Rakesh Kumar worked as casual labour for 339 days prior to 1-6-71 .

2. Letter No. 220/II -I/Sub/84 dated 18-11-1984, notice pertaining to casual labour for posting as substitute khalasi in S &T deptt . In existing vacancies provided they are declared medically fit.

3. Letter No. 220 - I /II - I/ S& T/Screening/94 dated nil December , 94 regarding the issuance of appointment letter of khalasis of various categories.

From the paper No. 2/4 filed by the workman i.e. letter dated 14-5-84 it is made out that candidates were invited for appointment as substitute khalasi in S&T categories alongwith educational qualification certificates, character certificate, caste certificate , casual labour card etc. It was also notified in the said letter that in case medical examination is required then they could be detained and theywould have to pay Rs . 8. With regard to this paper the Assistant Personal Officer was questioned and to a questionofthe representative of the worker he replied that after verifying the facts, working days etc. the documents were called for.

4. Letter dated 25-5-99 regarding trade test in respect ofVidhyut Sanket Anurakshak Grade- II .

5. Letter dated 24-5-99 regarding trade test in respect ofVidhyut Sanket Anurakshak Grade-III .

6. Letter dated 20-10-95 about substitute helper. khalasi .

7. Copy of letter No. .E(NG ) II - 84/ CD/ 85 dated 20-1-1989 about filling of group D class IV vacancies by empanelment of casual labour and substitute extension of screening procedure.

8. Copy of Railway Board's letter No. E(NG) II - 88 dated 1-11-88 .

9. Letter No. 220E/0/4-1 /I (E -4) dated 5-8-88 regarding the formation of interview committee for the appointment of group C&D.

Heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the evidence .

From the letter paper No. 2/5 dated 18-11-1984, submitted by the workman himself it is clear that Rakesh Kumar alongwith others was posted as substitute khalasi in S& T deptt . against the existing vacancies of khalasi provided they are declared medically fit in category B- 1 as prescribed. It is therefore , clear that before the appointment ofRakesh Kumar as substitute khalasi he was a casual labour with the result he secured appointment as substitute khalasi and not as a regular khalasi and this fact is not disputed as has been admitted by the workman himself in the cross -examination . There appears to be no screening test but only medical test . The statement of the workman cannot be believed that he was screened in 1984 moreover he has not been able to file any document to support that he had been screened in 1984. The Assistant Personal Officerhas clearly stated that once the person is recruited inregular side then only screening is required in connection with his seniority. The substitute khalasi and regular khalasi are not on the same footing. According to the part-I ofthe Railway manual No. 1515 rights and privileges admissible to substitutes are defined which are reproduced below:

Itisadmitted fact that the workman Rakesh Kumar was causal labour and thereafter he was appointed as substitute khalasi in the year 1984.

Substitutes should be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27 , 1925

servants, fromtime to time on completion of four months continuous service . Substitute school teachers may, however, be afforded temporary status after they have put in continuous service of three months and their services should be treated as continuous for all purposes except seniority ontheir eventual absorption against regular posts after selection.

Raman Kumar, Assistant Personal Officer by affidavit has proved that the worker was apointed as casual labour and called for temporary appointment for the post of substitute khalasi vide letter dated 28-11-84 by the official concerned and selected as substitute khalasi on 28-11-84 and no screening of workman, Rakesh Kumar was done in the year 1984. It is also stated in the affidavit that the workmanwas found medically fit in class B/ I in year 1984 anddirected for posting of substitute khalasi in S& Tdeptt . and his name was placed at serial No. 5 of notice dated 28-11-84 . It has not been alleged that any person junior to him was shown in the list of substitute khalasi . The workman on the other hand has tried to mislead the Court wherein he has tried to say that vide letter dated 14-5-84, he was appointed as signal khalasi. His evidence is not trustworthy. The document has to be read as a whole. The contents are very much clear and by going through both the paperdated 14-5-84 and letter dated 18-11-84 it is notclearly made out that he was appointed as regular signal khalasi .

The workman himself has assisted that the screening was conducted in 1984. From the evidence it is proved that therewas no screening in 1984 as allleged by the workman. EvenAssistant Personal Officer, Mr. Raman Kumar Sharma hasstated in cross -examination that there was no screening test prior to 1984. However, he has admitted that due to crashprogramme for appointment of SC/ ST candidates from open market screening was conducted in 1988 and whosoever applied was considered and called for the screeningtest. The workman himself does not prove that he applied for appointment as khalasi in 1988 as internal candidate and he was not called for. Therefore, the evidence ofRaman Kumar Sharma, the Assistant Personal Officer cannot be disbelieved.

Regarding the screening test conducted in 1994 the Assistant Personal Officer of the railways has statedthat inthe screening of 1994 out side candidates were not there and only internal candidates were there and it is admitted by the workman that he underwent the screening test in 1994 and he was made regular.

So far as seniority is concerned the workman was specifically questioned as to what was his seniority in 1995 and he could not say and could not tell whether any seniority list was prepared or not. There was no coercion exercise on him for screening test as the workman has alleged.

231 Now the question is whether he was entitled to be called in for ESM's selection ?

According to the evidence available on record the workmanwas promoted as khalasi helper in year 1995 w.e.f. 24-11-95 against the short fall SC quota. Workman along with other 4 persons was called for helper khalasi test by the officer concerned on 20-10-95 and the workman was promoted to the post of helper khalasi from the post of signal khalasi against short fall SC/ ST quota on 24-11-95. According to the evidence of Assistant Personal Officer ofrailway the seniority list has been prepared for trade test and promotion of ESM Grade- III in which the name of workmanwas placed at serial No. 144 and will be called for the same accordingly.

In cross -examination Sh . Raman Kumar Sharma , Assistant Personal Officer has stated that there are three trades of skilled worker which are filled from amongst the khalasi helper, they are ESM, MSM and Miscellaneous and the worker has to exercise his option for above category. Thereafter, trade test is taken. He has also stated to the question by the Court that the Rakesh Kumar opted for the postofESMbut he was not that senior so as to be promoted onthe post of ESM . He has also stated that none of his juniors were promoted to the post of ESM.

The workman was asked in cross -examination whether any junior to him has been called for trade test ? He said his junior, Ram Kishor was called for the test butat the same time he stated that his screening test was conducted in 1989. It is noteworthy that screening test of Rakesh Kumar was conducted in 1994 and screening test ofRam Kishor was conducted in 1989. Ths shows that Ram Kumar wasjunior to the workman and at the same time Rakesh Kumar was called for the screening test later to the workman Ram Kishor . Therefore , workman's claim is not justified . Therefore , in the circumstances above and evidence on record I come to the conclusion that Rakesh Kumarwas regularized as S& T khalasi w.e.f. 4-10-94 andhe was promoted from khalasi to khalasi helper against short fall SC quota w.e.f. 24-11-95 which does not make out that any injustice hadbeendone to him. The workman therefore, cannotclaim seniority w.e.f. 1984. As is evident from the affidavit of Shri Raman Kumar Sharma, paper No. 11/3 , para 12 the worker, Rakesh Kumar was placed at serial No. 144 and it has also been stated that he will be called for accordingly to his seniority. It is also clear that none ofhis junior has been called in for trade test . Therefore, in calling Rakesh Kumar in ESM's panel is not illegal or unjustified.

No other arguments pressed.

Onthe discussions above , I come to the conclusion that the workman was not entitled to seniority w.e.f. 1984 as he was appointed as substitute khalasi in S& T deptt . andwasplacedat serial No. 5 of the notice dated 18- tt-84.

232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PARTII-SEC. 3(ii)]

Dhanbad, dated the 4th December, 2003

ORDER

The workman has not proved that any of his juniors have been called for making the panel for ESM's & therefore , he is not entitled to any relief. The issues are decided against theworkman.

LUCKNOW SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

12-12-20003

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

The Govt. of India, Ministry ofLabour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/248/ 2000 (C- I) , dated, the 29th September , 2000.

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 113.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 111/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the demand of the Union to regularise Sri Indrajeet Paswan and six others as per list enclosed with the order of reference as Time rated Trammer is proper, justified and legal . Ifso, to what relief are the workmen entitled and from what date ?"

[सं. एल. 20012/248/2000- आई.आर. ( सी. - 1 ]

एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2003

S.O. 113. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. - 111 / 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-2003 .

[No. L-20012/248/2000- IR(C- 1 ) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas , PresidingOfficer.

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

Reference No. 111 of2000

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers :Mr. D.K. Verma,

Advocate.

STATE : Jharkhand

INDUSTRY: Coal

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared. However, though the management side appeared but abstained from filing their Written statement. It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 1-10-2000 and since then it is pending for disposal. Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the workman but in spite of the issuance of notices they failed to turn up . In terms ofRule 10B ofthe I.D. Central Rules, 1957 submission ofW.S. by the concerned workman/union within 15 days is amandatory one. The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued/by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman /union. Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ union and the management to assist the Court to dispose ofthe reference in issue on merit. In view of the decision of theHon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass ' No dispute ' Award when both the parties remain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance for the workman and the management in spite of issuance of registered notices . As per I.D. Act the workman excepting under provision of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute . The disputes are mainly raised by the union for their workmen. These unions in spite of receiving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived ofgetting any justice untill and unless the attitude 233 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbehalf of the workman :

Onbehalfof the employers : None

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dhanbad, dated the 4th December 2003 of the union is changed , I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty of the Court todispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of both sides. Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workman/union but yielded no result. This attitude shows clearly that the workmanside is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal onmerit.

ORDER

Under the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose ofthe reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

B.BISWAS, Presiding Officer

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of thepowers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/578/ 98 - IR (C -I) , dated, the 17th May, 1999.

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर , 2003

SCHEDULE

"KyaShri Bajrang Lohar vidhai canteen key karmakar honey ke natey CMPDIL key sidhey karmakar maney janey chahiya ? Yadi han to is samvandh key kya dinank 15-6-98 sey thekey ki samapti par unki sevay kiyajana vidibat evam nayasangat hai yadi nahi to karamakar kis rahat key patra hai ? "

का. आ. 114.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.एम. पी.डी.आई.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 215/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 20012/578/98- आई.आर. ( सी. -1 ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2003

S.O. 114. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 215/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CMPDIL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-2003 .

[No. L-20012/578/98- IR(C- 1)] S.S. GUPTA, Under secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

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

Reference No. 215 of 1999

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of CMPDIL, Ranchi and their workman.

2. In this reference neither of the parties turned up before this Tribunal . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 10-6-99 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the workman/union aswell as the management but in spite of the issuance of notices they failed to turn up. In terms of Rule 10B ofthe I.D.Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concernedworkman/union within 15 days is a mandatory one. The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary togive any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . Innatural course the question which will arise is what will the fate ofthe reference made by the ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis ofdispute raisedby the concernedworkman/union . Naturally responsibility rests withthe concerned workman/union and the management to assist the Court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002(94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass 'No dispute' Award when both the parties remain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents. There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed ofon merit but when the partiesdo not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose ofthe reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the 234

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

expectations for appearance for the workman and the management in spate of issuance of registered notices . As per I.D. Act , the workman excepting under provision of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute. The disputes are mainly raised by the union for their workmen. These unions in spite of receiving notices did not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice untill and unless the attitude of the union is changed, 1 consider that this uncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but is depends on the cooperation of both sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workmen/ union but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the workmanside/union is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit .

Under the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit , the same is closed.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 115.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को . को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 149/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. 20012/50/2001 - आई.आर. ( सी.- 1) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 19th December, 2003

S.O. 115. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 149/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was reccived by the Central Government on 18-12-2003.

[No. L-20012/50/2001 - IR( C - 1 ) ]

S. S. GUPTA, Under secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer.

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii ) ] Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .

Reference No. 149 of 2001

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management ofM/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman

: Shri S.C. Gaur, Advocate

Onbehalf of the employers : Shri D.K. Verma, Advocate

STATE: Jharkhand

INDUSTRY: Coal Dhanbad, dated the 4th December 2003

ORDER

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/50/ 2001 - IR(C- 1), dated, the 30th April , 2001.

SCHEDULE

"Kya National Coal Workers Congress ko Bharat Koking Coal Bijua Kshetra key pravandtantra sey mang ki shri prasad bhar line mazdoor jo ki dinank 1991 sey line mistry ka krya kar rahey hai ko upaukt pad evam betan man me padastha kiya jaya nayasangat evam uchit hai ? Yadi ha to karmkar kis raahat key patra hai tatha kis tarikh sey ?"

2. In course of hearing of the instant reference the representative ofthe workman submitted his prayer to pass a ' No dispute' Award as the concerned workman involved in it is not interested to proceed with the case. Learned Advocate for the management raised no objection in view ofthe prayer made by the side of the workman. Heardboth sides . Since the concerned workman is not interested to proceed with the hearing of this case , there is no reasonto drag on the same. Under such circumstances, a ' No dispute' Award is rendered and the instant reference case is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non -existence of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer 235 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17 , 2004/ पौष 27, 1925

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

"Whether the action of the management of Joyrampur Colliery ofM/s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Mahendra Paswan, M/Loader from the services of the company w.e.f. 21-6-94 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

का. आ. 116.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -II, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 214/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. - 20012/602/97- आई. आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 19th December, 2003

S.O. 116. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 214/98) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-03.

[No. L-20012/602/97 - IR (C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer

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

REFERENCE No. 214 OF 1998

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Joyrampur Colliery ofM/s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None .

Onbehalfofthe employers : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dhanbad, dated the 4th December, 2003.

ORDER

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared . The management side, however , made their appearance through their learned Advocate, but failed to file their W.S. It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 22-12-98 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the workman/union but inspite of the issuance of notices they failed to turn up. In terms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman/union within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workmen not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis ofdispute raised by the concerned workmen/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ union to assist the Court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002 ( 94 ) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass ' No dispute ' Award when both the parties absent. There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents. There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed ofon merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will pursue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance of the workmen inspite of issuance ofregistered notices . As per I.D. Act, the workmen exceptingunderprovisions of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial disputes . The disputes are mainly raisedby the Union for their workmen . These unions inspite ofreceiving notices did not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workmen and as a result they have been deprived ofgetting anyjustice. Untill and unless the attitude of the union is changed, I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist . Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation ofboth sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workman/union but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the workmanside is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.

TheGovt. of India, Ministry ofLabour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 )( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/602/ 97 - IR (Coal- 1 ), dated the 30th November, 1998.

236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

Dhanbad, Dated the 4th December, 2003.

ORDER

Under the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

TheGovt. of India, Ministry ofLabour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/254/ 2001 (C-5) , dated the 18th September, 2001 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of BCCL , Block II area in non regularisation of Shri Shivji Singh as loading clerks is legal , proper and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ?"

का. आ. 117.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 256/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केंन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल.- 20012/254/2001- आई . आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2003

S.O. 117. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 256/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-03 .

[No. L - 20012/254 /2001 - IR (C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

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

REFERENCE No. 256 OF 2001

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workinan : None .

On behalf of the employers: None.

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared, and no written statement was filed on their behalf. Management also did not turn up in this case . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 2-11-2001 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the workman as well as the management but inspite ofthe issuance ofnotices they failed to turn up. In terms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of written statement by the concerned within 15 days is a mandatory one. The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal. In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman /union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ union and the management to assist the Court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit . In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 itwill not be just and proper to pass ' No dispute' Award when both the parties remain absent. There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents. There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will pursue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance of the workman and the management inspite of issuance of registered notices . As per I.D. Act, the workman excepting under provision of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute. The disputes are mainly raised by the union for their workmen . These unions inspite of receiving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived ofgetting any justice . Until and unless the attitude [ भाग II संह 3 ( ii ) ]

237

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

ofthe wion is changed I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist . Definitely it is the duty of the Court todispose of the reference on merit bat it depends on the cooperation of both sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workman/union but yielded no result. This attitude shows clearly that the workmanside is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.

Under the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period.Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit , the same is closed.

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 118.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्कोके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकारको 18-12-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 20012/ 289/91-आई. आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 19th December, 2003 S.O. 118. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 131/96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tisco and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-12-03 .

[No. L-20012/289/91 - IR (C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer

Inthematter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947.

REFERENCENO. 131 OF 1996

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Jamadoba Colliery ofM/s. Tisco. Ltd. and their workman .

33G1/04-6

APPREARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : Shri B. N. Singh, Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers : Shri D. K. Vernas, Advocate State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dhanbad, dated the 4th December, 2003 .

AWARD

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )( d) of the ID. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/289/ 91 -IR (Coal -I ), dated, the 6th November , 1996.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand by the Union for employment of Shri Umesh Kumar Singh, the Grand son as dependant of Late Ram Prit Singh is legal and justified.? If so, to what reliefis Umesh Kumar Singh entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on hisbehalf in brief is as follows :-

Ithas been submitted by the sponsoring Union that Ram Prit Singh was an employee of M/ s . Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. since 21-5-1946 and retired from his service on21-2-78 illegally being declared medically unfit due to loss of vision of both sides. They submitted that one of the condition of service of the company was to give employment to the dependant of the person superannuated/ ordeclaredmedically unfitetc. The said workman submitted that management assured him to provide employment to his son Ram Naresh Singh, an Advocate if and when a suitable post comes into existence and is duly advertised or notified . They submitted that in the year 1978 management notified the post of Assistant Law Officer and in responseto that notification said Ram Naresh Misra, Advocate applied for the post in pursuance to the management's letter No. JMB/473 / 10705 dt . 16/23-9-76 . They alleged that in spite of submitting application management did not issue any letter of interview to him. They submitted that as the management came out of their assurance to provide employment to Ram Naresh Singh in suitable post according to his qualification an Industrial disputewas raised for non employment of Sri Ram Naresh Singh Sto. Ram Prit Singh and Muneswar Singh , son - in- law who was husband of Bimala Devi, adopted daughter ofRam Prit Singh . The said dispute was fflegally declared as unfit by the management on wrong and false representation offacts by the Central Govt . They submitted that the Central Govt . had no jurisidiction to declare the Industrial unfit for reference .

238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

They submitted that Ram Prit Singh had also two grand sons viz . Umesh Kumar Singh and Yogesh Kumar Singh but as they were minors their claim at that time could not be placed. In the year 1990 said Umesh Kumar Singh attained his majority and raised an Industrial dispute which also was declared unfit by the management and for which the sponsoring Union filed a Writ Petition bearing No. CWJC No. 3338 of 1995 (R) at Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. Hon'ble Court in disposing ofthe Writ Petition passed order dt . 16-8-96 declaring the action of the Central Govt. refusing to make reference of the Industrial Dispute as without jurisdiction and directed the Central Govt . to make the present reference. Accordingly, Ministry has referred the Industrial dispute before this Tribunal for adjudication.

The concerned workman accordingly submitted his prayer for passing award directing the management to provide employment to Umesh Kumar Singh grand son of RamPritSingh.

2. Management on the contrary after filing written statement--cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman . They submitted that Ram Prit Singh joined his service under the management . On 21-5-46 and superannuated from his service on 21-2-78 after completion of60 years of age as his date of birth was 21-2-1918. They submitted that the management follows a procedure for providing employment to dependents of employees to fill up vacant posts and in that connection each and every permanent employee of the company after completion of 15 years of service is given option to get two of his dependents enrolled in the dependents employees register as first and second choice. Whenever vacancy arises on any post of unskilled or piece rated worker, the dependents are selected for their employment according to the seniority of the employees in the service of the company. An employee is also eligible to give option to get his grand son enrolled as his dependant in case his son is invalid, and or is medically unfit for his employment . They submitted that Ram Naresh Singh S/o Ram Prit Singh is a practicing Advocate in Civil Court at Dhanbad. Said Ram Naresh Singh was not dependent on his father and moreover he did not like to be appointed as a piece rated worker like minor/loader or as unskilled worker like general mazdoor in acoal mine . Accordingly , said Ram Prit Singh did not get his son's name enrollcu as his dependent for his future employment against future vacancy. He also did not get any other person enrolled as his dependent as no one was dependant on his earnings at the time when he was to get his dependent enrolled in the employees dependent register . They submitted that long after his superannuation said Ram Prit Singh approached the management for employment ofMuneshwar Singh claiming that he was his son - in - law as he adopted his wife as his daughter . They

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] alleged that Ramprit never declared Muneswar Singh as his dependent son- in -law during the entire period of his service and also did not get his name enrolled as his dependant son - in -law. They disclosed that as per his declaration he had no daughter and he was having one issue i.e. his son Ram Naresh Singh. They submitted that the present attempt made by the sponsoring Union for getting the grand son of late Ramprit Singh to be employed ashis dependent grand son is absurd as because Umesh Kumar is the dependant of his father Ramnaresh Singh who is an Advocate and was never the dependent of Ramprit. Accordingıy, they submitted that the sponsoring Unionhas no ground tojustify the demand for employment ofUmesh Kumar Singh and for which the claim is liableto berejected.

3. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the demand by the Union for employment of Shri Umesh Kumar Singh , the Grand son as dependent of Late Ram Prit Singh is legal and justified ? if so , what relief is Umesh Kumar Singh entitled ?"

4. FINDING WITH REASONS

It transpires from the record that the concerned workman in order to substantiate his claim has examined one witness as WW- 1 . Management on the contrary also examined one witness as MW - 1 in support oftheir claim. Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings ofboth sides and also considering evidence on record I find no dispute to hold that Ramprit Singh who was the grand fatherofthe concerned workman joined his service under themanagement on 21-5-1946 and thereafter superannuated from his service with effect from 21-2-78 on attaining his age of sixty years as his date of birth was 21-2-1918 . The concerned workman in his pleading however, made an allegation that said Ramprit Singh was illegally superannuated from his service by the management on being declared medically unfit . As this fact has not been substantiated on the part of the workman in course of final hearing of this case I find no scope to take cognizance of the same. Here the point for consideration is whether the concernedworkman being grand son of Ramprit Singh is entitled to get employment under the management or not asper the policy maintained there. The concerned workman Umesh Kumar Singh is the son of Ram Naresh Singh who happened to be the son of said Ramprit Singh. It is the contention on the part of the concerned workman that as per policy of the management one dependent of the workman is entitled to get employment on superannuation of the said workman or if the said workman declares medically unfit to work. It has been submitted on the part of the workman that management assured said Ramprit Singh to provide employment of his son Naresh Kumar Singh who is an Advocate by profession if any suitable postcomes into existence and is duly advertised or notified 239

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/ चौव 27, 1925

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

(d) Son- in - law. This decision is applicable to the employees who were on roll on 27-10-76 and thereafter.

(e) Grand son (Son's son or dauthter's son) provided the employees son is infirm or he has no surviving son. This decision is applicable to the employees whowere on roll on 22-9-1977 and thereafter).

onthe Notice Board. It has been further submitted that the post of assistant land officer was notified and said Ram Naresh Singh submitted his application for the said post but themanagement neither called him in the interview nor kept the assurance which they gave to Ramprit for employment of his son in the law department ifany suitable vacancy arose. Accordingly, an industrial dispute was raised for non- employment of Ram Naresh Singh and of Muneshwar Singh who happened to be the husband of the adopted daughter ofRamprit Singh for conciliation . It reveals that in spite of failure of the conciliation proceeding the workmanside did not move further like that of the case ofUmesh Kumar Singh . The management not only in their pleading but also in course of evidence explained categorically why the case of Naresh Kumar Singh and Muneshwar Singh could not be considered for employment. They in course of their employment also relied ontheir replygiven to Ramprit Singh marked as Ext. W/ 1 . However, as the employment of Ramnaresh Singh and Muneshwar Kumar Singh are not the subject matter of reference in question I do not find sufficient scope to reopen the said issue here. It is admitted fact that Umesh Kumar Singh is the son of Ramesh Kumar Singh i.e. the grand son ofRamprit Singh. It is the claim of the sponsoring Union that said Umesh Kumar Singh was dependent of Ramprit Singh and for which he is very much entitled to claim employment as per policy ofthe management.

Management on the contrary categorically denying the claim of the sponsoring Union submitted that said Umesh Kumar Singh was the dependent of his father Ramnaresh Singh who by profession is an Advocate since 1974 and was never the dependent of his grand father Ramprit Singh. They submitted that as per the procedure of employment an employee can sponsor the case of his grand son for his employment in the capacity of his dependent of his son is invalid or dead or is medicallyunfit for employment. In support of that claim management in course of evidence relied on the standing procedures maintained by them for enrolment/employment of the dependent of the employee of the company. Ext. M-2 clause 1 of the said procedure speaks as follows :-

"Definition of dependent.

The following are considered as dependant of an employee for the purpose of employment :---

(a) Son (b) Brother

Management submitted that Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh is the only recognised Union who is entrusted to looking after the interest of the workman- attached to their organisation. They submitted that the saidUnionby letter dt. 7-2-81 clearly expressed their consent to follow the procedure for employment of dependant son of any worker as per the adopted policy. The said letter during evidence of MW - I was marked as Ext. M-3 . Para 4 of the said letter speaks as follows . " In pursuance ofthe above offer, a meeting of the Secretaries of all the Branches inTisco colliery was held and it was unianimously agreed that the existing employment rules were more favourable and should continue to be enforced. " During cross examination WW-1 categorically admitted that the sponsoring Union i.e. Coalfield Labour Union who has raised this dispute is not a recognised Union of Tisco. He has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show if Ramprit Singh was the member ofthe said Union . However, headmitted categorically that neither he himself nor his son- in - law remembers are of the said Union. There is no strict rule that the unrecognised union is debarred from raising any dispute on behalf of any aggrieved workman. But before doing so it is to be looked into that the recognised Union as refused to raise any dispute he hadto take the help of unrecognised Union in this regard. Therefore, onus is on the workman to establish that Umesh Kumar Singh has entrusted the sponsoring Union to raise the dispute in question . Umesh Kumar Singh neither deposed before this Tribunal nor submitted any paper to show that he entrusted the sponsoring Union to raise the dispute. It is seen from the record that father of Umesh although appeared and also deposed before this Tribunal to substanțiate the claim of his son being a practising Advocate. During cross -examination WW- 1 i.e. Ram Naresh Singh admitted that his father did not record the name of his son Umesh Kumar in the dependent's register as per prevailing procedure of the company. In his cross- examination he admitted that in the year 1972 he joined in legal profession and since that year he is in this profession ceaselesly. He also has been appointed as Notary Public by the Govt . of Bihar. He submitted that initially Umesh Kumar though dependant on his grand father subsequently he was dependant on him . The very submission of Ram Naresh Singh i.e. WW- 1 it speaks clearly that since 1972 he is independently engaged in his legal profession while his father was very much in the service. Therefore, in no circumstances there is scope to say that said Ramnaresh was dependent orrhis father's income. This witness further (c) Adopted son where an employee has no son. The procedure for adopted has been laid down in Circular No. JMB/5/008473 dated 11-7-1979:Adoption isnot accepted in respect ofMuslim employee since there is no adoption provided under Mohammadan law. The dead of adoption as indicated in the circular mentioned above , should be as per Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 .

240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004 /PAUSA 27 , 1925

admitted categorically that initially though his son Umesh Kumar was dependent on his grand father subsequently he became dependent on him. It is clear that Ramprit Singh neither recorded the name of Umesh Kumar in the dependant's register nor he was dependant to him. Accordingto the procedure for employment adoptedby the management a grand son's claim for employment only willbe considered provided employee's son is infirm or he has no surviving son . No evidence is forthcoming before this Tribunal that Ramnaresh Singh son of Ramprit Singh is infirm. No evidence is forthcoming that being an infirm person Ramnaresh is carrying on his legal profession ceaselessly since 1972. As the procedure framed by the management for enrolment/employment of the dependants of the employees has been accepted by the workmen/Union ofthe company there is no scope to ignore the same if it is not established that they have ignored the claim of any workman deviating from the same.

Accordingly, onus absolutely shifts on the sponsoring Union to establish that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principles of natural justice refused to give employment of Umesh Kumar being his dependant grand son of Ramprit Singh .

I have carefully considered all materials on record and I find no dispute to hold that the sponsoring Union lamentably failed to establish the claim in question . I have failed to find out any material evidence relying on which there is scope to say that management have exposed their discrimination in refusing the claim for employment of Umesh Kumar . Therefore , the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief in view of his prayer.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] New Delhi, the 19th December, 2003 S.O. 119. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 113/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial TribunalLabour Court II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-12-03.

[No. L-20012/506/2000- IR (C- 1 )] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer

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

REFERENCE No. 113 OF 2001-

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman.

APPREARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None .

Onbehalfof the employers : None.

State: Jharkhand

In the result, the following Award is rendered:---

"The demand by the Union for employment of Shri Umesh Kumar Singh , the grand son , as dependant of Late Ram Prit Singh is not legal and justified . Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 119.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- 11, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 113/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल.- 20012/506/2000- आई. आर. ( सी.- 1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

Industry: Coal.

Dhanbad, dated the 4th December , 2003 .

ORDER

TheGovt. of India, Ministry ofLabour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012/ 506/2000 (C- I) , dated, the 29th March, 2001 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofM/s . BCCL innot providing employment to the dependant son Sri SureshHarijan ofthe workman Sri DurjarHarijan, Ex-Loader of Ghanoodih colliery is justified, legal and proper ? Ifnot, to what relief is the said dependant ofthe workman entitled ?"

2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared, and filed Written Statement . Management side though appeared on one occasion subsequently neither appeared nor filed their written 241 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17 , 2004/पौष 27, 1925

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निमोऔर्यों के बीच अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विभा में केर औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , धमवाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 252/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-03 मे हुआ था।

[सं. एल.- 20012/95/98 - आई. आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 19th Deconsbor, 2003

S.O. 120. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 252/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-12-03 .

[No. L-20012/95/98 -IR(C- 1 )] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

ShriB.Biswas, PresidingOfficer

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

REFERENCE No. 252 OF 1999

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur Area of M/ s . B.C.C: L . and their workman

APPEARANCES:

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None.

Onbehalfof the employers : None .

Industry: Coal.

State: Jharkhand

Dhanbad, dated the 4th December , 2003 .

ORDER

statement. It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 23-4-2001 and since then it is pending for disposal. Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the workman but in spite of the issuance of notices they failed to turn up. In terms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of written statement by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one. The concerned workman not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal. The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workman/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concernedworkman/union and the management to assist the Court todispose of the reference in issue on merit. In view ofthe decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2002(94) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass 'No dispute' Awardwhen both the parties remain absent. There isalso no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence ofany written statement and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end . It is not expected that for years together the Court will pursue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance for the workmen and the management in spite of issuance of registered notices. As per I.D. Act the workman excepting under provision of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute . The disputes are mainly raised by the union for their workmen. These unions in spite of receiving notices do not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived ofgetting any justice . Untill and unless the attitude of the union is changed I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist . Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of both sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workman/union but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the workmanside is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.

TheGovt ofIndia , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/95/ 98(C-I) , dated the 4th June, 1999.

SCHEDULE

B.BISWAS, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

"KyaB.C.C.L. Govindpur kshetra ke pravandhtantra dwara Srimati Chholna Kantin key unkey avedan key dinak 19-6-95 ke adhar par, pravandhantantra key paripatra dinak 12-4-95 key antargata swecha seva nivriti yojana ka lav na diya jana tatha unkey ashrrita का. आ. 120.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि.

242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर, 2003

putra ko niyukti na dena uchit evam nayasangat hai? Yadi nahi tokarmkar evam unkey ashrit kis rahat ke patra hai?"

का. आ. 121.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मक्रारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण - II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 20012/220/2002- आई. आरं. ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2003

S.O. 121. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-12-03.

[No. L-20012/220/2002- IR (C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, PresidingOfficer

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

REFERENCE No. 14/2003

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of North Tisra Colliery of M/s . B.C.C.L. and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : None .

Onbehalf of the employers : D.K. Verma , Advocate State: Jharkhand Industry: Coal .

2. In this reference neither of the parties turned up before this Tribunal . It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 14-6-2002 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the workman/union as well as the management but in spite ofthe issuance of notices they failed to turn up. Interms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules, 1957 submission of written statement by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one . The concerned workmen not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to thethe notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be the fate of the reference made by the Ministry for its disposal . The reference is made on the basis of dispute raised by the concerned workmen/union . Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workman/ union and the management to assist the Court todispose of the reference in issue on merit. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Count reported in 2002 (94 ) FLR 624 it will not be just and proper to pass 'No dispute' Award when both the parties remain absent . There is also no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any written statement and available docunnents. There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected to be disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will pursue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance for the workmen and the management in spite of issuance of registered notices. As per I.D. Act the workmen excepting under provision of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial dispute . The disputes are mainly raised by the union for their workmen . These unions in spite of receiving notices did not care to appear before the Court for the interest of the workiman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice. Untill and unless the attitude of the union is changed , I consider thatthis uncalled for situation will persist . Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation of both sides . Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workman/union but yielded no result . This attitude shows clearly that the workinanside is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.

Dhanbad, dated the 4th December , 2003. AWARD

Under the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit, the same is closed.

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer

The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 220/2002 - I.R . (C -I) , dated, the 24th January, 2003.

243 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/ पौष 27, 1925

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

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

Reference No. 150 of2001

PARTIES:

"KyaBharat Coking Coal Ltd. North Tisra Colliery keypravandhtantra dwara Shri Hardhan Modak Fitter ki seva dinak 13-6-2002 sey samapta kiya jana vidhibat, nayasangat ? evam uchit hai ? Yadi nahi to karmakar kis rahat key patra Hai ?

Employers in relation to the management of M/ s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalfof the workman : None.

Onbehalfof the employers : Shri H. Nath , Advocate .

INDUSTRY: Coal

STATE: Jharkhand

Dhanbad, dated the 4th December, 2003

AWARD

2. In this case neither the concerned workman nor hisrepresentative appeared. However, the management side appeared through their learned Advocate . The representative ofthe management by filing an office order submitted that the concerned workman involved in the dispute has already been reinstated to his original job and now no more dispute is existing between the workman and the management. Perused the office order and also heard the representative of the management. Since the dispute in question has already been resolved, there remains no more dispute to be adjudicated. Under the circumstances , a ' No dispute' Award is rendered and the instant reference is disposed of on the basis of ' No dispute ' Award presuming non-existence ofany industrial dispute between the parties.

TheGovt. of India, Ministry ofLabour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/ 114/ 2001-C- 1 , dated the 30th April, 2001 .

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर , 2003

का. आ . 122.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को ० को० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 150/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the demand of the Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh for regularisation of S/Shri Arjun Bhuia, Tejnarain Mahato , Damodar Mahato , Jayram Mahato, Manoranjan Mahato and Md. Sariq as time ratedworkmen with consequential benefit in Mudidih Colliery of M/ s . BCCL is just and proper. If so, to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled and from what date ?

[सं. एल. 20012/114/2001 - आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 19th December, 2003

S.O. 122. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 150/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court II, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-12-2003 .

[No. L-20012/114/2001 - IR(C- 1 )]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

2. In this reference neither the concerned workman nor his representative appeared . The management side though appeared through their learned Advocate but did not file their W.S. It is seen from the record that the instant reference was received by this Tribunal on 1-6-2001 and since then it is pending for disposal . Registered notices and show cause notices were issued to the workman/union but inspite of the issuance of notices they failed to turn up. In terms of Rule 10B of the I.D. Central Rules , 1957 submission of W.S. by the concerned workman within 15 days is a mandatory one. The concerned workmen not only violated the said provision of the Rules but also did not consider necessary to give any response to the notices issued by this Tribunal . In natural course the question which will arise is what will be fate ofthe reference made by theMinistry for its disposal. The reference is made on the basisofdispute raised by the concerned workmen/union. Naturally responsibility rests with the concerned workmen/ union to assist the Court to dispose of the reference in issue on merit. In view of the decision reported in 2002( 94) FLR624 it will not be just and proper to pass a ' No dispute' Award whenboth the parties remain absent . There is also ShriB. Biswas, Presiding Officer.

244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

no scope to answer the reference on merit in absence of any W.S. and available documents . There is no dispute to hold that when any reference is made it is expected tobe disposed of on merit but when the parties do not take any step or do not consider even to file W.S. such expectation to dispose of the reference on merit comes to an end. It is not expected that for years together the Court will persue the matter suo moto with the expectations for appearance ofthe workmen inspite of issuance of registered notices . As per 1.D. Act, the workmen excepting under provisions of Section 2A is debarred from raising any industrial disputes . The disputes are mainly raised by the Union for their workmen. These unions inspite of receiving notices did not care toappear before the Court for the interest of the workman and as a result they have been deprived of getting any justice. Until and unless the attitude of the union is changed, I consider that this uncalled for situation will persist. Definitely it is the duty of the Court to dispose ofthe reference on merit but it depends on the cooperation ofboth sides. Here the record will clearly expose that sufficient opportunities had been given to the workmen/ union but yielded no result. This attitude shows clearly that the workmanside is not interested to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal on merit.

Under the facts and circumstances , I also do not find any sufficient reason to drag on the case for an indefinite period. Accordingly as there is no scope to dispose of the reference in question on merit the same is closed.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 123.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 40011/3/ 2003- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2003

S.O. 123. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt . and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-12-2003 .

[No. L-40011/3/2003 -IR(DU)]

KULDIPRAI VERMA, Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR- COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT:

Shrikant Shukla, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 63/2003

ReferenceNo. L-40011/3/2003- IR (DU) dated29-5-2003

BETWEEN

The Org. Secretary, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh , 96/196, Old Ganesh Ganj , Lucknow

AND

The Assistant General Manager ( Administration ) BSNL, Deptt. ofTelecom Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow.

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L-40011/3/2003 - IR (DU) dated 29-5-2003 has referred following issue for adjudication to this Tribunal .

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager, BSNL in not granting temporary status to Sh . Jamsher S/o Sh. Munna w.e.f. 1st March, 1992 and not regularising his services is just and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" The reference order is dated 29-5-2003, which received on 26-6-2003 in CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow. The copy of the reference of was issued to Organising Secretary, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Lucknow and also to theAssistant General Manager (Administration) , BSNL, Deptt . of Telecom , Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow. The Organising Secretary was asked to file statement of claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses within 15 days but the Organising Secretary or the workman did not file statement of claim . Therefore, notice was issued on 23-7-2003 and to the Organising Secretary and the same was served on 24-7-2003 at 2.30 P.M. but the Organising Secretary did not file the statement ofclaim. The notices were issued to the Assistant General Manager (Administration) , BSNL , Deptt . of Telecom, Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow on 2-9-2003 and 6-10-2003 . The Assistant General Manager ( Administration) , BSNL , Laicknow has also not filed any written statenient .

Since the Organising Secretary of the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Lucknow has failed to file statemeait of claim and the opposite party has also not filed written statement therefore, the issue referred to CGFF- cum -Labour Court , Lucknow cannot be answered .

Lucknow, 15-12-2003

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ⅱ ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

245 नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर, 2003

has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:-

"Whether the termination of services of Shri Om Prakash Singore S/o Shri Gordhanlal , from 9-9-1999 by the management of Syndicate Bank through Branch Manager, Kota as part time sweeper is legal and justified ? If yes , to what relief the disputant is entitled and from which date ?"

का. आ. 124.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 12012/182/2000- आई . आर. ( बी. II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 23rd December, 2003

S.O. 124. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23-12-2003 .

The workman Shri Om Prakash Singore has claimed that he was employed by the non- applicant management asAttender/ Sweeper on 1-9-1994 , who continuously worked upto 9-9-1999 and has thus completed more than 240days in each calendar year. At para 3 of the statement ofclaim he has exhibited a table year - wise as showing the working days per year. But as per his pleadings he was declined to join his duties on 10-9-1999 and has alleged thatneither a legal notice was served upon him nor he was paid the retrenchment compensation . The juniors to him were retained by the management while retrenching him. He has further averred that the management has violated the provisions under Section 25 -F, 25 -N and 25 -G of the Act and has prayed for his reinstatement into services with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

[No. L- 12012/182/2000- IR(B- II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR-COURT, JAJPUR

Case No. CGIT- 25/2001

Reference No. L- 12012/ 182/ 2000- IR(B- II) dated28-3-2001

Shri Om Prakash Singore

R/o. 124/D.I.L. Colony, S/ o . Shri Gordhan Lal , Jhalawar Road, Kota

...Applicant

Versus

SyndicateBank,

TheManager, SB , Subjumandi Branch , 68, OldDhanmandi , Sarovar Cinema Rd. , Kota.

...Non-applicant

Antagonizing the claim made by the workman, the non-applicant in his written statement has pleaded inter alia that Udaylal Salvi and Shri Murari Lal were working as regular attender and regular part -time sweeper respectively. Shri Murari Lal was entrusted the duties ofattender during the leave absence of Shri Udaylal and in such contingency thejob ofpart-time sweeper was entrusted to the workman for specific period of which he was paid the wages . His services were availed on casual basis for sweeping and wet mopping ofthe said branch and the fixed charges were paid to the workman for the work done by him. The non- applicant has further pleaded that there was no relationship ofemployer and employee between the applicant and the non -applicant bank and the workman was engaged purely on contract basis . It is also alleged that the applicant is not aworkman as envisaged under Section 2(S) of the Act and the provisions of Section 2 (oo ) ( bb ) of the Act are specifically applicable to the present controversy. The management has denied that it had allowed the employment ofjuniors after the termination of the applicant.

PRESENT:

: Shri R. C. Sharma

Presiding Officer

: Mahesh Sharma

Forthe applicant

Inthe rejoinder, the applicant workman had denied that he was employed on contractual basis by the management and has reiterated the facts as stated in his statement of claim .

For the non - applicants :

Shri Anurag Agrawal

Date of award

: 05-11-2003

Onpleadings , the following points for determination were framed:-

AWARD

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (D) of Sub -section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( for short ' The Act ' )

(1) आया प्रार्थी को विपक्षी संस्थान में उदयलाल साल्वीनियमित कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर जाने के कारण एक निश्चित अवधिके लिए नियोजित किया गया था, यदि हां, तो इसका प्रभाव ?

33 G1/04-7 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

discharged the work perennial to the work performed by the regular employees and he was paid the salarly.

( 2 ) आया प्रार्थी औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 में 'कर्मकार ' को दी गई परिभाषा में नहीं आता ?

(3 ) आया विपक्षी के द्वारा प्रार्थी की सेवा औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 की धारा 25 एफ, जी, 25 -एन के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन की गई है ?

(4 ) प्रार्थी किस सहायता को प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?

As against it, the stand adopted by the non - applicant isthat vide letter Ex -M - 1 the workman was appointed as Badli sweeper for a specific period on the contract basis and after expiry of the term of contract his service came to an end automatically and it does not amount to the retrenchment.

Now the question for consideration is as to whether the termination of the service of workman tantamounts to retrenchment or it fans within the scope and ambit under section 2 (00 ) (bb) oftheAct .

In the evidence the workman has filed his affidavit, who was cross -examined on behalf of the non - applicant . The counter affidavit of Shri Bhagchand, Clerk of the non- applicant management , has been submitted who was cross- examined by the workman.

The workman has brought on record i 1 documents , whereas the non - applicant has placed one document on the record.

I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record.

Points No. 1 & 3 :

Since the facts and questions of law involved in both these points are identical , these are discussed together hereunder.

The Id. representative for the workman contents that the applicant workman had worked with the non -applicant management from 1-9-1994 to 9-9-1999 as Sweeper/ attender and this fact has not been disputed by the non -applicant . He further submits that the nature of the duties performed by him are similar to that of a regular worker and it has been pleaded specifically in the replica at para I on behalf ofthe workman, which also could not be disputed on behalf of the non - applicant. The workman, the Id. representative submits , has submitted in support of his case the pay sheets Ex. W - 1 to W - 11 ranging from the period September, 1994 to September, 1999 .

Responding to the submissions made on behalf of the workman , the ld . representative for the non - applicant urges that it is not admitted that the workman had worked for 240 days in a year but he had worked as a substitute in place ofMurarilal , attendant . The Id. representative further submits that the pay sheets show that workman was employed as Badli sweeper and the wages to him was paid in such capacity,. This fact , as per his submission , is further corroborated by the appointment letter exhibited M- 1 whereby he was appointed as Badli sweeper . The 1d. representative in support of his contentions has relied on (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 25 and AIR 1997 SC 3657.

Onbehalf of the workman it has been sought to establish that he had worked from 1-9-1994 to 9-9-1999 with the management and had thus worked for more than 240 days in each year. In support of his contention the workman has placed on record the pay sheets exhibited W- 1 to W -8 and salary details Ex- W - 9 to W - 11 . The Pay sheets indicate the number of working days in the particular months and the rate of the wages paid to him viz . Ex- W - I pay sheet shows that the workman had worked for full month in September , 1994 and thereafter vide Ex- W-2 he worked in the month of November, 1994 for 30 days and then in the month of January, 1995 vide Ex- W - 3 he worked for 27 days . Thus , pay sheets Ex- W - 1 to W - 5 although exhibit that the workman was employed with the non- applicant management, yet they do not lead to a conclusion that he had worked continuously with the management . They only suggest that he was working with breaks with the non-applicant management. But , the pay sheets Ex . W- 6 to W -9 disclose that he was continuously in employment ofthe non -applicant management from Decemberr, 1995 to March, 1997. In addition to it, Ex -W - 9 to W- 11 , which are the details of the salaries paid to the workman in lieu of the work done by him, clearly indicate that he was continuously working with the non -applicant management from April , 1997 to October, 1999. Ex. W- 9 to W- 11 contain the details of the salary paid to the workman , namely , the basic pay, the DA, the HRA and the CCA which were drawn by the workman. It is alleged that with effect from 10-9-1999 the workman was disengaged by the management . Thus , in the preceding year to the termination of the workman , i.e. in the year of 1998 the workman had worked from January to December continuously with the non- applicant management and had drawn his salary of the each month thereform . Thus , on the basis ofthese salary details he had completed for more than 240 days in the preceding year to his termination . This ground set up by the workman is, therefore , established on the basis of the documentary evidence.

I have reflected over the rival contentions and have scanned the record .

To rebut the claim of the workman the non - applicant has placed on record the appointment letter Ex - M - 1 dt. 25-10-1995 whereby he was appointed as a Badli The workman's case is that he was employed as attender by the non - applicant management and he [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

247

order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone , the award is liable to be set aside ."

Obviously, the facts ofthis case are not applicable in the instant case since the workman has filed the documentary evidence in support of his submission that hehad worked for more than 240 days .

In AIR 97 SC 3657 the observation made by the Hon'ble Court are quoted as below:-

sweeper. But this appointment letter speaks of the period of his contractual employment commencing from 25-10-1995 to 18-11-1995, firstly this perioddoes not pertain to the period in question and, secondly it could not be prayed by the management that this letter was received by the workman. Therefore , in my considered opinion, the non-applicant management could not be able to establish its case on the basis of this document that the workman was employed on contractual basis for a specific period and that after expiry ofthe contractual term his engagement came to an automatic end .

"Admittedly, they were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but were engaged on the basis of need of the work. They are temporary employees working on daily wages . Under these circumstances , their disengagement from service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act . The concept of "retrenchment" , therefore , cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees." Now I advert to the oral evidence adduced by both the parties in this regard . The workman in his cross- examination has categorically deposed that the non- applicant bank had employed him verbally, it was Shri Anil Dandia who gave him the employment and he was drawing the salary of the full month. He has further disclosed that heperformed his duties in the whole ofthe month and was declinedtojoin the duty by the management verbally. Thus, his testimony is definite and positive and fortified by the documentary evidence led by him .

In the case in hand, the workman has produced the documents that he had performed the work over 240 days with management in the preceding year to his termination and the non-applicant management could not be able to establish that it was a contractual employment only. In these circumstances , the facts of the referred case are distinct from the facts of the case in hand. Hence , the ld. representative does not find any assistance from the judicial verdicts supra.

Onbehalf of the non-applicant the affidavit of MW- 1 Shri Bhagchand has been filed, who has stated in his cross-examination that the workman was employed as parttime sweeper, who is termed as badli sweeper , and who worked as a substitute to Murarilal , Attender. Although he has denied that the workman had never worked over 240 days in a year during 1998 to 1999 , yet the management could not be able to rebut the documentary evidence led on behalf of the workman . Thus , the testimony of Shri Bhagchand is feeble and is not supported by the cogent evidence which becomes untrustworthy.

The ld . representative for the non-applicant in support ofhis contention has placed his reliance on 2002(3 ) SC Cases 25 and AIR 97 SC 3657.

On the basis of aforesaid facts , it is concluded that the workman had completed over 240 days with the management in the preceding year to his termination and his termination by the management amounts to retrenchment and it was violation of the provision under Section 25-F of the Act . Thus, both these points are clinched in favour of the workman and against the non- applicant management.

Point No. 2:

In 2002(3 ) SC Cases 25 the workman could not be able to bring on record any documentary evidence to establish his claim that he had worked for more than 240 days. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:-

The Id. representative for the management has argued that since it was a case of contractual employment, the applicant is not covered by the definition of the workman as defined under Section 2( S) of the Act . The ld . representative for the workman has sought to controvert this submission and has drawn my attention towards 2003 Lab. ICRaj .528.

In 2003 Lab IC Raj . 528 the Hon'ble Court has held as below:-

"Inour opinion the Tribunal was not right inplacing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that aworkman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in ayear. No proofof receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or

"Since in the present case, the respondents No. 2 to 5were engaged for performing the duties on part time basis, therefore , from every point of view, they should be termed as workman as defined in clause ( s) of Section 2 of the Act of 1947. " 248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

Inthe light of the referred decision and the conclusion drawn at points No. 1 & 3 , the applicant can safely be construed as the workman as defined under Section 2 ( S) ofthe Act. This point , therefore , is decided against the management and in favour of the workman.

Point No. 4 :

On the basis of the aforesaid discussions the claim filed by the workman deserves to be allowed and he is entitled to be reinstated into the service . It appears from the cross-exarnination of the workman that he has no source of livelihood except depending upon the pension of his diseased father which is being drawn by his mother. Under these circumstances, it would be justified to grant him the 50% back wages .

Consequentially, this reference is answered in the affirmative in favour of the workman and it is held the termination of service of the workman w.e.f. 9-9-1999 by the non - applicant management is not legal and justified. He is entitled to be reinstated into the service with 50% back wages and continuity of the service .

Let a copy ofthe award be sent to Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of theAct .

R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 125.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 23/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । सं. एल . 12012/111/97- आई . आर. ( बी. I ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th December , 2003

S.O. 125.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. 23/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Chandigarh 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 received by the Central Government on` 24-12-2003.

[No. L- 12012/ 111 /97- IR(B - I) ]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri S.M. Goel

Case No. ID 23/98

Hans Raj C/o The Asstt . Gen. Secretary,

SBI Staff Congress , Near Panchi Tent House, Prem Nagar, Jail Road, Rohtak.

...Applicant

Versus

TheAsstt. General Manager ,

SBI Zonal Office , Haryana,

..Respondent Sector 8C, Chandigarh.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Shri J. G. Verma

V. K. Sharma

FortheManagement :

AWARD

(Pased on 27-11-2003)

Central Government vide notification No. L - 12012/ 111/97 - IR(B - 1 ) dated 21st ofNovember 1998 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of SBI in terminating the services of Shri Hans Raj , Canteer. Boy w.e.f. 1-6-1993 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. Inthe claim statement it is pleaded by the workman that he was employed by the Branch Manager H.A.U. Hissar as messenger to perform the duties of peon but he was given the designation of Canteen Boy @ Rs . 250 per month which was directly credited to the Saving Bank account of the workman . Later on the wages were increased to Rs. 500 per month. In his duties the preparation of tea and service thereof were added to the duties to the applicant . It is further pleaded by the workman that the applicant worked on the seat of messenger though designated as CanteenBoy and his services were terminated on 1-6-1993 without following the procedure as laid down U/ s 25 -F of the I.D. Act 1947. It is prayed that the termination be declared as illegal and the applicant may be reinstated with full back wages and other benefits .

3. In the written statement preliminary objection has been taken by the management that applicant is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s ) ofthe I.D. Act 1947 as there was no privity of contract between the applicant and the management . The applicant was appointed by the Local Implementation Committee at the branch and the said activities are entirely independent of [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

249 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

thebank and this local implementation committee (referred to as LIC) looks after these activities and as the applicant was engaged by the aforesaid committee only and not by the bank as such the case against the bank is not maintainable . On merits it is pleaded that HAU Hissar branch paid a sum of Rs . 250 per month to the applicant from charge account inadvertantly w.e.f. 1-6-1987 to 31-1-1990 . Other contention ofthe applicant were denied by the management and the management prayed for the rejection of the reference.

the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referredto above. The applicant is not the employee of the State Bank of India as he was never appointed/engaged by the management. The Argument ofthe learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was paid from the charge accountand thus he is the regular employee of the bank as thepayofthe regular employees are debited from the charge account has no force as the applicant was not appointed bythebank and for recruitment of regular employees , there is set procedure to be followed by the bank management. Therefore, the applicant can not be considered to be the employee ofbank.

4. In evidence the applicant filed his affidavit as Ex . W1 and also appeared as WWI for cross-examination. In rebuttal the management produced Shri Ram Lal who filed his affidavit Ex . M1 and documents Ex . M2 andM3 .

8. Inview ofthediscussions made in the earlier paras, there is no merit in the present reference and the same is answered against the workman. Central Govt. be informed.

5. I have heard the learned representatives of the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case.

Chandigarh,

27-11-2003

S. M. GOEL, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 24 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 126.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डी० आर० एम० , नार्दर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 32/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 41012/157/93- आई. आर. ( बी. I ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th December, 2003

S.O. 126. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( I.D. 32/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofD.R.M. Northern Railway and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 24-12-2003 .

[No. L-41012/ 157/93 -IR(B-I) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

6. The learned counsel for the workman has argued that though the workman was appointed as canteen boy yet he was performing the duties of messenger -cum- peon andhe was also paid from the charge account and directly credited to the saving bank account of the workman. The applicant worked for more than 240 days with the bank management immediately proceeding to the date of his termination and the management while terminating the services of the workman has not complied with the mandatory provisions ofSection 25 -F of the I.D. Act 1947. Onthe otherhand the learned rep . of the management has argued that the applicant was not the employee of the bank and he was appointed as canteen boy by the local implementation committee and bank has nothing to do with appointment of the applicant. Regarding the payment made to the workman from the charge account , it is argued by the learned rep. of the management that the amount was inadvertantly debited to the charge account and the mistake wascorrected when it came to the notice of the bank . The local implementation committee has engaged the applicant which is social welfare activity of the bank towards their employees and subsidy is provided to the Local Implementation committee for running the canteen facility inthe bank branches . The rep . of the management also referred me to the case reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 1518 State Bank of India and others Vs. State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that emplyees of the canteens which are run at various branches by the LIC as per the welfare scheme framed by the SBI would not become employees of the bank as the bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligations arising under the Award to run such canteen.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER: Shri S.M.Goel

7. I have gone through the arguments and case law referred to by the learned rep . of the parties . In my considered opinion , the applicant was appointed by the local implementation committee as canteen boy and the State Bank of India has no statutory obligation in view of 250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Case No. ID 32/95

management of Administrative Commander, Southern Command and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-12-2003.

Shri Babu Lal , C/ o . B.R. Prabhakar, District President LMS , 63 -C, Kailash Nagar, Model Town, Ambala City

[No. L- 14011/7/2001 -IR(DU)]

...Applicant

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer + Versus

ANNEXURE

TheD.R.M. NorthernRailway, Ambala Cantt.

BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNE

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

Reference (IT) No. 10/2001

For the Workman : Shri Dhani Ram

BETWEEN

For theManagement Shri P. P. Khorana

Administrative Commander,

AWARD

Station Head Quarters , Southern Command,

(Passed on 24-11-2003)

Pune Sub Area,

Pune.

...First Party

AND

Central Govt . vide notification No. L-41012/ 157/93- IR(B) dated 3rd of May 1995 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Shri , Ajay Laxman Kore,

Sy. No. 31/3 , At Post : Dhanori , Vishrantwadi,

Pune-411015.

...Second Party "Whether the action of the management in terminating the services ofShri Babu Lal on finding him unfit in B.I. category after medical examination and not offering employment in any other category is justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

Inthe ihatter of : Reinstatement with continuity ofservice

Coram

: Shri J. D. Deshpande, Industrial Tribunal , Pune.

APPEARANCES :

2. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the workman. Rep. of the workman has made the statement that the workman does not want to pursue with the present reference and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the above , the present reference is returned as withdrawn. Central Govt . be informed.

Mrs. Sandhya Londhe , Asstt . Govt . Pleader for the FirstParty.

Shri P. L. Patel , Union Representative for the Second Chandigarh, 24-11-2003.

Party.

S.M. GOEL, PresidingOfficer

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर, 2003

1.This is a reference made by the Central Government under clause (d) of sub-section ( I ) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 for adjudication of the dispute between the Administrative Commander, Southern Command and Shri Ajay L. Kore overthedemand of reinstatement with continuity ofservice, asmentioned in the schedule of the order of the reference.

का. आ. 127. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एडमिनिस्ट्रेटिव कंमाडर, साऊदर्न कमांड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल. 14011/7/2001- आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी

2. Second party called. Not present . Prior to the last datethe reference was fixed for dismissal orders . It appears that the Second Party workman has lost interest inprosecution of the reference. Hence , the reference is disposed off since demands are not substantiated .

New Delhi , the 26th December, 2003

Award accordingly.

Pune,

Dated: 6th November, 2003 .

S.O. 127. 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, Pune as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

J. L. DESHPANDE , Industrial Tribunal [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

251

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17 , 2004/पौष 27, 1925

नई दिल्ली, 26 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 128. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 42011/40/93- आई. आर. (डी. यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th December, 2003 S.O. 128. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BBMB and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26-12-2003 .

[No. L-42011/40/93 - IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH PresidingOfficer : Shri S. M.Goel

CASE No. I. D. 16/95

Sh. Mehanga Ram, General Secretary, Nangal Bhakra Workers Union Regd. (AITUC), Kiln Area, Nangal . .....Applicant.

V/S

The ChiefEngineer,

Bhakra Beas Management Board (IrrigationWing) , Nangal Township , Distt . Ropar ....Respondent. REPRESENTATIVES

FOR THE WORKMAN

:None.

FOR THE MANAGEMENT

:R. C. Attri .

AWARD

(Passed on 10th December, 2003) The Central Govt . Ministry of Labour vide , NotificationNo. L-42011/40/93 - IR(DU) dated 16th Feb. , 1995 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of management of BBMB in treating one set of workmen within the same cadre working inthe same establishment as industrial and other set ofworkmen as non - industrial on the basis ofsource ofrecruitment is justified ? If not, to what reliefare the non- industrial workmen entitled to" ?

2. None appeared on behalf of the workmendespite notice. Itappears that workmen are not interested to pursue with thepresent reference . In view ofthe above, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt . be informed.

S. M. GOEL, PresidingOfficer Chandigarh. Dated 10-12-2003

नई दिल्ली , 26 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 129.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 188/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 40012/ 150/99-आई . आर. ( डी. यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 26th December, 2003

S.O. 129. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 188/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofTelecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-12-2003 .

[No. L-40012/ 150/99 -IR(DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOURCOURT, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri S. M. Goel

CASE No. I. D. 188/99

Jaswant Kumar son of Som Singh , VPO Sarheri , District Ambala, (Haryana) ....Applicant.

Versus

TheChiefGeneral Manager , Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34 , Chandigarh. .....Respondent.

252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

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

applicant was quite high , therefore, his tender was not accepted.

FOR THE WORKMAN : Shri Dhani Ram

FOR THE MANAGEMENT : Shri G. C. Babbar

AWARD

(PASSED ON 25-11-2003)

Central Govt. vide letter No. L -40012/ 150/99/IR (DU) dated 13th of September 1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Punjab Circle , Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Jaswant Kumar son of Shri Som Singh is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

6. I have heard the learned representatives of the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case. The plea of the workman was that he had served with the management for more than 240 days in one calendar yearimmediately preceding to the date of termination and atthe time of termination no retrenchment compensation and notice or notice pay was given to him, thus the management has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -F ofthe I.D. Act 1947 and the applicant is entitled for reinstatement in service with full backwages . On the other hand the claim ofthe management is that the applicant was engaged as a contractor and later on when the rates of his tender were high he was not allowed the work as contractor and there exists no relationship of employer and employee . It is further contended that the applicant has also taken back his security deposit ofRs . 300 when he was not given the contract.

2. It is pleaded in the claim statement by the workman that he was employed in the office of respondent as frash cum -peon /sweeper since 10-5-1993 and continued up to 31-8-1997 and his services were terminated without assigning any reasons w.e.f. 1-9-1997 . The management has not paid him any retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act 1947. He has thus prayed that he be reinstated in service with continuity and backwages w.e.f. 1-9-1997 .

3. In the written statement the plea taken by the management is that the applicant was not appointed as frash - cum - peon/sweeper but the applicant was engaged as contractor for upkeeping and cleaning of the office. The tender/ quotation of the applicant was accepted which was further extended from time to time and the applicant remained as a contractor with the management and when his contract expired his security deposit was refunded on his request . It is further pleaded that since the applicant was not engaged by the department on its rolls, the management is not liable to pay any retrenchment compensation to the workman and the claim is liable to be rejected. The management has thus prayed for the rejection ofthe reference.

7. I have gone through the contentions of the rival parties . The applicant has not produced on record any document to support his claim . The management has produced as many as 13 documents showing the contract between the applicant and the management and the receipt ofrefund of security deposit . Ex . M3 is the letter written by the applicant that he is ready to do the work@Rs . 1800 per month as a contractor as he has still the safai work of the department as contractor Ex. M4 is the application ofthe applicant stating there in that as the work of contractor has ended so he may be refunded his security deposit . The management has also produced the copy of agreement Ex. M8which also goes to show that the applicant was working as contractor with the department of the management. Therefore , it can not be assumed that he was working as a casual labourer with the department and in this situation, Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act 1947 is not attracted. Thus the management is not liable to pay any retrenchment compensation or notice and notice pay to the applicant . I find no merit in the present reference and the same is answered against the workman holding that the action of the management in terminating the services of the applicant isjustified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Central Govt. be informed .

S.M. GOEL, PresidingOfficer

Chandigarh 25-11-2003

4. Replication was also filed by the workman in which he has stated that he was not a registered contractor and he was working with the management in the capacity of engaged casual labourer and there was a relationship of master and servant.

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 130.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, 5. In evidence the applicant filed his own affidavit Ex. M1 . In rebuttal the management filed the affidavit of Shri B. M. Gupta as Ex-M3 and documents Ex M4 toM13 . He has deposed in his cross - examination that he is now not aware whether the applicant was a licenced contractor and it is further deposed by him that the rates of the 253 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

[भाग II-अंड 3 ( ii ) ]

ORDER

सैन्नईके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी सं. - 338/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार की 29-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. - 12012/348/2000- आई. आर. ( बी. -1 ) ]

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide NotificationOrder No. L- 12012/348/2000 - IR (B - 1 ) dated 07-12-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 29th December , 2003

"Whether the dismissal of Shri G. Anburaja by the management of State Bank of India is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 338/2001 and notices were issued to both theparties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement .

S.O. 130.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. - 338/ 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 themanagement of State Bank of India and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 29-12- 2003.

3. The averments of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

[No. L - 12012/348/2000- IR(B.I) ]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 11th November, 2003

PRESENT:

K. Jayaraman, PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 338/2001

(Inthe matterof the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section (1 ) and sub-section 2 (A) ofSection 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between theManagement of State Bank of India, Chennai and their workman Sri G. Anburaja)

BETWEEN

I Party/Workman

Sri G. Anburaja :

AND

TheAssistant General Manager, II Party/Management

RegionIV,

State Bank of India, Chennai - 1 .

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman

: M/s . Balan Haridas & R. Kamatchi Advocates Sundaresan,

For the Management

The Petitioner joined the services of State Bank of Indiaduring the year 1983 and from 1991 , the Petitioner wasworking in Tiruvannamalai branch ofthe State Bank of India. While so , he was placed under suspension by an order dated 12-10-92 and was issued a chargesheet dated 26-12-92 . The allegations in the charge memo are that the Petitioner had committed misconduct of misappropriation, forgery and making spurious entries in the bank's records resulting in financial loss to the bank. The Respondent conducted domestic enquiry. But the enquiry was conducted in a most unfair manner and the Petitioner was forced to admit the charges and the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and the Enquiry Officer has held three charges framed against the Petitioner have been proved and one charge has not been proved and it was forwarded to the Petitioner and also the Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner has given a detailed submissions tothe enquiry report. After issuing 2nd show cause notice, theDisciplinary Authority has differed with the findings oftheEnquiry Officer held all the charges including the third charge areproved against the Petitioner and proposed punishment of dismissal from service without notice . Even the Petitioner in his representation to the Disciplinary Authoritymentioned that he cannot possibly differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer without putting him on notice.But theDisciplinary Authority without considering the valid objections raised by the Petitioner mechanically imposed the punishment of dismissal on 23-8-93 . Even the Petitioner's appeal to the Deputy General Manager ofthe Respondent/Bank ended against him. Even though the Petitioner has written in his own handwriting, it was obtainedby coercion by the Respondent/Bank authorities and the Petitioner was also forced to remit the alleged financial loss into the bank namely Rs. 1,10,600 . Thus, the Petitioner is only mere a signatory to the proceedings which wasconducted in a most unfair manner. The enquirywas : K. S. Sundar & R. Uma Maheswari , Advocates

33G1/04-8 254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

disposed of according to law, Therefore , the Respondent prays that the claim of the Petitioner has to be rejected.

5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that this Tribunal need not go into merits of their contentions , but only has to look into the issue "whether an opportunity was provided by the DisciplinaryAuthority, in case ofthe Disciplinary Authority having disagreed with certain findings recorded by the EnquiryOfficer?"

conducted in a great haste and it was conducted in a most hurried fashion . The Disciplinary Authority based on the findings which had been arrived at without any materials had imposed extreme punishment of dismissal vide order dated 23-8-93 . The order of the Disciplinary Authority is illegal and is not a speaking order. The domestic enquiry conducted by the Respondent is against the principles of naturaljustice , fair play and it is further submitted that for the alleged misconduct , the punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate . Hence , the Petitioner prays that anaward maybe passed in his favour.

6. On the other be the counsel for the Respondent argued that no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner by not giving an opportunity to him by the Disciplinary Authority.He further argued that the other charges framed against the Petitionerhave been clearly proved and it was admitted by the delinquent employee and therefore , it cannot be said that an opportunity was to be provided to him in such circumstances .

7. But, again on behalf of the Petitioner , it is contended that in a similar circumstances , the Supreme Court inthe case ofPunjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Mishrareported in 19987 SCC 84 has clearly heldthat "we find it difficult to accept the contention advanced on behalf ofthe appellants that unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to the Respondent delinquent, the order of dismissal could not be set aside by the court" and as such at this juncture , it need not be shown before the Court what prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner by not giving an opportunity to the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

8. I find much force in the contention ofthe learned counsel for thePetitioner. Therefore, I frame the following issue as a Preliminary issue for consideration:--

"Whether an opportunity was to be provided in this case by the Disciplinary Authority, when the Disciplinary, Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect ofcharge No. 3 ?"

4. In the Counter Statement, the Respondent has alleged that the Petitioner was working as a Clerk/ Cashier in the Respondent/Bank's branch at Tiruvannamalai . The allegation that the service of the Petitioner was sincere, efficient and utmost to the satisfaction is incorrect . He was placed under suspension by an order dated 12-10-92 for the acts of gross misconduct and the same was accepted by the Petitioner and proved and therefore, the Petitioner was dismissed from service . The proved charges are serious in nature . On various dates , the Petitioner has made spurious credit entries in S.B. Account No. 16564/107 in joint names of Smt . M. Maheswari and Sri G. Muthu with an intent to commit fraud on the bank. Further, he has made spurious entries in S.B. Account No. 204/3 in the name of his Mother Smt. G. Munirathinammal with an intent to commitfraud on the bank, Further , he has forged the initials ofbranch officials /Head Clerk to authenticate the spurious entries made in ledger accounts as detailed in charges 1 and 2 and out of the spurious credits afforded to S.B. A/c . No. 16564/107 , the Petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs . 93,600 therefrom on various dates and misappropriated the same . Thus , the Petitioner has committed misappropriation , forgery and making spurious entries in bank's records resulting in financial loss which are prejudicial to the interest of the bank and gross misconduct under para 521.4 (j ) of Sastry Award . The Petitioner has accepted all the charges framed against him. As regard to charge No. 3 , the Petitioner submitted that he had only put his signature for authentication and did not forge the other officials initials. In the enquiry, in the presence of the Petitioner all the docuinents were produced and marked as Ex. 1 to 35. By producing the above documents , it was clearly proved that the Petitioner as an employee of the Respondent/Bank had misused his position and made spurious credits and withdrew a sum ofRs . 1,10,600 and hence , it is an admitted case of the Petitioner that he has committed inisconduct. The enquiry was conducted by observing the principles of naturaljustice and as provided under various Bipartite Settlements . The Petitioner participated in the enquiry and availed full opportunity and failed to prove his bona fides and the punishment awarded by the authority was appropriate and commensurate with the gravity of the misconducts. The Petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority was also

9. In this case, on the side of the Petitioner Ex. W1 is marked namely written submissions filed by the delinquent employee before the Enquiry Officer and on the side ofthe Respondent/Management Ex. M1 to M11 namely enquiry proceedingswere marked and no witnesses were examined on either side . The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued thatout of the five charges framed against the Petitioner, theEnquiryOfficer has held that four charges have been proved, since the Petitioner had admitted the same, but he has not discussed how the charges have been proved. Further, no copy of the documents alleged to have been marked in the enquiry have been given to the Petitioner andthe list ofwitnesses was not given to the Petitioner. To make the matter worse, the Disciplinary Authority has held that the third charge (which the Enquiry Officer has held 255

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/ पौष 27, 1925

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

admitted the charges framed against him and only against the third charge, he has made a conditional admission and in that the Enquiry Officer has held that the third charge has not been proved and as against this , the Disciplinary Authority has held that the above charge also has been proved. Further, in this case , no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner by not giving an opportunity to the Petitioner before coming to such conclusion by the DisciplinaryAuthority.

11. Though I find some force in this contention, on consideration of the entire arguments on either side and also the rulings reported in 2003 SCC (L & S) 185 State Bank of India and Others Vs. K. P. Narayanan Kutty, I find there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent . In that case, a similar argument was advanced by the management namely State Bank of India, wherein the Supreme Court has held that " wefind it difficultto accept the contention advanced on behalfof the appellants State Bank ofIndia that unless it is shown that some prejudice was caused to the Respondent delinquent, the order ofdismissal could not be set aside.

12. In view of the above , I find that this preliminary issue is to be answered in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, I find the order of dismissal passed by the Respondent/Management State Bank of India against the Petitioner Sri G. Anburaja is to be set aside . Ordered accordingly. At the same time, liberty is given to the Respondent/Management State Bank of India to proceed with the case against the Petitioner Sri G. Anburaja in accordance with law.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this daythe 11th November, 2003) .

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

Oneither side: None

Documents Marked:

For the I Party/Workman:

Date

Ex. No.

Description

W1 14-05-93 Xerox copy of the written submissions filedby Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer

Forthe II Party/Management :

Date

Ex. No.

Description

as not proved) is proved without giving the Petitioner an opportunitybefore passing the order and this is in violation ofprinciples of natural justice . It is his further contention that even though, it is held that the Petitioner has admitted other charges , the said admission is not a qualified admission, as the Petitioner has been forced to admit the charges. He further argued that any how the Disciplinary Authority must be given an opportunity to the Petitioner before coming to the conclusion that the third charge, which was held as not proved by the Enquiry Officer, is proved and he relied on the rulings reported in 1998 (8 ) Supreme To-day 129 Yoginath D. Vs. State ofMaharashtra and also in the case of State Bank of India Vs. K. P. Narayan Kutty as reported in 2003 SCC (L & S) 185. In the first case, it is a case against a judicial officer wherein charges were framed against the Judicial Officer for corrupt practice. In that case, the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that the charges framed against the delinquent Judicial Officer have beenproved. But, the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court disagreed with the finding and without giving an opportunity to the Judicial Officer has issued as show cause notice and dismissed him from service . In that case , the Supreme Court has held that " since the Disciplinary Committee didnotgive an opportunity ofhearing to the Judicial Officer before taking the final decision in the matter relating to the findings on two charges framed against him (which were held as not provedby the Enquiry Officer), theprinciples ofnaturaljustice as laid down by the Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra were violated. " In the second case, a departmental enquiry was held against the Manager Grade I of State Bank of India in State Bank of India. In this case , the Enquiry Officer has held that some of the charges were proved and some were partially proved and remaining ones were not proved . Inthat case, theDisciplinary Authority has held the charges reported to be partly proved were rather fully proved and he has recommended dismissal of the officer from service and the delinquent approached the High Court and the High Court following the decision reported in 1998 7 SCC 84 in the case ofPunjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority had not afforded anopportunity to the delinquent officer in respect of the charges onwhich it had not accepted the Enquiry Officer's findings . Against this, the management has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal following the ratio of judgement reported in 1998 7 SCC 84 in the case ofPunjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra .

MI 12-10-92 Хегохx copy of the suspension order.

Xerox copy of the charge sheet

26-10-92

Nil

Xerox copy ofthe enquiry proceedings

10. As against this , the learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that the above cited cases are distinguishable , in the sense , that delinquents in those cases have not admitted the charges, but on the other hand, in this case, the Petitioner delinquent employee has 256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] M4 24-05-93

-प्रार्थी

हिम्मतसिंह पुत्र सूआ सांखला उम्र 33 वर्ष जाति- राजपूत निवासी -ग्राम व पोस्ट-जिला अजमेर ( राज.)

Xerox copy of the letter from Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner enclosing findings of Enquiry Officer

बनाम

M5 09-06-93 Xeroxcopyoftheletter from Petitioner to Disciplinary Authority

1. भीलवाड़ा अज़मेर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक भीलवाड़ा जरिये अध्यक्ष M6 18-06-93 Xerox copy of the letter from DisciplinaryAuthority To Petitioner 2. भीलवाड़ा अजमेर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक जरिये ब्रांच मैनेजर, पुष्कर (अजमेर)

-अप्रार्थीगण M7 16-07-93

उपस्थित: श्री बी. डी. गुप्ता, एडवोकेट, प्रार्थी की ओर से । Xerox copy of the personal hearing proceedings before Disciplinary Authority

M8 23-08-93

श्रीवी. डी. भार्गव , एडवोकेट, विपक्षीगण की ओर से । Xerox copy of the order of dismissal issued to Petitioner

दिनांक: 9-12-2003 M9 13-10-93

अवार्ड

Xeroxcopyofthe letter from Petitioner to Appellate Authority

M10 31-12-93 Xeroxcopy ofthe letter from Petitioner to Appellate Authority

M11 17-01-94 Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Authority

इस प्रकरण में केंद्र सरकार से प्राप्त श्रम विवाद (रेफरेंस ) इस प्रकार था कि क्या विपक्षीगण द्वारा प्रार्थी हिम्मतसिंह को 21-2-94से सेवा से पृथक करना उचित एवं वैधानिक था? यदि नहीं हो प्रार्थी किस प्रकार से राहत पाने का अधिकारी है ?

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 1. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण व श्रम न्यायालय, अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी सं. - 10/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल.- 12012/69/97- आई. आर. ( बी.- I ) ] एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

रेफरेंस प्राप्त होने पर प्रार्थी हिम्मतसिंह ने अपमा स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम दि. 23-3-98 पेश किया था । विपक्षीगण ने अपना जवाब दि. 18-9-98 को पेश किया था । क्लेम के समर्थन में प्रार्थी ने खुद का 'हलफनामा 3-6-2000 को पेश किया था तथा उससे विपक्षीगण के अधिवक्ता ने 19-5-01 को जिरह की थी । विपक्षीगण की और से गवाह टीकमचंद का हलफनामा 20-12-01 को पेश किया गया था तथा 25-01-02 को प्रार्थी पक्ष ने उससे जिरह की थी । विपक्षीगण के दूसरे गवाह सुभाषचंद्र गुप्ता का हलफनामा 27-3-02 को पेश हुआ था तथा उससे प्रार्थी पक्ष ने जिरह तीन टुकड़ों में क्रमशः 24-9-02, 12-3-03 तथा 28-5-03 को पूरी की थी ।

New Delhi , the 29th December, 2003

S.O. 131. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. - 10/98) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Rural Gramin Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-12-2003 .

विपक्षीगण ने अतिरिक्त साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने के लिए इस पत्रावली में सत्रह बार मोहलत लेने के बाद अ‌ट्ठारहवीं बार 500 रु. खर्चे पर मोहलत ली थी । इसके बावजूद भी दि. 19-7-03 को जब विपक्षीगण ...अपने बकाया गवाह पेश नहीं कर सके तो उस दिन विपक्षीगण की शहादत बंद की गयी थी । दि. 18-9-03 को प्रकरण में मैंनें उभयपक्ष की मौखिक बहस सुनी थी । न्यायालय के अनुरोध पर प्रार्थी पक्ष ने अपनी मौखिक बहस का लिखित सारांश भी दि. 25-9-03 को पेश किया था जो पत्रावली में शामिल है । विपक्षीगण ने न्यायालय के अनुरोध पर भी अपनी मौखिक बहस का लिखित सारांश पेश नहीं किया है । [No. L- 12012/69/97 -IR(B.I) ] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

अनुबंध

दस्तावेजी सबूत में प्रार्थी पक्ष की ओर से प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू, 1 लगाया डब्ल्यू. 6 तथा विपक्षीगण की ओर से प्रदर्श एम -1 लगाया एम-3 प्रदर्शित कराये गये हैं ।

श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर (राज. )

पीठासीन अधिकारी: अतुल कुमार जैन, आर एच जे एस प्रकरण संख्या-सी आई टी आर-10/98

(केंद्र सरकार का रेफरेंस पत्र क्र. एल-12012/69/97/आई आर/बी- 1 / केंद्र सरकार नयी दिल्ली, दिनांक, 4-3-98 )

प्रार्थी का कहना है कि उसने विपक्षीगण के यहां 1-3-93 से 21-2-94 तक लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक समय तक एक वर्ष की अवधिमें कार्य किया था । इसके बावजूद धारा 25 एफ. आई. डी. एक्ट, 1947के प्रावधानों की अवहेलना करते हुए विपक्षीगण ने 21-2-94 से उसे अवैधानिक रूप से सेवा से पृथक कर दिया । 257 [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/ पौष 27, 1925

प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम के समर्थन में निम्न नज़ीरों का अवलंब लिया है:-

1. 1999 ( 2 ) डब्ल्यू एल सी राज. 592 प्रिंसिपल डूंगर कॉलेज/ ओमप्रकाश आदि। इस नजीर में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने 240 दिन के सेवाकाल के आधार पर श्रमिक की सेवा बहाली का श्रम न्यायालय के निर्णय को बहाल रखा था ।

तक अर्थात्सेवामुक्तिके तुरंत पूर्व के एक वर्ष में प्रार्थी द्वारा विपक्षीगण के यहां 265 दिन कार्य करना प्रमाणित हो जाता है इसमें बैंक के अवकाश के दिनों की संख्या भी जोड़ी जावे तो अवकाश के इकसठदिन जोड़ने पर यह संख्या 326 दिवस हो जाती है । इस प्रकार यह विपक्षी के एडमीशन से यह प्रमाणित हो जाता है कि सेवामुक्ति के तुरंत पूर्व की एक वर्ष की अवधि में प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी के यहां 240 दिन से अधिक समय तक अस्थाई तथा दैनिक वेतनभोगी कर्मचारी ( संदेशवाहक ) के रूप में कार्य किया था ।

2. 1999 ( 2 ) डब्ल्यू एल सी राज. 278 शिवदानसिंह/स्टेट ऑफ राज. इस नजीर में भी 240 दिन के सेवाकाल के आधार पर श्रमिक को दस हजार रुपये खर्चा दिलाते हुए सेवा में वापस लेने का आदेश माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने दिया था ।

3. 2002 (3 ) डी एम जे राज. 115 स्टेट ऑफ राज./महेंद्र जोशी आदि। इस नजीर में भी धारा 25 एफ एवं 25 जी आई. डी. एक्ट 1947 की अवहेलना का नियोजक को दोषी मानते हुए श्रमिक कोबारह माह में 240 दिन के सेवाकाल के आधार पर सेवा में पुनः बहाल किया था।

अब विपक्षीगण का कहना है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति रीजनल रूरल बैंक्स ( अपाइंटमेंट एंड ऑफिसर ऑफ अदर एम्पलॉयी ) रूल्स 1988के तहत नहीं होने से वह नियमन का अधिकारी नहीं है । उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रार्थी ने अपनी सेवाओं को नियमित किये जाने की प्रार्थना नहीं की है । वरन् उसकी प्रार्थना तो यह है कि उसके पिछले समस्त बकाया वेतन लाभ परिलाभ सहित उसकी सेवा को निरंतर मानते हुए इस प्रकार पदस्थापित कराया जावे मानो कि उसे 21-2-94 को सेवामुक्त ही नहीं किया गया हो। इस प्रकार विपक्षीगण द्वारा उठाया गया यह प्रारंभिक तर्क भीबेमानी है ।

4. 2000( 84 ) एफ एल आर इंदौर 410 इस नजीर में यह तय किया गया था कि सेवामुक्ति की प्रक्रिया सेवा करार में ही अंकित हो तब ही धारा 2 ( 00 ) ( बी बी ) आई. डी. एक्ट 1947 का लाभ नियोजक ले सकेगा ।

विपक्षीगण का यह कहना है कि बैंक के अध्यक्ष ने प्रार्थी को न तोनियुक्तकिया न सेवामुक्त किया । अतः उन्हें जिम्मेदारी से बरी किया जावे, भी बेमानी है क्योंकि विपक्षी नं. 2 द्वारा की गयी नियुक्ति 'या सेवामुक्ति के लिए विपक्षी नं. 1 भी समान रूप से जिम्मेदार है । 5. 2000 ( 84 ) सुप्रीम कोर्ट एफ एल आर 364 मैनेजमेंट ऑफ एम सी डी/प्रेमचंद गुप्ता आदि। इस नजीर में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने 240 दिन के सेवाकाल का लाभ देते हुए नियोजक को धारा 25 एफ आई . डी. एक्ट 1947 के उल्लंघन का दोषी माना था तथा श्रमिक को पचास प्रतिशत बैंक वेजेज के साथ में सेवामें पुनः बहाल किया था ।

विपक्षीगण का एक तर्क यह है कि बैंक उद्योग की परिभाषा में नहींआता है तथा प्रार्थी श्रमिक की परिभाषा में नहीं आता है । इस संबंध में प्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा 1985 आर एल आर पेज 365 फूलचंद/राज. राज्य की नज़ीर का हवाला देते हुए तर्क दिया गया है कि बैंक कर्मचारियों को माननीय राज. उच्च न्यायालय ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 का लाभ दिया जाना उचित माना है । इस प्रकार विपक्षीगण का यह तर्क भी बेमानीहै ।

हमारे विवेचन में हम उक्त नजीरों में वर्णित सिद्धांतों का पूर्ण सम्मानकरेंगे ।

स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम के पैरा 10.2 में प्रार्थी ने लिखाया है कि उसने विपक्षी के यहां 1-3-93 से 21-2-94 तक लगातार बिना किसी अवरोधके 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य किया है । पैरा 10.3 में उसने धारा 25 एफ आई. डी. एक्ट 1947 का उल्लंघन विपक्षीगण पर आक्षेपित किया है । विपक्षीगण ने उक्त पैरा का जवाब केवल मात्र यह दिया है कि प्रार्थी को नोटिस देने अथवा नोटिस की एवज में मुआवजा देने की वर्तमान प्रकरण में कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है क्योंकि धारा 25 एफ के प्रावधान प्रकरण में लागू नहीं होते हैं क्योंकि प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थी सं . 2 द्वारा छंटनी नहीं किया गया है एवं न ही यह छंटनी का मामला है । विपक्षीगण ने यह भी लिखाया है कि क्लेम के पैरा 10.2 गलत होने से स्वीकार्य है । विपक्षी ने क्लेम के पैरा सं. 3 के जवाब में लिखाया है कि वहस्वीकार करता है कि 2-4-93 से 21-2-94 की अवधिमें प्रार्थी ने अप्रार्थी नं. 2

विपक्षीगण का मुख्य तर्क यह है कि इस प्रकरण में आई. डी. एक्ट 1947 की धारा 2 ( 00 ) ( बी बी ) लागू होती है जिसके अनुसार वह टर्मिनेशन रिट्रेंचमेंट नहीं माना जायगा जब किसी वर्कमैन की सेवायें किसी कांट्रेक्ट के तहत टर्मिनेट की गयी हों और इस संबंध में कांट्रैक्ट मेंहीस्टीप्यूलेश में रखा गया हो अर्थात् किसी कर्मकार को फिक्स्ड टर्म के लिए कांट्रैक्ट बेसिस पर नौकरी पर रखा गया हो तथा कांट्रैक्ट अवधि पूरी होने पर उसे सेवा से निकाल दिया गया हो तो वह धारा 25 एफ के प्रावधानों की संरक्षा नहीं ले सकेगा । वर्तमान प्रकरण में विपक्षीगण का उक्त तर्क भी स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है क्योंकि प्रार्थी का ऐसा कोई अपाइंटमेंट लैटर विपक्षीगण ने पेश नहीं किया है जिसमें उसे फिक्सड टर्म अपाइंटमेंट दिया गया हो । विपक्षीगण के स्थाई कर्मचारी के निलंबन कीवजह से प्रार्थी को नौकरी पर रखा गया था उसे डेली वेजेज पर रखा गया था । समय- समय पर उसका कार्यकाल बढ़ाया गया था ऐसी सूक्त में प्रार्थी के मामले पर धारा 2 ( 00 ) ( बीबी ) लागू नहीं होती है और ब्रार्थी धारा 25 एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन विपक्षीगण द्वारा किये जाने की वजह से सेवा में पुनः बहाली का हकदार है ।

के अधीन शाखा में अस्थाई तौर पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी संदेशवाहक के रूप में कार्य किया था क्योंकि उस समय बैंक का नियमित कर्मचारी राजेंद्र कुमार तंवर निलंबित चल रहा था । इस बिंदु पर विपक्षीगण का स्वीकृत कथन भी सही मान लिया जावे तो भी 2-4-93 से 21-2-94

258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

इस संबंध में मैने प्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा पेश की गयी चौदह टाईपशुदा पृष्ठों की लिखित बहस ( मौखिक बहस का सारांश ) का भी अवलोकन किया तथा उभयपक्ष के दस्तावेजात् का भी अवलोकन किया । प्रदर्श डब.4 विपक्षी बैंक के अध्यक्ष के पत्र की एडमिटेड फोटो कॉपी है इसमें विपक्षी ने स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी को पूर्णतया अस्थाई दैनिक वेतन- भोगी के आधार पर बगैर नियुक्ति पत्र दिये कार्य पर रखा गया था तथा उसे भुगतान दैनिक अनुपातिक आधार पर किया गया था तथा वह प्रतिदिन एक दो घंटे सफाई करने , पानी भरने आदि का कार्य किया करता था । विपक्षीगण ने एक तर्क यह उठाने की कोशिश की है कि प्रार्थी उनके यहां पार्ट टाईम कर्मचारी था लेकिन उल्लेखनीय है कि क्लेम के जवाब में विपक्षीगण ने प्रार्थी को कहीं भी अपना पार्टटाईम कर्मचारी होना नहीं बताया था । जाहिर है कि जिम्मेदारी से बचने के लिए विपक्षीगण ने पार्टटाईम कर्मचारी बाबत तर्क मनगढंत व " ऑफ्टर थॉट " रूप से उठाये है । प्रार्थी को नित्य कार्य के लिए 22 रु. प्रतिदिन दिया जाना , विपक्षीगण ने विवादित नहीं किया है। वैसे भी न्यूनतम वेतन अधिनियम के तहत उन दिनों पूरे दिन की मजदूरी 22 रु. होती थी । विपक्षी प्रार्थी को पूरे दिन की मजदूरी देकर उससे केवल एक या दो घंटे कार्य लेता था तो इसके लिए विपक्षी स्वयं जिम्मेवार है तथा विपक्षी की गलती का खमियाजा प्राथीं नहीं भुगत सकता है ।

विपक्षीगण का अंतिम तर्क यह है कि प्रार्थी को वर्ष 1994 में सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया था तथा उसका रेफरेंस 1998 में प्राप्त हुआ है । विपक्षीगण का कहना है कि प्रार्थी का क्लेम तीन वर्ष से अधिक होने के कारण मियाद बाहर जाकर इसी आधार पर खारिज कर दिया जावे । विपक्षीगण का यह तर्क भी बेमानी है केंद्र सरकार ने रेफरेंस भेजने में विलंब किया तो इसके लिए प्रार्थी को जिम्मेवार नहीं माना जा सकता है । प्रार्थी ने समझौता अधिकारी के यहां दि. नवंबर 1996 में ही कार्यवाही प्रारंभ कर दी थी । समझौता अधिकारी के यहां से असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन भेजने में तथा केंद्र सरकार से रेफरेंस प्राप्त होने में यदि विलंब हुआ है तो इसके लिए प्रार्थी को जिम्मेवार नहीं माना जा सकता है ।

हमारा उक्त संपूर्ण विवेचन ए डब्ल्यू 1 हिम्मतसिंह प्रार्थी के बयानों व जिरह से तथा एन ए डब्ल्यू-1 टीकमचंद छीपा तथा एन ए डब्ल्यू-2 सुभाषचंद्र गुप्ता के बयानों एवं जिरह से भी पूरी तरह युक्तिसंगत होना प्रमाणित होता है । उभयपक्ष द्वारा पेश किये गये दस्तावेजात् के सबूत भी हमारे विवेचन को प्रतिकूल रूप से प्रभावित नहीं करते हैं । परिणामतः इस प्रकरण में अवार्ड इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी हिम्मतसिंह का यह क्लेम स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है जो एतद्वारा स्वीकार किया जाकर आदेश दिया जाता है कि विपक्षीगण ने प्रार्थी हिम्मतसिंह को अस्थाई संदेशवाहक दैनिक वेतनभोगी कर्मचारी केकार्य से 21-2-94 को अवैधानिक रूप से हटाया है तथा उसे सेवा से हटाने से पूर्व विपक्षीगण ने धारा 25 एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की है । विपक्षीगण द्वारा किया गया उक्त टर्मिनेशन आदेश अवैध , शून्य एवं गैरकानूनी है जो एतद्वारा निरस्त किया जाता है । प्रार्थी फुल बैंक वेजेज के साथ पूर्ववर्ती शर्तों पर पुनः विपक्षी की सेवा में आने का अधिकारी है । समय - समय पर लागू होने वाले अनस्किल्डलेबर के मिनिमम वेजेज विपक्षीगण से प्राप्त करने का प्रार्थी अधिकारी रहेगा । औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के प्रावधानों की पूर्ण पालना करने के उपरांत विपक्षीगण चाहे तो प्रार्थी हिम्मतसिंह को पुनः नियमानुसार रिट्रेंचमेंट करने के लिए स्वतंत्र रहेगा । प्रार्थी से अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह इस अवार्ड के गजट प्रकाशन से एक माह के भीतर

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] विपक्षी बैंक के अध्यक्ष के कार्यालय में अपनी उपस्थिति देवे तथा उसकी सूचना विपक्षीगण के वकील श्री वी. डी. भार्गव को भी रजिस्टर्ड डाक से उसी दिन प्रेषित कर देवे ।

अतुल कुमार जैन, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 132.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17- के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 731/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. 12012/170/99- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th December , 2003

S.O. 132. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. 731/2001 of the Central Government . Industrual Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial disputebetween the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-12-2003 .

[No. L- 12012/170/ 99 -IR (B -II))

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 12th November , 2003 PRESENT:

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 731/2001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court CGID No. 381/99) [ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub- section (1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Indian Bank and their workmen] BETWEEN :

I Party/ Claimant TheGeneral Secretary :

Indian Bank Employees

Union.

AND

II Party/Management TheGeneral Manager, :

Indian Bank , R.O. ,

Chennai .

259 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant

: Mr. K. J. Arunachalam, Authorised Repre- sentative.

Therefore, the termination of the services of Sri P. Velu without notice is in violation of para 522(4) of SastryAward. Hence, the Petitioner Union prays that anAward may be passed in favour of the concerned employee Sri P. Velu .

For theManagement M/s . Aiyar & Dolia , Sri N. Krishnakumar, Advocates .

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide NotificationNo. L- 12012/ 170/99/IR(B-II) dated 11-11-1999 has earlier referred this industrial dispute to Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, Chennai for adjudication. The Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court has taken the same on its file as I. D. No. 381/99 and after the constitution of this Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , the said industrial dispute was transferred to this Tribunal and on receipt of the records , it was numbered as I. D. No. 731/ 2001. The dispute referred by the Govt. in the Schedule is hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in terminating the service ofthe workman Sri P. Velu is justified ? If not, what relief is he entitled ?"

4. In answer to this statement, the Respondent/ Management in their Counter Statement contended that the engagement of the concerned employee was only on day-to-day basis/casual basis and that too without the permission and approval of the competent authority and against the existing selection procedure/guidelines. The concerned employee was never kept in the panel of temporary sub -staff . The procedure to be followed for empanelment of temporary sub - staff is: ( i) that he should be sponsored.through Employment Exchange irrespective of the nature and duration of engagement; ( ii ) he should possess requisite educational qualification ; ( iii ) he should be minimum of 18 years and not exceeding 23 years ofage; (iv) he should be selected by an interview committee at Regional level ; and (v) that selection sbould be approved by Zonal level . It is not true to say that the concerned employee worked more than 1082 days . Even assuming that he has worked, it has no relevance and the same will not confer any right to the employee . It is false to allege that Section 25F attracted in this case . Further, Sastri Award has no application in this case. Hence , the Respondent prays that the claim is to be dismissed with costs .

5. Again , the Petitioner Union in the rejoinder statement has contended as follows :-

2.After numbering the industrial dispute , this Court has issued notices to both sides and both the parties entered appearance through their authorised representative and advocate respectively and they have filed their respective statements . On the side of the I Party, the concerned workman was examined as WW1 and 18 documentswere marked as Ex . W1 to W 18 and on the side of the II Party/Management no one was examined as a witness and 6 documents alone were marked as Ex. Ml to M6.

3.The allegations made in the Claim Statement of the Petitioner Union are as follows :-

The Respondent/Management after having engaged the services of the concerned workman against the permanent vacancy, cannot now contend that his engagement was not approved by the competent authority. Even after various circulars issued by the Govt . the management entered into a settlement with the Union with respect to temporary sub-staff empanelment , thereby agreed to waive the sponsorship through Employment Exchange . Therefore, the Respondent is estopped from contending that the concerned workman was not sponsored through Employment Excbange . Therefore, for all these reasons , the Petitioner Union contended that the action of the Respondent/Bank in disengaging the concerned employee is clearly illegal and pray that this claim may be allowed.

6. Inthese circumstances, the points for determination inthis case are as follows :-

(1) "Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in terminating/discontinuing the services of Sri P. Velu is legal and justified ?"

(ii) "To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

The Petitioner Union raised this dispute espousing the cause of the concemed workman Sri P. Velu , who was initially engaged as a temporary sub - staff on 20-10-89 at Ramapuram branch of the Respondent/ Bank. He was continuously engaged as such till the date ofhis termination on 06-02-1998 and he worked for a total number of 1810 days . Therefore , the concerned workman's claim is well within the purview of subsisting legally binding settlement arrived at under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inthe matter ofregularisation of temporary employees into permanent sub- staff cadre . Therefore, the termination of service of the concerned employee amounts to retrenchiment and non -compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore , it vitiates the order of termination .

260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II- SEC . 3( ii )] Point No. 1 :

7. In this case , the contention of the Petitioner Union, which has espoused the cause of the concerned workman Sri P. Velu is that after having engaged the services of Sri P. Velu as sub -staff from 20-10-1989, the Respondent/ Bank cannot now contend that his engagement was not approved by the competent authority, not legal and so on. Further, it is the contention of the Petitioner Union that Sri P. Velu was engaged continuously from 20-10-1989 and he has worked in the Respondent/Bank for more than 1810 days .He was paid wages for that period and therefore, his services were regular in nature and not to meet the exigencies of the bank of any particular period as alleged by the Respondent/Bank . To substantiate their claim, on behalf of the Petitioner Union eighteen documents namely Ex. W1 to W18 were marked and the concerned employee was examined as WW1 . Ex. W6 , W8 , W9 and W17 are the particulars of temporary engagement of Sri P. Velu in the Respondent/Bank branch . Ex . Wl and W5 are the list of temporary sub - staff as on 31-12-89 and 31-12-92 in the Ramapuram branch . Ex . W2 is the seniority list of the temporary sub - staff as on 31-12-91 . Ex. W3 and W4 are the letter of Ramapuram branch and application of Sri P. Velu respectively sentto the Central Office. Ex. W7 is the copy ofletter from Ramapuram branch to the Regional Office of the Respondent/Bank . Ex . W10 and W16 are the copies of the vouchers for wages paid to Sri P. Velu. Ex. W18 is the details with particulars of days of engagement of Sri P. Velu from 20-11-89 to 22-1-98 . It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the concerned employee was examined as WW1 and he has produced documents Ex. W1 to W18 and as against his oral and documentary evidence , the Respondent/Bank has not let in any contra evidence except the circulars issued by the Central Govt . and also the circulars issued by the Zonal Office to Respondent/Bank branches . It is the further contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent/Bank in all the cases contended that the temporary employee was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he is trying to get into the bank at back door entry and this should not be allowed to contend because the very engagement of the concerned temporary staff was by the Respondent/Bank officers' and they after utilising the services of the concerned workman cannot turn around and say that his engagement is not sponsored by Employinent Exchange or not approved by the concerned authorities . Further , on behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that item 10 of the Schedule 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 categorically states that to employ workmen as casuals for years with an object to depriving them as status of permament workmen is an unfair labour practice and therefore, the Respondent/Bank in this case committed an unfair labour pratice as enshrined inthe Schedule 5 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, their contention should not be allowed.

8. On behalf of the Respondent/Management, it is contended that it is false to allege that Sri P. Velu was engaged as temporary sub-staff from 20-10-89 at Ramapuram branch. On the other hand, his engagement was on needs and intermittently on casual basis . Further, his engagement was only on day-to-day/casual basis and that too by the Branch Manager of Ramapuram branch without any permission and approval of the competent authority. It is the further contention of the Respondent that the Respondent/Bank was maintaining a panel of temporary employees list and whenever any leave vacancy arises , persons from thetemporary panel was engaged, but the said Sri P. Velu was never in the said panel and therefore, he cannot claim any right for permanent appointment. On behalf of the Respondent, it is contended that the Central Govt . under whose control the Respondent/Bank is functioning has issued circulars that no person should be engaged irrespective of the capacity either permanent or temporary without being duly sponsored by Employment Exchange and to establish this fact, they have filed five documents which were marked as Ex. Ml to M6 . Ex . M1 and M3 are Government of India instructions issued on 30-09-78 and 16-08-90 respectively. Ex. M5 is the RBI instructions issued on 26-06-1996 . It is the further contention of the Respondent that a settlement was entered intobetween the Petitioner Union and the management of Respondent/Bank on 6-7-92 with regard to temporary/casual employees engaged in the leave vacancies and the copy of the said settlement was marked as Ex . M4 and that settlement pertains to those such casual employees employed more than 90 days during the period between 1-1-82 and 31-12-89 as one time measure and for a specific purpose and specific period of time . In this case, the concerned employee namely Sri P. Velu had not worked more than 90 days from the date of his initial employment i.e. 20-10-89 during 1-1-82 to 31-12-89 and therefore , Sri P. Velu is not eligible to be included in the empanelment of the temporary employee and they further contended that initial appointment of Sri P. Velu itself was unauthorised without permission of the concerned authorities and therefore , his temporary appointment is by backdoor entrance and therefore , he cannot be made permanent . For this, they relied on 1999 II LLJ 1173 in the case ofCalcutta . Tramways Company ( 1978 ) Ltd. & Ors . Vs. Ramesh and 17 Others and another Authority reported in 2003 II LLJ 948 Union of India Vs. Lekh Raj and Others , wherein , it was observed that "appointment to a permanent service must bemade in terms ofrecruitment rules. For that purpose, theremust existence of the vacancy. A person appointed through backdoor i.e. not in conformity with the rules couldnot claim permanency in service ifthe initial appointment was illegal on account of not following the procedure for appointment, the incumbent obtaining appointment without following the procedure cannot claim as a matter of right to be regularised. " Further, the Respondent placed reliance in the case reported 261 [भाग II--खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

temporary employees are entitled to be regularised by mutual agreement. Under such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the temporary appointment of Sri P. Velu canbe regularisedby the Respondent/Management . Further, the decisions relied on by the Respondent clearly stated that such temporary employment are illegal and they cannot be regabtrised to they wequested. Therefore , the concerned employee aloyee meri P. Velu, who worked casual socket permanent employniest, through he worked for a long period intermittently. In view ofthe above , I find this point against the Petitioner Union ,

11. The must poim to be decidedpointo decided in this case is what reliefthe conoc mis entitled in 1997 II LLJ 331 Union of India Vs. Bishamber Dutt, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " unless a person is appointment on regular basis according to rules after consideration ofthe claims on merits, there is no question ofregularisation ofhis service." Further, they have relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 1638 in the case of Madhyamik Siksha Parishad U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra & Others as reported in AIR 1994 SC 1638, wherein the Supreme Court has held that " . therewere, no sanctioned posts in existence to which they could be said to have been appointed. The assignment was on ad hoc one which anticipatedlyspent itself out. It is difficult to envisagefor them the status ofworkmen on the analogy ofprovisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 importing the incidents ofcompleting of240 days work the completion of240dayswork does not under that law import the right to regularisation."

the concerned arou the concerned empl relief.Ordered accord The action of the ervices of a.Hence, I find entitled to my

thậnThus, ma selerance taneyered accordingly.

Therefore, it is argued on behalf of the Respondent that to regularise a temporary staff, it should be only according to rules and regulations .

Dictated to the Anched an bed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 12th biovimber 2003 )

MAYARAMAN, Providing Officer

Witness Examined

For the I Party /Chiimant WW1 Sri P. Veld

For the II Party/Management : None

DocumentsMarked:

Forthe I Party/Clas

Ex.No.

Date

WI 10-11-90 erotowy ofthe list of temporary 12-89 submitted 9.But, on the other hand, on behalf of the Petitioner, itiscontended that it is not correct to say that Sri P. Velu was engaged intermittently and for need based situations , but he was engaged continuously in Ramapuram branch. oftheRespondent/Bank and further, the Respondent/Bank having utilised the services of Sri P. Velu for a long and continuous period they are now estopped from contending that Sri P. Velu was not sponsoredby the Employment Exchange or that he did not undergo the selection process as contemplated under the rules and regulations . It is the further contention of the Petitioner Union that even after the so-called circulars of the Govt. , the bank has entered into settlement with the workmen as per the Industrial DisputesAct under Section 12(3 ) for the engagement of various sub -staff in the respondent/bank . Therefore, it is futile to contend that no temporary sub -staff can be regularised, who were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

seniority list of

3. πο . : 12-11-20 ) Χρy of the letter from Ramapuram branch to Central Office enclosing application for darowana do zalnclusion of the Name ofPosinoner

W4 12-11-92 Xerox copy of the application of concerned workman.

15-07-93 Xerox, copy of the details of

temporary sub- staff as on 31-12-02 submitted by Ramapuram branch.

10. But, I find there is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner Union because even in Ex. M4 , it is mentioned that it was mutually agreed by the Union and also theManagement to consider those persons , who were engaged more than 90 days without being sponsored by Employment Exchange worked during the period of 1-1-82 to31-12-89 as a one time measure and therefore , in pursuant to the Govt. guidelines to Public Sector Banks, the Respondent/Bank is not entitled to appoint aperson, who worked as casual on regularbasis. Further, the Government ofIndiathrough its circulars oletely stated that no person she be appointed to any post in a nationalised bank not b sponsored through Employment Exchange. In this cae, the Petitioner Union has not shown that such temporary employment was made by any settlement or such

33G1/04-9 262

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

Nil Xerox copy of the statement showing engagement details of concernedworkman including the wages paid to him .

W7 10-07-92 Xerox copy of the letter of Ramapuram branch to Regional Manager Kancheepuram regarding engagement of concerned workman .

W8 24-11-93 Хегrox copy of the service certificate issued to concerned workman by Branch Manager, Ramapuram.

W9 08-02-99 Xerox copy of the service certificate issued to concerned workman by Branch Manager, Ramapuram

W10 02-12-89 Xerox copy of the cash voucher ofRamapuram branch regarding payment of wages to concerned workman.

W11 02-06-90 Xerox copy of the cash voucher ofRamapuram branch regarding payment of wages to concerned workman.

W12 05-06-90 Xerox copy of the cash voucher ofRamapuram branch regarding payment of wages to concerned workman.

W13 02-11-93 Xerox copy of the cash voucher ofRamapuram branch regarding payment of wages to concerned workman.

W14 27-11-93 Xerox copy of the cash voucher of Ramapuram branch regarding payment of wages to concerned workman.

W15 01-06-95 Xerox copy of the cash voucher ofRamapuram branch regarding payment ofwages to concerned workman.

W16 26-05-95 Xerox copy of the cash voucher ofRamapuram branch regarding payment ofwages to concerned workman.

W17

Nil Xerox copy of the statement showing engagement details of concernedworkman from Jamuary 1995with details ofwages paid.

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii)] W18

Nil Xerox copy of the statement showing particulars with regard to engagement of concerned workman from 20-11-89 to 22-1-98 .

For the II Party/Management :

Ex. No.

Date Description

M1 30-09-78 Хегоx copy of the letter from Ministry of Finance to all the Heads of Banks and financial institutions regarding recruitment ofsub-staffin public sectorbanks.

M2 04-03-83 Хегоx copy of the circular issued by Personnel Deptt . to all branches of Indian Bank regarding engagement of persons during leave vacancies of sub - staff .

M3 16-08-90 Xerox copy of the letter from Ministry ofFinance to all the Chief Executives of Banks regarding recruitment and absorption of temporary sub - staff in public sectorbanks .

M4 06-07-92 Xerox copy of the memorandum ofsettlement under Section 12(3) entered into between the Respondent/ Management and Petitioner Union regarding persons engaged in leave vacancies of sub- staff.

M5 26-06-96 Хегоx copy of the letter issuedby Reserve Bank of India to the Chairman, Indian Bank regarding achievement of capital adequacy ratio of 8 per cent .

M6 11-11-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Ramapuram branch to Zonal Office, Vellore furnishing the details with regard to the concerned workman.

नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2003

कन. आ. 133.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडीकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में मिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. 12011/229/2001- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

263

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27 , 1925

NewDelhi , the30th December, 2003

the punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages for two years to Smt . Vannathi Jayaseelan, Clesk, Purasavalkam branch vide order dated 5-2-2000 ? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" S.O. 133. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. 37/2002 of the Central Government . Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial disputebetween the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-12-2003.

2.After the receipt ofthe reference , the Tribunal has numbered the same as I. D. No. 37/2002 and issued notices toboth the parties and both the parties entered through their advocates and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement .

[No. L- 12011/229/2001 - IR (B- II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

3. The allegations of the Petitioner Union in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 20th November, 2003

PRESENT:

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 37/2002

[Inthe matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen]

BETWEEN:

The President,

: 1 Party/ Claimant

SyndicateBank Employees Union, Chennai

AND

II Party/Management

TheDeputyGeneral : Manager, Z.O. , SyndicateBank, Chennai .

Appearances:

Forthe Claimant

: M/ s . R. Gomathi & P.

Manimeghalai , Advo- cates.

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

AWARD

Smt. Vanmathi Jayaseelan, the charge sheeted employee was working as a clerk in Purasawalkam branch of the Respondent/Bank. On 5-1-1999, she was charge sheeted with the charge that she has committed a gross misconduct on doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank and the concerned employee has submitted her explanation, but her explanation was not accepted and a departmental enquiry was ordered. After the enquiry, theEnquiry Officer has submitted his report stating that the charges framed against the concerned employee were proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority,without considering the submissions made by the concerned employee has proposed the punishment ofreduction in basic pay by two stages for two years . Again, the Disciplinary Authority, without considering the submissions made by the concerned employee has imposed the said punishment on 15-2-2000 . Even, the appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the AppellateAuthority on 20-5-2000 . The finding of theEnquiry Officer is vitiated and it is a biased one. Hehas not considered the various contradictions in theevidence given by management witnesses with regard to timings of the occurrence. Further, he has not given the consideration with regard to the evidence of the defence witnesses which establish the vindictive attitude of the Branch Manager and his colleagues against thatconcerned employee . The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is highly dispmpartionate and harsh and it was imposed onlywith a view to dissuade and discourage ladies from taking active part in the trade union activities. The order of the Appellate Authority is mechanical in not applying his mind. Hence, the PetitionerUnion prays that an award may be passed infavour of the concerned employee.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide NotificationOrder No. L - 12011 /229 /2001 /IR(B- II ) dated 20-3-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:-

4. As against this , the Respondent in-its -Counter Statement alleged that the issue in this case is for about justification of imposition of punishment against an individual employee and it forms a subject matter of the disputeunder section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act .

"Whether the action of the management ofSyndicate Bank, Chennai is legal and justified in imposition of 264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

Agents to come out from the meeting and when the Manager has asked her what was her problem in conducting the Pigmy Deposit Agents ' meeting, at once she replied that she was not talking to the Manager and she was talking only to the Pigmy Deposit Agents and the Manager need not ask any thing to her ' . Thereafter, she pulled a chair and sat in the cabin of the Manager and also participated in the meeting without any invitation. Thus, she interfered in the routine function of the Manager and she attempted to stop or disturb the meeting of Pigmy DepositAgents .

Therefore , the Petitioner Union is to establish that it has been duly authorised to take up the cause of the concerned individual employee and raise an industrial dispute . The charge sheet was issued to the concerned employee for her gross interference in the branch administration and her highhanded behaviour . The domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and just manner and the findings of the EnquiryOfficer are supported by adequate evidence . The order of the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be vitiated for any of the reasons urged by the Petitioner. When the incident has not been disputed, the variation in timings is of no consequence . The present case would not be governed by Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment on the ground that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges proved. Further, the Tribunal can interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer only ifthe findings are perverse in the sense that they are wholly unsupported by any evidence . It is not open to the Petitioner in this case to invite this Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence and take a different view from that of the Enquiry Officer. The conduct ofthe concerned employee in unauthorisedly attending the meeting would amountto interference with the administration of the branch and it is not necessary that her presence in the meeting should have created any disturbance. Hence , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed.

5. Under such circumstances , the points for my consideration are :-

(i) "Whether the action of the managenient of Syndicate Bank is legal and justified in imposition ofpunishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages for two years on the concerned employee vide order dated 5-2-2000 ?

(ii) To what relief the concerned employee is entitled ?"

PointNo. 1:

7. As against this, on behalf of the Petitioner it was not disputed that such incident had happened on 15-12-98, but the concerned employee disputed only certain facts with regard to meeting and also with regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Further, the Petitioner Union has not disputed the conduct of the domestic enquiry. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner Union that the EnquiryOfficer without giving any weightage to the defence witnesses has fully endorsed and approved the version of management witnesses and thus openly exhibited hisbiased nature. It is the further contention of the Petitioner side that the Enquiry Officer without considering the contradictions in the management witnesses with regard to the timings of the meeting and also with regard to narration of incidents has come to a conclusion that the charge framed against the concerned employee has been provedand it clearly proves his biased nature and also the perverse finding. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is further contended that if the concerned employee was hindrance of her presence was a disturbance, the Pigmy Deposit Agents meeting would not have been held. Further, the veryfact that the meeting was conducted smoothly without any disturbance in a peaceful manner and everybody disbursed peacefully after the meeting clearly proved that the concerned employee has not made any disturbance in the meetings . It is further argued that the said meeting could not be termed as an administrative exercise or a meeting of highly confidential nature . Hence , the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is highly disproportionate and harsh .

6.The charge framed against the concerned employee in this casc is that on 15-12-98 at about 4.15 P.M. , the Manager of Respondent/Bank , Purasawalkam branch has conducted a meeting of Pigmy Deposit Agents in his cabin and the Assistant Manager incharge of Pigmy Deposit was also present there. While the meeting was in progress, the concerned employee , who is a clerk in the branch, questioned the Pigmy Deposit Agents why they have attended the meeting without consulting her and also without inviting her for the meeting and she rushed into the Manager's cabin and questioned the Pigmy Deposit Agents "when there is any problem you are coming and reporting to me but when there wint mecting you are attending the meeting without consulting me and inviting me " and further she asked the Pigiky Depositposit

8. As against this , on behallf of the II Party/ Management, it is contended that this case would not be governed by Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and in such circumstances this Tribunal have jurisdiction tointerfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer only if the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer are perverse in the sense that they are wholly unsupported by any evidence . In this case, the concerned employee has not disputed the incident that had taken place on 15-12-1998. She has stated that the incident had taken place between 5.00 to 5.30P.M. and not at 4.15 as alleged by the management . When the incident has not been disputed , the variation in the timings will not matter, Further, the Enquiry Officer has analysed the evidence ofboth sides in detail andhe has come to the [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

265 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

much reliance on the ruling reported in 1973 II LLJ 341 in the case of The Management of Madura Mills Co. Ltd.Vs. Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal, Madras and Others, wherein the Madras High Court has held that ' Section 2k contemplates not only a dispute or difference connected with the employment or non-employment but also disputes anddifference connected with the terms ofemploymentor conditions of labour. Only ifthe dispute is connectedwith or arises out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination, then the dispute would be an industrial dispute notwithstanding the fact that no other workman norany union ofworkmen is a party to the dispute. But if the dispute relates to any of the other matters contemplated in Section 2(k), then the parties to the dispute should have a direct or substantial interest. In other words, the persons who seek to support the cause of the concerned workman must themselves be directly or substantially interested in the dispute and such persons should be considerable or substantial in number. In the instant case, as already noticed, the dispute is not one that relates to discharge , dismissal or retrenchment or termination of service of any workman, but is one that relates to abolition of the contract system. This dispute should therefore, satisfy the requirement that it has been sponsored by a substantial number of workmen of the Petitioner company. The learned counsel against the dispute should , therefore , satisfy the requirement that it has been sponsored by number of workmen ofthe Petitioner company. The learned counsel for the Respondent has further argued that the Petitioner Union has not produced any single scrap of paper with regard to resolution passed by the Union or the Secretary has been duly authorised to take up the cause of the concerned employee in this industrial dispute. Under such circumstances, this industrial dispute raised by the union on behalf of the concerned employee is not maintainable.

10. But, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Respondent/Management has not taken this plea before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Chennai during the conciliation proceedings and therefore, now they cannot raise this contentionbefore the Tribunal .

conclusion that charges framed against the concerned employeehas been proved . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said it is vitiated for any reason as urged by the Petitioner. Furher, it is contended on behalf of the Respondent that concerned employee without any invitation, in an unauthorised manner attended the meeting, not only that she has also asked the participants to come out of the meeting. Thus , her action clearly amounts to interference of administration of the branch and it is not necessary that her presence in the meeting should have created any disturbance. It is the further contention of the Respondent that it is too much to say that this meeting withPigmy Deposit Agents could not be termed as an administrative exercise or a meeting highly ofconfidential nature. It is further argued that with regard to the punishment, this Tribunal in such case would have no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment on the ground that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges proved because, it is not a case under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , but it is only a dispute under section 2(k) . Further, it is only in cases of discharge or dismissal by way of punishment, that section 11A vests discretionary jurisdiction in the Tribunal to direct reinstatement with or without any terms or conditions or to vary the punishment as the circumstances of a case may warrant and it does not apply to other cases such as warning, fine, withholding of increment, demotion or suspension and therefore, it is not open to the Petitioner to invite this Tribunal to re -appreciate the evidence and take a different view from that of the Enquiry Officer. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent. Therefore , I find that only because the evidences given by the management witnesses are cogent or convicing, theEnquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the charge against the concerned employee has been proved. On this ground alone , it cannot be said that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. Further , I find there are some minor contradictions in the evidences of the management witnesses and on the same ground, it cannot be said that they will affect the whole findings of the Enquiry Officer. There is nothing to show that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are wholly unsupportedby any evidence . When the concerned employee who has no authority to enter into the cabin of the Manager, when the meeting was going on , the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that her participation without any invitation did not amount to any disturbance has no substance . Therefore, I find that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse .

9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that the tissue in this case can only come under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , therefore , the Petitioner Union is to establish that it has beenduly authorised to take up the cause of the concerned employee and raise the industrial dispute . He has placed

11. Though I find some force in this contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has not produced 'anydocumentary proof in support of his contention. Since the Petitioner Union has not produced any copy of the resolution passed by the petitioner Union with regard to concerned employee's case to be raised as an industrial dispute, I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent . Any how in view of my holding that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse. I find this point against the Petitioner Union .

266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

Point No. 2 :

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the concerned employee is entitled ?

12. In view of my findings that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse , this Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. As such , I find the concerned employee in this industrial dispute Smt. Vanmathi Jayaseelan is not entitled to any relief as prayed for by the Petitioner Union . Ordered accordingly. No Costs.

13. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typedby him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 20th November , 2003. )

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Witness Examined :

On either side

: None

Documents Market:

For the I Party/Workman:

Ex. No.

Date Description

W1 07-01-99 Reply to the charge sheet submitted by the concerned employee

W2 19-03-99 Copy of written brief submitted on behalf of concerned employee to the Enquiry Officer

W3 07-8-99 Copy of written submissions made by concerned employee to Disciplinary Authority W4 11-03-2000 Copy of appeal preferred by concerned employee Before Appellate Authority

For the II Party/Management :

Ex. No.

Date Description

05-01-99 Xerox copy of the chargesheet issued to concerned employee M2 07-01-99 Xerox copy of the explanation submittedby concerned employee M3 23-01-99 Хегох copy of the notice of enquiry.

M4 12/ 13-3-99 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] M5 15-03-99 Xerox copy of the written brief of Management representative.

M6. 24-07-99. Xerox copy of the enquiry report .

M7 07-08-99 Xerox copy of the written submissions made by concerned employee to Disciplinary Authority.

M8 28-01-2000 Xerox copy of the letter of Disciplinary Authority to concerned employee proposing punishment.

M9 05-02-2000 Xerox copy of the minutes of personal hearing given to concerned employee by Disciplinary Authority.

M10 16-02-2000 Xerox copy of the order passed by Disciplinary Authority.

M11 24-05-2000. Xerox copy of the proceedings of Appellate Authority.

M12 series(4)

Xeroxcopy ofthe exhibits marked indomestic enquiry.

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 134. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 664/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-12-03 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल.- 12013/105/98- आई. आर. ( बी.- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th December, 2003

S.O. 134. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 664/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-12-03 .

[No. L- 12013/105/1998- IR (B-II) ]

N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer .

267 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17 , 2004/पौष 27, 1925

ANNEXURE

2. The dispute referred by the Government in the Schedule is as follows :--

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

Tuesday, the 9th December, 2003

"Whether the management of Indian Bank is justified inproposing recovery ofRs . 100/-from the salary of Shri K. Manohar for the alleged loss caused by him tothebank ? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?

PRESENT:

AND

K. Jayaraman, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 664/2001

(Tamil NaduPrincipal Labour Court CGID No. 248/99)

"Whether the management of Indian Bank is justified in proposing to deduct one day's wages from the salaries of eighteen staff members ( as per list attached) involved in the dispute for their alleged cessation of work on 29-10-1993 on the principle of 'No work no pay' and if not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

3.The allegations ofthe Petitioner Union in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between theManagement of Indian Bank, Chennai and their workmen through General Secretary, Indian Bank Employees Union, Chennai ].

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

IndianBank Employees Union, Chennai

...I Party/Claimant

AND

The General Manager, Indian Bank, Central Office , Chennai

... II Party/Management

APPEARANCES:

Forthe Claimant :Mr. K. J. Arunachalam, Authorised Representative.

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

R.Arumugam & N. Krishnakumar , Advocates .

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L- 12013 /105/98- IR(B- II) dated 19-04-1999 has earlier referred this industrial dispute to Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court , Chennai for adjudication. The Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court has taken the same on its file as I.D. No. 248/99 and issued notices to both the parties. Both the parties had entered appearance through their authorised representative and advocates respectively and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement . After the constitution of this Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, the said industrial dispute was transferred to this Tribunal and on receipt of the records , it was numbered as I.D. No. 664/2001 .

The Petitioner Union is espoused the cause of Shri K. Manohar, who is a clerk/shroff working at Tiruppattur branch of the Respondent/Bank. The cashiers working in the cash department of the Respondent/Bank are expected to make sections having 100 pieces of currencies in the respective denominations . The currency notes of Rs . 50/- and higher denominations would be counted and signed jointly by both the cashier, who is making section and the officer, who has second counted the section. There is a subsisting understanding by and between the Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union and also the Respondent/Management in the matter of fixing responsibilities as to the number of notes ina section and as to the genuinity of the notes in that section and as per the understanding reached as such between the Federation and the Management wasconfirmed by exchange of letter confirming the understanding by putting in writing. As such, when a quantitative defect is noticed in a section in the denomination ofRs . 100/ - and/or Rs . 50/ -, and such defect is noticed at the currency chest, the officer of the branch who has signed the section is to be held responsible for such shortages . For any qualitative defects in such sections , the shroff first made the section is to be held responsible . Thus , the quality and quantity of notes of section are segregated and the responsibilities are fixed for any defects on the shroff and officer respectively and then any deficiency shall be fixed on the correct person. While so, Sri K. Manoharan, shroff was served with a letter by Tiruppatur branch of the Respondent Bank dated 27-5-1993 advising him to remit a sum of Rs . 100/-to make good the shortage of rupee notes in the section made on the ratio of 50-50 by the Officer and the Clerk. This communication to the employee is erroneous as it is against the subsisting 268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17 , 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

the amount from the salary of Sri K. Manoharan. But the said strike was done without any notice and justifiable cause and it was not mere protest action but illegal strike by the employees which had been resorted justto demonstrate their organisational strength paralysing the function of the Respondent/Bank . Further, no notice as required under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act was served and therefore , the strike was illegal. Since there was no subsisting understanding as to the duties and responsibilities of cashier working in branches/currency chest apart from the manual of instructions. The said understanding stated by the Petitioner became inoperative and only the instructions of the bank given in ' Manual of Instructions 1989 ' governs the situation. Therefore, the action taken by the Respondent is legal and it cannot be questioned by the Petitioner. Further, as far as the 18 employees of the branch concerned, they went on strike illegally contravening the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and their strike on 29-10-93 is neither justified nor legal and therefore, the staff concerned are not entitled to wages for the said date. It is further submitted that Indian Bank Employees Union has no locus standi to expouse the cause ofthe concerned workman Sri K. Manoharan since the staff members had already switched loyalties to unrecognised union en masse. For all these reasons, the Respondent bank prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

understanding in the matter. Then Mr. Manoharan, in his letter dated 27-10-1993 informed about respondents unilateral decision to recover the purported 50% share amount of Rs . 100/-from his salary payable for the month ofNovember, 1993. The Tiruppatur branch of the Respondent/Bank without seeking clarification from the parties concerned and without waiting for the union to give correct interpretation has unilaterally without any rhyme or reason served a letter dated 27-10-1993 that the amount wouldbe deducted from the salary payable to the employee on 29-10-1993 . On seeing this , the staff of tha branch went on protest action on 29-10-1993 to ventilate their disapproval of the illegal action perpetrated by the management without any basis and against the terms of legally binding settlement . But the bank imposing wage cut on 18 staff members of that branch for one day on the basis of ' No work no pay ' . Therefore, the subsisting understanding by and between the Federation of Indian Bank Einployees Union and the Management of Respondent/Bank governing the working conditions of the staff working at currency chest will be binding on the Respondent/Bank and as such the action of the management is illegal and in total violation and contravention of the understanding and also imposing the wage cut on the employees by the Respondent is illegal and unsustainable. Hence , the Petitioner Union prays that an Award may be passed in their favour.

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the terms of reference are vitiated by latches and inordinate delay and therefore , the reference is liable to be rejected . The concerned employee Sri K. Manoharan is a clerk/ shroff of currency chest . The duties and responsibilities of the cashiers are well defined and laid down in Respondent/Bank's ' Manual of Instructions- cash handling and management ' and therefore, it is the dutyof cashiers working in cash department to do their job expected ofthem accordingly. The said Manual was revised from timeto time and no other understanding as allegedby the Petitioner Union was implemented by the bank . The correspondence exchanged between the then Industrial Relations Manager and the Union in 1979 will not applicable, when subsequent instructions were incorporated in the Manual in 1989 for an issue that happened during 1990. Even though the Union has given a representation and produced correspondence that no agreement had been entered into between both the parties. Hence, the allegation segregating quantity and quality and fixing responsibility respectively for officers and shroff are denied by the Respondent/ Bank . It is false to allege that the decision to recover the loss was unilateral . Further the staff members ofthe Tiruppatur branch went on illegal wild cat strike on 29-10-93 on the ground that it was unilaterally deducted

5.Again the Petitioner Union in rejoinder contended that there is no delay on the part of the union and even if there is any delay it is attributable only on the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and not on the Petitioner Union . Any understanding between the union and management and the confirmation of the said understanding by reducing it in writing will definitely have a binding nature onboth the parties . Therefore any unilateral action outside the purview of the understanding will not be binding on the union and their members . It is an illegal act on the part of the Respondent/Management . The cash manual purported to have been brought out by the management was done by the management without any discussion and concurrence of the union and it is total contravention of the terms of agreement with the union and therefore , the provisions of manual will not applicable to the parties concerned. Further, the action of the union resorting to strike is justified and legal . The Manual of Instructions does not have sanction of law. Even if the members have changed their loyalties to some other union , it is only subsequent event, it cannot alter or change the character ofthedispute because certain members have changed their loyalties with the union . Under such circumstances , the Petitioner Union prays that the claim may be allowed and anAward may be passed in their favour .

[भाग - खंड-3( ii ) ]

269

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

6. In these circumstances , the points for my determination are :-

(1) "Whether the management of Indian Bank is justified inproposing recovery ofRs . 100/- from the salary of Sri K. Manoharan for the alleged loss caused by him to the bank ? " .

(ii) "Whether the management of Indian Bank is justified inproposing to deduct one day's wages from the salaries of 18 staff members involved in thedispute for their alleged cessation ofwork on 29-10-1993 on the principle of" No work- No pay' " , and

In that, it is mentioned that when a quantitative defect is noticed in a section in denomination ofRs . 100 and orRs . 50 and such defect is noticed at the currency chest, the officer ofthebranch who could signed the section is tobe held responsible for such shortage. For any qualitative defects in such sections, the shroff first made the section is to be held responsible and therefore , the terms of understandingwhich were implemented immediately and put into use ofthe bank employees and it cannot be said that the bank directed as per the manual of instructions with regard to shortage of currency. The unilateral action and recovery is illegal and therefore , the employees ofthe Tiruppatturbranch and gone on proper action, but it cannot be said that the strike is an illegal one .

(ⅲ) " To what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

Point Nos. 1 & 2:

9. Onbehalfof the Respondent it is contended that even though the Petitioner relied on the alleged understanding reached between the Petitioner Union and the Industrial Relations Manager, a reading ofEx. W1 and W2 would clearly show that the terms were to be communicated to the Personnel Department for issuing necessary instructions and as such there were no instructions issued by Personnel Department especially in regard to itemNo. 8 of Ex . W1 . On the other hand, Ex.M1 and M3 clearly show that Ex. W1 has not been acted upon and only the Manual of Instructions continued to be in force. Hence, the Union cannot place reliance on the so called understanding which was never implemented . It is the further contention of the Respondent that even WW1 incross-examination has admitted that Ex. W2 read with Ex. WI had not been given effect to and that he has not produced any document to show that it was implemented. On the other hand, he has admitted that ' Manual of Instructions-Cash Handling and Management ' was issued tobranch offices . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the alleged understanding under Ex. W1 has been given effect to and therefore, the action taken by the Respondent/Bank against the concerned employee Sri K. Manoharan is valid in law.

7. In this case, the Petitioner namely the General Secretary of Indian Bank Employees Union was examined as WW1 and ten documents were marked as Ex . W1 to W10 on the Petitioner's side . On the side of the Respondent one Mr. Devanand, Assistant Manager (Organisation & MethodDivision) was examined as MW1 and 5 documents weremarked as Ex. Ml to M5 on their side. The admitted facts ofboth sides are Sri K. Manoharan , whose cause the Petitioner Union is espousing , is working as a clerk/ shroff in the currency chest of Tiruppattur branch . While, so , during the inspection of the Reserve Bank officials in the Tiruppaturbranch currency chest on 13-8-1990, two notes of100Rupees denomination were found short in a section and Mr. Manoharan the Clerk/ Shroff whose cause the Petitioner Union is espousing and Mr. R. M. Chockalingam, Officer had admittedly affixed their signatures in the denomination slip affixed on the section of Rs . 100/-bundle forhaving counted it and therefore, as per the instructions in the 'Manual of Instructions-Cash Handling and Management June, 1980' , which is marked as Ex . M1 , the responsibilitywas fixed on both the persons and theywere directed tocompensate the said amount to the bank equally.

10. Under such circumstances, the point to be considered in this case is ' whether the understanding reached between the Union and the Management is given effect to ?' or ' whether the instructions issued in Manual or Instructions with regard to Casin Handling and Managernent is given effect to ? ' as alleged by the parties .

11. On behalf of the Petitioner Union, it is argued that subsequent to the understanding reached between theUnion and the Management, it was circulated to all its members working in all branches and it was also advisedto the branch representatives to convene a meeting of employees to explain the guidelines given thereunder in Ex. W1 and Ex. W2 . when these agreed terms ofagreement were implemented , it cannot be said that only the instructions given in Manual had been given effect to by the bank. Even though the Respondent produced 8. It is the contention of the Petitioner Union that during the handling of such stitched currency notes, the bank has been experiencing defective/ shortage of number ofpieces in sections so made, hence, in order to fix the responsibility on persons who has to make good any shortage or defective currency notes , detailed discussions were held by and between the Federation of IndianBank Employees Union and Respondent/Bank Management.The said discussions culminated in an understanding which was communicated between the parties concerned for implementation in the bank and these correspondence were marked as Ex . Wl and W2 Under Ex . W2, the Industrial Rei LionsManager ofthe II Party/Management has directed the bank's Personnel Department that the said practice should be come into immediate effect and therefore, the understanding reached under Ex. W1 was put into practice.

33G1/04-10 270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

Non-implementation ofthe so called understanding reached between the Industrial Relations Manager of the Respondent/Management and the Federation. On the contrary, it is also not challenged for having implemented the procedure adopted in the cash manual from the year 1980 onwards . 50 : 50 sharing of shortage between the officerand clerk is a rule and practice prevailing for more than two decades in the bank and it was not shown that the understanding above was implemented by the Respondent/Bank in any of the activities. Under such circumstances, the Respondent/Bank's action cannot be questioned by the Petitioner Union .

13. It is the further argument of the counsel for Respondent that as far as the wages for the strike on 29-3-1993 is concerned, the strike is illegal , because no notice as contemplated under section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act was given and illegal strike cannot be justified by saying that it was forced by the management. It is the position laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgements.Further, claiming was for the strike period, the strike must be proved to be both legal andjustified . In this case, strike is obviously illegal and it amounts to misconduct, which invitès disciplinary action . However, the bank restricted by ordering deduction of wages on the principle who ever voluntarily refrains from doing work whenit is offered to him is not entitled for payment ofNPL for the work he has not done . In other words the principle of 'No work-No pay' and therefore , the action taken by the Respondent/Bank in these circumstances cannot be questioned by the Petitioner Union.

documents Ex . M1 to M5 which are extract of Manual of Instructions given to the branch management which has nobearing to the terms of agreement in Ex. W1 and W2 and it was made in total contravention and violation of the agreement with the Union and therefore, they are arbitrary, unlawful and thus illegal and therefore , the actiontakenby the Respondent/Bank flowing out of illegal instructions cannot be sustained . It is his further contention that the unilateral instruction given by the management through Manual of Instructions were questioned by the Union and thus resulted in this dispute. Under such circumstances , it cannotbe said that the action taken by the Respondent in this case is legal . Even though MWI was examinedby the II Party/Management on its side and produced documents with regard to instructions in the Manual , in the cross- examination he has expressed his ignorance of exchange ofcorrespondence between the union and the management and he has simply deposed to all the questions ' I do not know' and therefore , the evidence of MW 1 is of no use to the Respondent . Further only in order to avert illegal or unilateral recovery of amount from the salary of Sri K. Manoharan , the concerned employee in this dispute, the staff of Tiruppattur branch resorted to a token protest against the action of the Respondent/Bank branch on 29-10-1993. This token protest by the members of the branch was spontaneous and the same was imposed on them by the management due to illegal and unilateral wage recovery and therefore , the action of the staff are justified as the branch management has no right to make any unlawful and unilateral recovery from the salary of staff members and as such the action of the management against the 18 staff members is also illegal .

14. On considering the arguments of learned counsel for the Respondent and also the authorised representative ofthe Petitioner Union. I find much force in the argument of learned counsel for Respondent because it is not established before this Tribunal that the so called understandingunder Ex. W1 has been implemented by the parties . Further , it cannot be said as an agreement or settlement between the Union and the Management . On the other hand , the Respondent has established that instructions in the Manual was given effect to for the past two decades and therefore , the action taken by the Respondent/Bank management cannot be said as illegal . I find, there is no substance in the claim made by the Petitioner Union that the Respondent/Management has forced the staff of Tiruppattur branch of the Respondent/ Bank to go on strike and it is false to allege that it was spontaneous and it is imposed on them by illegal and unilateral wage recovery resorted to by the bank . Since the staff of Tiruppattur branch of the Respondent/Bank had gone on strike without giving any prior notice as contemplatedunder the provisions of law, I find the action takenby theRespondent/Management on the principle of 'No work-No pay ' is illegal and justified and cannot be 12. But, against this , the Respondent contended that the bank has got a department called O &M (Organisation &Methods ) department to develop and issue manuals for systems and procedures adopted by the branches in various banking activities. The bank has got various manuals and one of such manual is ' cash manual ' which was implemented by the bank in the year 1980 and subsequently itwas amended in 1989 and 1994. At the time of introduction ofthe manual by the bank, the bank has also issued circulars to staff members in branches detailing the procedure envisaged in the manual and directed them to follow scrupulously. While implementing the Manual of Instructions regarding systems and procedures the bank need not scek approval or concurrence from the union and all the employees are duty bound to follow the same spelt out in manuals . Therefore , the contention of the Petitioner that the instructions given in manuals are not binding is totally incorrect and the bank has fully justified in following the cash manual which is prevailing in the bank for more than23 years . Further , it is the contention of the Respondent that so called understanding reached was not implemented by the bank at any time. Further the Petitioner Union has not challenged the same before any Tribunal or Court for [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

271

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

questioned by the Petitioner Union. As such, I find both these points against the Petitioner Union.

15. The only point to be decided is to what relief the Petitioner Union is entitled ?

Inview of my above findings . I find the Petitioner Union is not entitled to any relief as claimed for, No Costs.

16. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, correctedandpronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 9th December, 2003) .

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Witness Examined :

Forthe I Party/Claimant : WW1 . Sri E Arunachalam For the II Party/Management : MW1

Sri N. Dev Anand Documents Market :

For the I Party/Claimant :-

Ex. No.

Date Description

W1 23-02-79 Хегоx copy of the letter from Petitioner Union To Industrial Relation's Manager Respondent/Bank. of W2 06-03-79 Xerox copy of the letter from I.R. Manager of Respondent/Bank to IndianBank Employees Union W3 27-05-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Senior Manager of Tiruppattur branch to concerned employee W4 08-06-93 Xerox copy of the letter from K. Manoharan to Respondent/ Bank

W5 20-09-93 True copy of the letter from Respondent/Bank to K. Manoharan

W6 20-09-93 Xerox copy of the letter from K.Manoharan to Manager, Indian Bank, Tiruppattur branch.

W7 27-10-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Branch Manager To Sri K. Manoharan regarding shortage of Rs . 100/-.

W8 28-10-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Sri K. Manoharan to Branch Manager , Tiruppattur branch

W9 30-10-93 True copy of letter from Respondent/Bank to K. Manoharan

W10 08-12-93 Xerox copy ofthe letter from Indian Bank Employees Union to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Forthe II Party/Management :--

Ex. No.

Date Description

Nil Extract from Manual of Instructions-Cash Handling & management, June, 1980 M2 16-06-80 Хегоx copy of the circular issed by the Respondent/Bank to all its branches

Nil Extract from the Manual of Instructions - IX

Nil Xerox copy of the modification issued to Sub -para 1.4.12 of Manual

M5 Nil Extract for modification/updation ofManual of Instructions, 1994 नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 135.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाईटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 698/2001 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. 12012/31/99- आई.आर. ( बी.- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 30th December, 2003 S.O. 135. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 698/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of Unitd Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-12-2003 .

[No. L- 12012/31/99 -IR (B - II)]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer 272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004 /PAUSA 27 , 1925

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

2. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :

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

Tuesday, the 9th December , 2003

Present: K. Jayaraman: Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 698/2001 (Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court CGID No. 347/99)

( In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of United Bank of India and their workmen)

BETWEEN

: IParty/Claimant

The Regional Secretary, United Bank of India Srakik Karmchari Samity, Chennai .

AND

: II Party/Management

The Regional Manager, United Bank of India , Channai.

Appearence:

Forthe Petitioner :M/ sS. Ayyathurai & K. Varatharasan , Advocates

For the Management : M/s . Row & Reddy &

S. Satish Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide NotificationNo. L- 12012/31 /99- IR(B- II) dated 07/ 11-06-1999 has earlier referred this industrial dispute to Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court, Chennai for adjudication. The Tamil Nadu Principal Labour Court has taken the same on its file as I.D. 347/99 and issued notices to both the parties .Both the parties had entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively . After the constitution of this Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, the said industrial dispute was transferred to this Tribunal and on receipt of the records , it was numbered as I.D. No. 698/2001 . The dispute referred by the Govt. in the Schedule ishereunder:

The Petitionerjoined the services of the Respondent/ Bank as cashier on 12-9-1973 at Coimbatore. Subsequently, he has been transferred to Hyderabad during June , 1975 and again transferred to Salem at his request on 20-12-1976 . He was sincere and loyal to the bank and he has all along served the bank to the best of his ability . While so , the Petitioner developed schizophrenic problem in 1990 and started taking treatment . However, it become acute in the middle of 1992. But, the disease completely failed him and he could not concentrate in his personal routine as well as official work . He sent his leave applications periodically in the beginning but he could not do so when his mental health failed totally . But , unfortunately, the Respondent/Management took the view that the Petitioner was not interested in his employment , which was not all his intention . During, February, 1995 whenhebecome fit to discharge his duties , he reported for duty at Salem branch, but he was told to his shock and surprise that his services have been terminated by removing his name from the rolls of employees and they have also stated that before terminating his service , they had given notice in newspaper. Subsequently, the Petitioner made several representations to the higher authorities for reinstatement and the Chief Regional Manager has directed the Petitioner to submit a fitness certificate from Psychiatrist so that they could consider him for the post of typist . Accordingly, he sent a Doctor's report with fitness certificatebut the bank sent a reply on 16-12-1997 stating that his representation could not be considered as there was no enabling provisions in the Bipartite Settlement . Evenhis representation to the Chief Manager (Discipline) has been rejected. Then he raised an industrial dispute through the union before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Chennai and after the failure of conciliation, the matter was referred by the Govt . to this Tribunal . The Petitioner averred that his absence for work was neither wilful nor wanton nor intentional , but due to his mental condition. In any event, the Respondent/Bank ought to have followed the provisions of Section 25F and Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as the Respondent/Management has not followed the mandatory provisions , the termination is void, illegal and non est and unjust and even the alleged service of notice to his wife cannot be valid in law. In any event , since the management knows the Bangalore address of the Petitioner, they should have sent the communication to the Bangalore address. Therefore, the Respondent/management had not followed the mandatory requirements of law and as such the retrenchment is illegal and therefore, he prays to pass an award in his favour .

"Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India in striking of the name of Shri N. V. Nagarajan from the muster roll of the establishment w.e.f. 15-9-1993 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled? "

3.As against this , the Respondent in their Counter Statement alleged that the Petitioner was a habitual absentee and despite repeated advise , he did not improve भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Petitioner further The divorce obtained to allege that the bank hai no knowledge about the mental condition of the that the bank was av wife in 1994. Therefore, the termination of the Petitioner's service is a violative of principles of natural justice and a violative of mandatory provisionsdatory provisions of Industrail Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, he prays that an award maybe passed in his favour

5. In these circumstances , the points for my determination are

) "Whether the action of the nhung Bank of India in striking the par Nagarajan from the muster establishment we.f. 01-12-1993. is

(ii) " If not, to what reliefthewent

Point No. 1

6. In this case, the Petitioner himself has examine as WW1 and marked 25 documents as Ex, WI to W25 and on the side of the 11 Party/Management Mr. J. Ramchander examined asMWI toM13

7. In this case, it is aadmiind fact data was a member of Award staff of the he was working in the Salem bu Bank till 28-10-1993 đạp which remained al develope acute in the falled him and However, baginning Manager intention a him fi

bar

his position in his attendance . The Petitioner was absented to duty for more than 1196 days upto 1992 and again absenting himself from 28-10-1992 without any communication to the bank and as his absence was affecting the smooth functioning of the bank and efficient customer service, the Regional Office had directed the branch office totake action against the concerned employee under the provisions ofBipartite Settlement and therefore, the Respondent/Bank sent a letter to the Petitioner on 5-3-1993 callingupon him to report for work within thirty days ofthe receipt ofthe letter and also to give explariation for his unauthorised absence . As per the provisions of fifthBipartite Settlement, the aforesaid letter was sent to the Petitioner by registered post which was duly acknowledged by his wife Mrs. Urta Sundari Nagarajan. However, there was no response from the Petitioner for the said notice and finally, the Respondent has decided to give notice by way of publication in one issue of Tamil daily newspaper "Thina Thanthi ' . Accordingly, the said noticewas published on 15-9-93 , as a last chance informing thePetitionerto resume duty within twenty one days from the date of publication and it was also informed failing which he would be removed from the rolls of the bank. In spiteofthis, there was no communication from the Petitioner inresponse to the said notice . Consequently, the name of thePetitioner was removed and struck offfrom the rolls of the bank as perBipartite Settlement. It is further submitted atno point of time, during the Petitioner's tenure ofservice , hehad reported tothe bank about his sufferings ofmental illnesswarranting such prolonged unauthorised absence. Till thedate ofhis termiriation from service , he was absented for duty 1454days . Since the petitioner's case is not a case of retrenchment, provisions of Section 25F and Section 25Nwould not apply to his case and therefore , the question ofpayment of retrenchment compensation would not arise atall. Further, this Respondent/ Bank had no knowledge of the family affairs of the Potitioner and the Petitioner has taken a stand that his wife has divorced him and the said plea is only an afterthought and the bank had no knowledge about the same. Therefore, the advertisement in the newspaper and also the notice receive by the Petitioner's wife are deemed to have been a valid service of notice. The Respondent had no knowledge about the alleged address of the Petitioner's Bangalore address. In these circumstances, holding a regular departmenthi enquiry would not arise and therefore , the Respondent/Bank prave that the claim may be dismissed with costs

absent . Than

to 4.Again, the Petitioner in his reply statenient has alleged that he has submitted the leave letters along with medical certificate to the Respondent and his leave is not applications were not rejected and therelbre, los absence cannot be treated as unauthorised . Further, the Petitioner has informed the then Branch Manager namely Sri S. Ayyasamy, Kalyanasundaram and S.Mahadevan and also the co-employees about his illness and therefore, it is false

33G1/04-11 274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 9. As against this , the learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that denial of employment to the Petitioner/Workman amounts to retrenchment. In this case, it is admitted that Mr. Nagarajan is an Award staff. The expression rerenchment means termination of service of the workman for any reason whatsoever those expressly excluded by definition under Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore , it should not be understood in its narrow, natural meaning but it is tobe understood in wider literal meaning. Therefore, in this case, the denial of employment to the Petitioner Mr. Nagarajan amounts to retrenchment and in the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the termination becomes void ab initio and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reinstement with all benefits .

employee without appropriate intimation to the management is playing truant, " and argued that in this casefrom 28-10-92 the Petitioner was continuously remained absent till the date ofpaper publication for a period of 1454 days. Before taking this drastic steps, the Respondent/ Bank has issued a notice under original of Ex.M10 to the Petitioner to the last known address asking him to report for duty within a period of 30 days as per Clause 17 of Bipartite Settlement . The said notice was received by his wife under the acknowledgement ofEx. M3 . It is his further evidence that he was living with his wife during 1992-93 and his alleged divorce was only in the year 1995 . Therefore, it cannot be said that the acknowlegement of his wife is not an acknowledgement of the Petitioner and even after this, there was no response from the Petitioner for the notice and again on sympathetic ground, the Respondent/Bank has issued a paper publication in Daily Thanthi under Ex. W5 giving a grace period of21 days and asking the Petitioner to report for duty. But even after that the Petitioner has not turned up and therefore , from 1-12-1993 his name was removed from the rolls of the banks on the basis of voluntary cessation of work by the employee's own conduct . As pointed out by the Supreme Court, it is not the case of simple termination or any punishment for any misconduct and it cannot be said no natural justice has been given to the Petitioner . It is his further argument that there are two essential elements of natural justice , they are , no man shall be judge in his own cause; and no man shall be condemned either civilly or criminallywithout being afforded an opportunity ofbeing heard in answer to the charge made against him . In this case, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner because even though in the Claim Statement the Petitioner alleged that he has shifted his residence to Bangalore and it was informed to the Bank authorities about the same, he has not produced any document to show that he has informed his Bangalore address to the Respondent/Bank . Further, though he has produced copies of letters Ex . W6 to W13 , he has not produced any acknowledgement for the receipt of letters in which he has alleged that he has applied for leave for the period of his absence. But, even in the copies of these alleged letters, he has not mentioned his Bangalore address and therefore, it isclear that these documents wered created for the purpose ofthis case and therefore, the notice was sent to his last known address at Salem . Further, it was received by his wife who was living at that time with the Petitioner and as such the Petitioner cannot contend that he was not issued with any notice before this action .

10. But, on the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that in this case , the Respondent/Bank has not terminated the services as contemplated under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 by being absented for duty unauthorisedly, the Petitioner himself forfeited his employment as per Clause 17 ofthe Vth Bipartite Settlement and therefore, there is no retrenchment or not following the mandatory provisons of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he strongly relied on 2000 (2) LLN 92 SYNDICATE BANKVs. GENERAL SECRETARY, SYNDICATE BANK STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER; 2000 ( 1 ) LLN 757 PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ORS . Vs. SAKATTAR SINGH, wherein the Supreme Court has clearly laiddown that " a reading of Clause XVI of 4th Bipartite Settlement will make it clear that in the event an employee absents himself from duty for 90 or more consecutive days beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended the management may, at any time thereafter, give a notice to the employee at the last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of notice stating, inter alia , the grounds for the management coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention of joining duty and furnishing necessary evidence wherever relevant and unless the employee reports for duty within 30 days of notice or gives an explanation for his absence satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and he has no intention of not joining the duty, the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from bank's service on the expiry oftime fixed in the said notice . Thus , there is no punishment for misconduct but only to notice the realities ofthe situation resulting from long absence of an employee from work with no satisfactory explanation thereto . The principles of natural justice cannot be examined in vacuum without reference to the fact situation arising in the case. This rule has been incorporated in an agreement where representatives of employees ' unions were party. They also realised the futility of continuing a situation when an

11. I find much force in this argument because Clause 17 (a) ofVth Bipartite Settlement clearly states that " When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days , without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond the period of leave sanctioned [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

275 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17, 2004/ पौत्र 27, 1925

13. Though, I find some force in this argument, as I have already stated, the Petitioner has not produced any material records to prove that he has informed his Bangalore address to the Respondent/Bank and also about his illness to the bank . Therefore , I find there is no substance in the contention.

14.Again, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in this case, the Petitioner produced medical certificate given by a Doctor that the Petitioner was suffering from mental derangement and it is his evidence that he has approached the higher authorities in the bank for reinstatement and the Chief Regional Manager has directedhimto submit a fitness certificate from a Psychiatrist toconsider him for the post of typist for which there were vacancies in the bank. The Petitioner as per the direction has obtained a certificate from the competent Doctor and produced the same and a copy of which is marked in the enquiry. Under such circumstances , the Respondent has to re-employ the Petitioner in any one of the posts available inthebank.

15. Here again, I find there is no force in this contention because since the Petitioner has abandoned his service and since the Respondent has taken all steps asper the terms of Bipartite Settlement, the Petitioner is notentitled to any reliefas claimed by him . As such, I find thispoint against the Petitioner.

Point No. 2:

16. The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

In view of my above findings , the concerned employee Sri N.V. Nagarajan is not entitled for reinstatement as claimedby him . I therefore , find this point also against thePetitioner.As such, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief

17. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

originally/ subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India orwhen the management is reasonably satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling upon him to report for dutywithin 30 days of the date of the notice, stating inter alia the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention ofjoining duties and furnishing necessary evidence, where available . Unless the employee reports for duty within 30 days of notice or gives an explanation forhis absence within the said period of30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining duties , the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice . In the event of the empoyee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to bank's right to take any actionunder the law or rules of service . " and this is a settlement entered into between the employee Union and theManagement . It cannot be said against the interest of the employees . In this case, even though the Petitioner claimed that he has sent several communications regarding his illness or to extend his leave or to rejoin his duty, hehas not produced any proof of record to show that he had sent such letters to the bank and therefore, I find there is no material on record to show that he has sent several communications to the bank as alleged by him. Further as heldby the Supreme Court , it is not a termination simpliciter but it is an abandonment of work by the employee. Therefore, this is not a punishment for any misconductbut only to notice the realities of the situation and it cannot be contended that principles of natural justice has not been followed in this case. Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the bank should hold an enquiry before passing thisorder.

(Dictatedto the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , correctedandpronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 9thDecember, 2003.)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined:

Forthe I Party/Claimant

:WW1 Sri Nagarajan

Forthe II Party/Management : MWI Sri J. Ramchander Rao

Documents Marked:

For the I Party/Workman:

Ex. No.

Date Description

W1 10-05-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Chairman of the Respondent/Bank 12.Again, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that he did not receive any letters alleged to have been sent by the bank nor did he see the paper publication and he was completely in the dark due to his illness namely schizophrenic problem . Further, he divorced his wife in a Court of Law in 1995 and therefore, the alleged service of any notice on his wife cannot be valid in law and it is his further argument that he informed the Respondent/Bank about shifting of his residence to Bangalore and it was also known to the Branch Manager S/Sri Ayyasamy, J. Kalyanaraman and S. Mahadevan and co -employees and therefore, under such circumstances , the Respondent/Bank wantonly sent the notice to the last known address and alleged that the notice has been served to his wife. Therefore, the Respondent /Management did not comply with the mandatory requirements of law and therefore, the termination of the Petitioner is illegal and unjustified.

276

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

Ex. No.

Description

Date

W2 17-03-98 Xerox copy of the reply given by Respondent to Petitioner W3 22-09-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) W4 05-03-93 Хегоx copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner regarding unauthorised absence W5 15-09-93 Xerox copy of the paper publication given by Respondent W6 28-02-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent- requesting leave

W7 18-09-92 Xerox copy of the leave letter from Petitioner to Respondent/Bank W8 06-10-92 Xerox copy of the leave letter from Petitioner to Respondent/Bank W9 30-10-92 Xerox copy of the leave letter from Petitioner to Respondent/Bank W10 25-02-93 Xerox copy of the leave letter from Petitioner to Respondent/Bank W11

17-3-93 Xerox copy ofthe leave letter from Petitioner to Respondent/Bank W12

Nil Xerox copy of the leave letter from Petitioner to Respondent/Bank W13

Nil Xerox copy of the leave letter from PetitionertoRespondent/Bank W14 02-04-93 Xerox copy of the leave letter from Petitioner to Respondent/Bank W15 14-06-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Chairman of Respondent/Bank

W16 10-10-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Chairman of Respondent/Bank .

W17 09-12-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent/Bank atCalcutta.

W18 08-01-97 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Manager of Respondent/Bank at Calcutta .

W19 18-06-97 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Chairman of Respondent/Bank

Ex. No.

Date Description

W20 20-10-97 Xerox copy of the lette from PetitionertoRegional Manager of Respondent/Bank

W21 16-12-97 Хегох copy of the reply of the Respondent

W22 27-12-97 Xerox copy of the representation given by Petitioner to Regional Manager

W23 24-02-98 Xerox copy of the representation givenby Petitioner to Chairman ofRespondent/Bank

W24 23-12-98 Хегox copy of the proceedings of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

W25 07-10-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Regional Manager of Respondent/Bank.

For the IIParty/Management:

Ex.No.

Description

Date

Xerox copy ofthe leave particulars ofPetitioner

M2 21-11-03 Хетох copy ofthe letter from Salem branch to Regional Manager of Respondent/Bank

Xerox copy of the postal acknowledgement

Xerox copy of the certificate of posting

M5 01-06-93 Xerox copy of the internal correspondence

M6 29-11-93 Xerox copy of the internal correspondence

M7 02-12-93 Хегоx copy of the letter from Chennai branch to Salem branch of Respondent/Bank

MB 03-12-93 Xerox Kerox copy ofthe letter from Salem brunch to Chennai branch of Respondent/Bank

M9 22-12-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Salem branch to Chennai branch of Respondent/Bank

M10 15-06-98 Хегох copy of the letter from Respondent/Bank to Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central) [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Ex. No.

Date Description

M11 22-09-98 Xerox copy of the letter fromChief Regional Manager to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) M12 06-10-98. Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent/Bank Union to Respondent/Bank

M13

Nil Xerox copy of the paper advertisement .

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2003

का. आ. 136. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-12-2003 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल. 12011/222/2001- आई.आर. ( बी.- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 30th December, 2003 S.O. 136. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 36/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-12-2003 ..

[No. L- 12011/222/2001 - IR (B- II)] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 12th November, 2003 Present : K. Jayaraman : Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 36/2002 (Inthe 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 theManagement of Syndicate Bank and their workmen)

BETWEEN

277

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 17 , 2004/पौष 27, 1925

AND

TheDeputyGeneral Manager, II Party/Management Syndicate Bank, Z.O. Channai .

APPEARENCE:

For the Claimant

: M/ s . P. Manimeghalai & R.. Gomathi , Advocates For theManagement : M/ s. T.S. Gopalan & Co. , Advocates.

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour videNotification Order No. L- 12011/222/2001 -IR(B- II) dated 20-03-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the imposition of punishment of reduction inbasic pay by two stages for two years to Shri R.V. Raman, Special Assistant, Syndicate Bank, Vellore branchby the management of Syndicate Bank is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2.After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as 1.D. No. 36/2002 and notices were issued toboth the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their respective Claim Statement and Counter Statement.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner Union in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows:

: IParty/Claimant

ThePresident,

Syndicate Bank Employees Union, Chennai .

The Petitioner Union has raised this dispute espousing the cause of the one Sri R.V. Raman who is working as Special Assistant in Vellore branch of the Respondent/Bank. While so , on 12-2-2000 , a charge sheet was issued to the concerned employee charging him with misconduct of his behaviour on 23-12-1999 and 29-12-1999. The concerned employee has given a reply denying the charges but not accepting his explanation, a domestic enquiry was ordered by the Respondent/Bank . After enquiry, on 25-10-2000, the Enquiry Officer has given his report holding that both the charges framed against the concerned employee were duly proved. On 30-11-2000 , the DisciplinaryAuthority concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer proposed the punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages for two years for the misconduct of23-12-99 and a punishment ofwarning for the misconduct of29-12-99 and after a personal hearing on 13-12-2000, the concerned employee was awarded with the above punishments . Even the appeal preferred by the concerned employeewas rejected and the punishment was confirmed. The Petitioner alleged that the findings of the Enquiry 278

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27, 1925

Officer for the said charges is one sided , biased , perverse and is an outcome of total non- consideration of the real issue in a proper perspective . They have not taken into account the evidences of the defence witnesses and in a pre-determined mind accepted the evidence of the management and given the punishment . The punishment imposed on the concerned employee is highly disproportionate to the charges framed against him. Therefore, the Petitioner prays to set aside the order passed against the concerned employee and for consequential relief.

4. The Respondent in their Counter Statement has alleged that the issue in this case can only form a subject matter of an industrial dispute under Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Therefore , the Petitioner Union has to establish that it has been duly authorised to take up the cause ofthe concerned workman Sri R. V. Raman and to raise an industrial dispute . The enquiry in this case has been conducted in a fair and just manner and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence and it cannot be characterised as perverse . The issue referred for adjudication would not attract Section 11A of the Act and therefore, it is not permissible for the Petitioner to invite the Tribunal to re - appreciate the evidence and to arrive at a conclusion different from that of the Enquiry Officer. Furtherthe propriety of the punishment cannot be gone into in the present case .Hence, the Respondent prays thatthe Petitioner's claim may be dismissed.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are :

(i) "Whether the Petitioner Union is duly authorised to take up the cause of concerned workman Sri R.V. Raman to raise this industrial dispute;

to establish that it has been duly authorised to take up the cause of the concerned workman to raise an industrial dispute. Further , on the side of the Respondent reliance was placed on the judgement reported in 1973 IILLJ 341 in the case ofTHE MANAGEMENT OF MADURA MILLS CO. LTD . Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , MADRAS AND OTHERS. In that case, the MadrasHigh Court has held that " Section 2Kcontemplates not only a dispute or difference connected with the employment or non -employment but also disputes and difference connected with the terms of employment or conditions of labour . Only if the dispute is connected with or arises out of discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or termination, then the dispute would be an industrial dispute notwithstanding the fact that no other workman nor any unionofworkmen is a party to the dispute .But if the dispute relates to any of the other matters contemplated in Section 2K then the parties to the dispute should have a direct or substantial interest. In other words, the persons who seek to support the cause of the concerned workman must themselves be directly or substantially interested in the dispute and such persons should be considerable or substaintial in number. In the instant case , as already noticed, the dispute is not one that relates to discharge, dismissal or retrenchment or termination of service of any workman, but is one that relates to abolition of the contract system . This dispute should therefore, satisfy the requirement that it has been sponsored by a substantial number ofworkmen of the Petitioner company. " Relying onthis decision of the High Court, the learned counsel for theRespondent argued that in this case even in the Counter Statement the Respondent has raised this issue that the members of the union have not sponsored the President/ General Secretary of the Union to represent or to espouse the cause ofthe concerned employee Sri R. V. Raman and therefore, it is the first duty of the Petitioner Union to establish before this Tribunal that substantial number of persons have sponsored or passed a resolution to that effect. Therefore, this dispute cannot be considered at this stage.

(ii) Whether the imposition of punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages for two years on Sri R.V. Raman , Special Assistant , Syndicate Bank , Vellore branch by the management of Syndicate Barık is legal and justified ?

(iii) To what relief, the concerned workman is entitled ?"

Point No. 1 :

6. In this case, the Petitioner has produced documents Ex . W1 to W4 and the II Party/Management has produced 8 documents Ex . Ml to M8 and both sides have not let in any oral evidence . On behalf of the Respondent it was contended that the punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages for two years imposed on the concerned employee Sri R. V. Raman can only form a subject matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and therefore, the Petitioner Union is

7. But, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that while the Petitioner has raised the dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the Respondent has not raised this issue and therefore , now it cannot be contended that the Union has no authorisation to represent the concerned workman . But , here again, the Petitioner Union has not produced any documentary proof before this Court to show that the Respondent has not raised any plea before the Regional LabourCommissioner (Central ) and further even assuming for the argument sake, they have not raised this plea in the counter filed before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) , it cannot be said that the Court can presume that members ofthe Union have passed a resolution to represent the concerned employee before this Tribunal . As such , I find this point in favour of the Respondent.

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

279

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 17, 2004/पौष 27, 1925

Point No. 2:

8. The next point tobe decided in this case is whether the imposition of punishment by the Respondent/Bank on the concerned workman is legal and justified ?

writtenby the Cashier were also seen. If this document is properly examined by the Enquiry Officer, it is very much evident that the beneficiary is none other than Dr. Venkatesan namely the first witness and that there is no record to show that the Senior Branch Manager has received the cash on behalf of the customer Venkatesan. But, without appreciating the evidence ofMW1 the Enquiry Officer has come to a conclusion in a pre- determined mind andtherefore, the finding is perverse , one sided and biased.

10.But, on the other side , it was argued on behalf of the Respondent that the reference is with regard to punishment of reduction in basic pay by two stages for two years and this punishment was awarded only with regard to the incident took place on 23-12-99 and therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the incident that had taken place on 29-12-99 . Further, the issue referred in this case for adjudication would not attract Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, it is not permissible for the Petitioner to invite the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at a conclusion different from that the Enquiry Officer. So long as the findings of the Enquiry Officerare supported by evidence, the said evidence cannot be set aside on the ground that on the same evidence for some other conclusion , if possible.

In this case , the concerned employee was charged with two charges . The first charge is on 23-12-99 , the concerned staff Sri R. V. Raman was assigned the work of writing the officers' /Manager's scroll and making entries in the said scroll covering cash receipts and payments . On that day, one Dr. B. V. Venkatesan , an account holder ofthe branch came to the branch and gave a cheque for Rs . 4,250 and collected a token and was waiting to receive the cash payment. When the said customer was moving towards cash counter at about 12.45 pm the concerned staff informed the customer that there was no cash in the bank and the branch staff had gone out to borrow cash neighbouring bank. Immediately, the customer went inside the Senior Branch Manager's cabin and made a complaint immediately the Senior Branch Manager came out of his cabin and collected cash of Rs. 4,250 from the Cashier and handed over the same to the said customer and when the Senior Branch Manager called the concerned staff and asked ' is it wrong' and even the advise ofthe Senior Branch Manager has not been accepted by the concerned employee and there was no warrant for the concerned employee to inform the account holder that there was no cash and it was none of his business and his work on that day nothing to do with to tell such a false information to the customer, hence, this charge . The second charge is on 29-12-99 the concerned employee not only precipitated an illegal strike butparticipated in it causing serious damage to the bank and therefore, punishment of reduction of basic pay by two stages for two years to the concerned employee was imposed, for the incident that had taken place on 23-12-99. For the incident took place on 29-12-99 , a punishment of warning was imposed on the concerned employee .

11. In this case, the contention raised by the Petitioner side that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse or biased is not proved . It is clearly established by the Respondent/Management side that the incident had taken place on 23-12-99 and the Senjor Branch Manager has given the amount to the customer after getting it from the Cashier and therefore , the Petitioner cannot take advantage of certain discrepancies and argued that the findings of the EnquiryOfficer is biased or perverse . Nothing was shown by the Petitioner that the enquiry report is perverse, one sided and an outcome of total non-consideration of the real issue in a proper perspective . Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that this Tribunal can hold that the order passed by the Respondent/Management is not legal andjustified. Further, it is argued on behalf of the Respondent that the propriety of the punishment cannot be gone into in the present dispute and therefore , the Petitioner cannot argue that the punishment is disproportionate to the charge framed against the Petitioner . under such circumstances , it cannot be contended that the action taken by the Respondent/Management is illegal .

9. The counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is one sided, biased, preverse and is an outcome of total non- considerationof the real issue in a proper prespective. It is their further argument that the first witness examined by the management Mr. Venkatesan clearly deposed that he hasbeen a customer of the Respondent/Bank from 1966 onwards and therefore, he must have sufficient knowledge ofthe working system of the branch. He has also clearly admitted that after the token number is called out by the Cashier, the cash will be paid to him . Therefore , at this stage, there was absolutely no necessity for Mr. Venkatesan toapproach the concerned employee to enquire as to which counter he should seek for payment . If Ex . M1 ( marked before the Enquiry Officer) is perused, token number issued to the witness is very much available and on the reverse of the cheque his signature also appears and the denomination

12. On considering the arguments of the learned counsel and on a perusal of documents , I find much force inthe contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent. Further, in view of my above finding that the Petitioner has not substantiated their claim that the Union has been-duly authorised to represent the concerned employee , I find this point against the Petitioner Union.

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii)] 280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 17, 2004/PAUSA 27 , 1925

Point No. 3 :

24-02-2001 Xerox copy of the letter of Respondent enclosing proceedings of appeal .

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर, 2003

13. In view of my above findings, I find the concerned employee in this industrial dispute Sri R. V. Raman is not entitled to any relief. Ordered accordingly . No Costs .

14. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 12th November , 2003. )

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined :

: None

On either side

Documents Marked :

For the I Party/Claimant :

का. आ. 137.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर किलोकहित मेंऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधोंके अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2114 दिनांक 3-7-2003 द्वारा करेंसी नोट प्रेस , नासिक रोड़ जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि25 में शामिल हैं, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-7-2003 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

Ex. No.

Date Description

W1 13-01-2000

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है ;

Xerox copy of the reply to show cause notice filed by concerned employee.

W2 16-03-2000 Хеrox copy of the reply to charge sheet filed by concerned employee.

Nil

अतः , अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-1-2004 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

Xerox copy of the written submissions filed by concerned employee before Enquiry Officer.

[फा. संख्या एस. 11017/3/91 - आई.आर. ( पी.एल. ) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव W4 22-10-01 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by concerned employee.

New Delhi , the 31st December , 2003

For the II Party/Management:

Ex. No.

Description

Date

MI 12-02-2000 Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to concerned employee .

M2 16-03-2000 Xerox copy of the explanation submitted by concerned employee.

14-09-2000 To

M3 Series (14)

Xerox copy of the proceedings of domestic enquiry ( 14 documents)

23-09-2000

S.O. 137. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so required that in pursuance ofthe provisions of sub -clause (vi ) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 2114 dated 3-7-2003 the services in the Currency Note Press , Nasik Road which is covered by item 25 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 ofsixmonths from the 15th July, 2003 .

M4 27-10-2000

Andwhereas, the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

Xerox copy of the letter from respondent to concerned employee enclosing report of Enquiry Officer

M5 30-11-2000 Xerox copy ofthe letter from zonal officeto concerned employee.

M6 08-12-2000 Xerox copy of the minutes of personal hearing .

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub -clause (vi ) of clause (n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act for a period of six months from the 15th January, 2004.

13-12-2000

[No. S- 11017/3/91 - IR(PL) ] Xerox copy of the letter to concerned employee enclosing proceedings of Disciplinary Authority.

J.P. PATI , Jt . Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054, 2004