This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO. D. L...AND 04 /0007 /2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. (एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 26] No. 26]

नई दिल्ली, जून 24-जून 30, 2007, शनिवार/आषाढ़ 3 -आषाढ़ 9 , 1929 NEW DELHI, JUNE 24 - JUNE 30, 2007, SATURDAY/ASADHA3-ASADHA 9, 1929 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके SeparatePaging is given to this Part in order that it may be filled as a separate compilation

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

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए साविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of theGovernment of Indis (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग

नईदिल्ली , 19 जून , 2007

(Department of Personnel and Training) NewDelhi, the 19th June , 2007 1

का.आ. 1846.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय , इंदौर में केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के रिटेनर कार्डसेल श्री अजय गुप्ता, अधिवक्ता को उक्त उच्च न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उद्भुत अभियोजन , अपीलों अथवा अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

S.O. 1846. In exercise of the powers conferredby the provisions ofsub- section (8 ) of Section 24 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ajay Gupta, Advocate and Retainer Counsel of Central Bureau of Investigation , in the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore , as Special Public Prosecutor, for conducting prosecution , appeals. revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the aforesaidHigh Court.

[सं. 225/40/2006 - ए.वी.डी. -0 ] चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

(No. 225/40/2006- AVD- II] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

281 ) G1/ 2007

(4039) 4040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

सारणी

नई दिल्ली , 19 जून , 2007

व्अधिकारी का पदनाम

सरकारी स्थानों की श्रेणियों तथा क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं

सहायक महाप्रबंधक ( विधि ) , देना बैंक, प्रधान कार्यालय , मुम्बई

}

देना बैंक , जिसका प्रधान कार्यालय , मुम्बई में हैं, के स्वामित्व वाले/ उनकी संपत्ति वाले तथा उनके प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण वाले समूचे भारत में स्थित स्थान

का.आ. 1847.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मध्य प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय , जबलपुर में केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के सर्वश्री जयंत नीखरा और सतीश चन्द्र शर्मा, अधिवक्ताओं और रिटेनर काउंसिल को उक्त उच्च न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उद्भुत अभियोजनों, अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[फा.सं. 13/2/2005 - बीओ -11 ] एस. गोपाल कृष्ण , अवर सचिव [सं 225/40/2006 - ए.बी.डी.- II ]

चन्द्र प्रकाश . अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 19th June , 2007

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department ofEconomic Affairs) (Banking Division) New Delhi , the 18th June, 2007 S.O. 1847, In exercise of the powers conferredby the provisions of sub -section (8) of Section 24 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ), the Central Government hereby appoints S/ Shri Jayant Neekhra and Satish Chandra Sharma , Advocates and Retainer Counsels ofCentral Bureau of Investigation , in the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur , as Special Public Prosecutors , for conducting prosecution , appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special PoliceEstablishment in the aforesaid High Court.

[ No. 225/40/2006- AVD- IJ

CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय

( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

S.O. 1848. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofFinance , Department of Economics Affairs ( Banking Division ) No. 13 /5-89 -B70. - III dated 9-4-1990 and subsequent notification published in the Gazette of India under S.O. 632, 711.3233 dated 26-7-1994, 18-2-2005 and 3-8-2006 except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Table below, being officer equivalent to the rank of a Gazetted Officer of Governinent to be Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perforon the duties imposed on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said table.

(बैंग प्रभाग)

TABLE

नई दिल्ली , 18 जून , 2007

Designation of the

Officer

Categories of Public premises and local límits ofjurisdiction (2)

(1)

Asstt. General Manager (Law), Dena Bank, HeadOffice, Munibai

Premises situated anywhere in India owned by/belonging to , and under the administrative control of the Dena Bank havingHeadOffice at Mumbai .

F. No. 13/02/2005 -BO-日)

[

S. GOPAL KRISHNA , Under Secy.

(राजस्व विभाग )

केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2007 आयकर

का.आ. 1849.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि संगठन लीलावती किरितिलाल का.आ. 1848.-सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों को बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और दिनांक 9-4-1990 के भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग , ( बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) की अधिसूचना सं. 13/5/ 89- बीओ- III तथा तत्पश्चात् दिनांक 26-7-1994, 18-2-2005 तथा 3-8-2006 को भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. सं. 632 , 711 तथा 3233 का अधिक्रमण करते हुए , ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पूर्व उन बातों के सिवाय , जिन्हें किया गया है या किए जाने के लिए छोड़ दिया गया है , केन्द्र सरकार, एतदद्वारा, सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के स्तर के समकक्ष अधिकारी होने पर निम्नलिखित सारणी के कालम ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है जो सारणी के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित सरकारी स्थानों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त क्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और उन्हें सौंपे गए कर्तव्यों को पूरा करेंगे:-

4041 [ भाल खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाड़ 9, 1929

Department ofRevenue)

(Central Board ofDirectTaxes)

NewDelhi, the 18th June, 2007

(Income-tax)

मेहता मेडिकल ट्रस्ट रिसर्च सेंटर, मुम्बई को अंशत शोध कार्य में संलग्न ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी के अंतर्गत आयकर नियमावली , 1962 (उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम ऽग एवं ऽम के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की शप - धारा ( 1 ) केखण्ड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ केन्द्र सरकार के द्वारा दिनांक 1-4-2003 से निम्निलिखित शतों के अध्यधीन अनुमोदित किया जाता है , नामतः

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रो के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

S.O. 1849. It is hereby notified for general inforamtion that the organization Lilavati Kiritilal Mehta Medical TrustResearch Centre , Mumbai has been approved by the Central Government of the purpose of clause (ii ) of sub-section (1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (saidAct) , read with Rules 5C and 5D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ( said Rules) , with effect from 1-4-2003 in the category of 'other Institution ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(1) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

(iii ) अनुमोहित संगठन बही - खाता रखेगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उपधारा (2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी स्वाता नही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और तक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत अम्य विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

(iv ) संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रस्तुत राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त . लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा।

(in) The approved organization shall maintain books of accounts and get such books audited byan accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act ;

2. केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापिस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-

(क) पैराग्रफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

(ख) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :-

(a) fails to maintain books of accounts referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (ग ) पैराग्राफ ) के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph (iii ) of paragraph 1 : or (घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अधकक

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub-paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम ऽग और 5घ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नाहीं करेगा ।

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

[ अधिसूचना सं. 204/2007/फा.सं. 203/52/2004- आ.का.नि.- II ]

(e) ceases to conformto and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii) of sub- section ( 1 ) of

रेनूजौहरी , निदेशक 4042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE ST . 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and 5D of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 26.2007 /F.No . 203/52/2004/ITA - II ]

RENU JAUHRI , Director ( अवर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

( बैंकिंग तथा बीमा प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1850.-बीमांकक अधिनियम , 2006 ( 2006 का 35) को धारा 12 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के खंड ( ख ) ( i ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्‌द्वारा श्री जी.सी. चुतबंदी, संयुक्त सचिव , बैंकिंग तथा बीमा प्रभाग को वित्त मंत्रालय काप्रतिनिधित्व करने के लिए भारतीय बीमांकक संस्थान परिषद में सदस्यके रूप में , अगले आदेशों तक नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 97/11/2003-बीमा--III ] ललित कुमार , उप सचिव ( बीमा ) i

(Department ofEconorticAffairs) (Banking Insurance Division) New Delhi , the 20th June, 2007 S.O. 1850. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (b) ( i ) of sub-section (2) ofSection 12 of the Actuaries Act, 2006 (35 of 2006) , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri G.C. Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary , Banking and Instrance Division as a member of the Council ofthe Institute ofActuaries of India to represent the Ministry of Finance, till further orders .

[F.No. 97/ 11 /2003- Ens. W LALIT KUMAR, Dy . Secy.( Ins. ) कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय ( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) .

नईदिल्ली , 15 जून, 2007

का.आ. 1851.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा खंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973( 1974 का अधिनियम हूं 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री अनिल बहल, एडवोकेट, देहरादून; श्री जय प्रकाश शर्मा , एडवोकेट , और श्री ब्रह्म प्रकाश निर्भय , एडवोकेट , गाजियबाद को गाजियबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश स्थित के.अ. ब्यूरो के मामलों के लिए विशेष जज का न्यायालय में के.अ. ब्यूरो मामला स्टं आरसी . ] ( एस ) /2007/ एससीबी- I/दिल्ली से आरसी-19 (एस) /2007/ एससीबी-1 /दिल्ली तक ( निवारी समूह मामले ) दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उद्‌द्भुत अभियोजनों, अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य मामलों को संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[सं. 225/20/2007 -ए, वी.डी.- [[ ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC. 3( її ) ] MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 15th June , 2007

S.O. 1851. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints S/Shri Anil Behl, Advocate , Dehradun , Jai Prakash Sharma and Brahm Prakash Nirbhya , Advocates , Ghaziabad as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the prosecution of case Nos . RC 1 ( S)/2007/ SCB -I/Delhi to 19 ( S) /2007 /SCB - I/Delhi ( Nithari Group of cases) instituteed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the Courts at Ghaziabad and appeals/revisions or other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto , in the Appellate Courts, Court of Revision , or in any other Court.

(F.No. 225/20/2007 -AVD- II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

राष्ट्रीय आपदा प्रबंधन प्राधिकरण नई दिल्ली, 14 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1852 ,- आपदा प्रबंधन अधिनियम , 2005 ( 2005 का 53 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, राष्ट्रीय आपदा प्रबंधन प्राधिकरण ( एन.डी.एम.ए. ) , एतद्द्वारा , एन.डी.एम.ए. के लिए सलाहकार समिति का गठन करता है जिसमें निम्नलिखित सदस्य शामिल होंगे :

1. सुश्री कुमुद बंसल , आई. ए, एस. ( सेवानिवृत्त ) , पूर्व सचिव, प्राथमिक शिक्षा एवं साक्षरता , मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार , 7-एस दिलवाड़ा, महर्षि कर्वे मार्ग , कुपरेज टेलीफोन एक्सचेंज के आगे , मुम्बई-400021 .

2. सुश्री सुषमा चौधरी, आई.ए.एस. ( सेवानिवृत्त ) , पूर्व प्रधान सलाहकार, योजना आयोग , मी 1/1208 , वर्सत कुंज , नई दिल्ली-110070.

3. प्रो. एस. के. दुबे , निदेशक, भारतीय तकनीकी संस्थान, खड्गपुर-721302, पश्चिम बंगाल

4. प्रो. हर्ष गुप्ता, पूर्व निदेशक , राष्ट्रीय भू- मैतिकी अनुसंधान संस्थान, उप्पल रोड, हैदराबाद -500007.

5. श्री संजय हजारिका, प्रबंधक न्यासी, पूर्वोत्तर अध्ययन एवं नीति अनुसंधान केन्द्र, डी-66143/3, वसंत कुंज , नई दिल्ली-110070.

4043

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30 , 2007/ आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

[भाग -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Committee for the NDMA , with the following as Members:

6. डॉ. पी. के. अयंगर , पूर्व अध्यक्ष, परमाणु ऊर्जा आयोग , 33 , सरस वाऊग , देवनार, मुम्बई-400088.

1. Ms. Kumud Bansal , IS (Retd .) , Former Secretary, ElementaryEducation and Literacy, Ministry ofHuman Resource Development, GOI, 7- S, Dilwara, Maharshi KarveMarg, Next toCooperage Telephone Exchange , Mumbai-400021

7. लेफ्टिनेंट जनरल देवेन्द्र कुमार , पी.बी.एस.एम. , वी. एस. एम. बी. ए. आर. ( सेवानिवृत्त) पूर्व सिग्नल ऑफिसर- इन-चीफ , भारतीय सेना, मकान सं. 2911 - एच, सैक्टर-23 , गुडगाँव-122001 हरियाणा ।

2 Ms. Sushma Chaudhary, IAS (Retd. ,) . FormerPrincipal Adviser, Planning Commission , B-1/1208, Vasant Kunj, NewDelhi -110070

श्री आलोक मुखोपाध्याय , मुख्य कार्यकारी , भारतीय स्वैच्छिक स्वास्थ्य संघ ( वी. एच. ए.आई. ) , बी-40, कुतुम इंस्टीटयूशनल एरिया , नई दिल्ली-110016

3. Prof. S. K. Dube, Director, Indian Institute ofTechnology, Kharagpur- 721302, West Bengal .

4. Prof. Harsh Gupta, Former Director, National Geophysical Research Institute, Uppal Road, Hyderabad-500007

9. डॉ. आर. के. पचौरी , महानिदेशक , कर्जा एवं संसाधन संस्थान (टी.ई.आर.आई. ,) 'दरबारी सेट ब्लॉक , इंडिया हैबिटेट सेंटर कॉम्पलेक्स , लोधी रोड , नई दिल्ली-110003

5. Shri Sanjoy Hazarika, Managing Trustee, Centre for North East Studies and Policy Research, D- 6 , 6143/3 , Vasant Kunj, NewDelhi- 110070

10. श्री आर. एस. प्रसाद , पूर्व अध्यक्ष , केन्द्रीय जल आयोग , 48 , इंजीनियजर्स इन्क्लेव , पौतमपुरा , नई दिल्ली -110034

6. Dr. P. K. Iyengar, Former Chairman, AtomicEnergyCommission, 33, SarasBaug, Deonar, Mumbai-400088

11. डॉ. डी. आर. सिक्का, पूर्व निदेशक, भारतीय उष्णकटिबंधीय भौसम विज्ञान संस्थान , 40 , मौसम विहार , नई दिल्ली -110051

12 लेफ्टिनेंट जनरल वी. के. सूद , पी वी एस एम, ए.बी.एस.एम. ( सेवानिवृत्त ) , पूर्व उप सेनाध्यक्ष , आई-106, सोम विहार अपार्टमेंटस , आर. के. पुरम, नईदिल्ली-110022

7. Lt. Gen. Davinder Kumar , PVSM, VSM BAR (Retd.), FormerSignal Officer- in -Chief ofthe Indian Anny. HouseNo. 2911 -H, Sector- 23, Gurgaon- 122001 . Haryana

2. सलाहकार समिति का कार्यकाल इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से दो वर्ष का होगा ।

8. Shri Alok Mukhopadhyay, ChiefExecutive,Voluntary Health Association ofIndia(VHAI), B-40, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi- 110016

3. सलाहकार समिति के सदस्यों को वही यात्रा भत्ते , कमरे का किराया, दैनिक भत्ते तथा वाहन भचे दिए जाएंगे जो अनुपूरक नियम 190 के परिशिष्ट-2 में यथा उल्लिखित उच्चाधिकार प्राप्त समिति के सदस्यको अनुमेव हैं ।

[फा. सं. 49/मिस/2006/एन.डी.एम.ए. - प्रशा. ]

9. Dr. R. K. Pachauri , DirectorGeneral , the Energy & Resources Institute (TERI) , Darbari SethBlock, Indian Habitat Centre Complex, Lodhi Road, NewDelhi-110003

एच. एस. ब्रह्मा , अपर सचिष

NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

10. Shri R. S. Prasad, Former Chairman, Central Water Commission, 48,Engineers Enclave, Pitampura, NewDelhi - 110034

NewDelhi, the 14th June, 2017

11. Dr. D. R. Sikka, Former Director , Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, 40, Mausam Vihar, NewDelhi- 110051

S. O. 1852.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 7 ofthe Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA ) hereby constitutes the Advisory 4044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 / ASADHA 9 , 1929

12 Lt. Gen. V. K. Sood, PVSM, AVSM (Retd.), FornerVice Chief ofArmyStaff, I-106, Som ViharApartments, R. K. Puram, New Delhi - 110022

2. The term of the Advisory Committee shallbe two years from the date of publication of this Notification .

3. The Members of the Advisory Committee shall bepaid such travelling allowances , room rent , daily allow- ances and conveyance allowance , as are admissible to a Member of theHigh Power Committee as specified inAp- pendix -2to Supplementary Rule 190.

[F. No. 49/Misc/2006 /NDMA - Adınn. ] H. S. BRAHMA, Addl . Secy.

स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1853.-केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधास ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) के अनुसरण में दिल्ली के पंजीकृत चिकित्सा स्नातक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में निर्वाचन करवाया है जहां से डॉ. देविन्दर सिंह राणा , वरिष्ठ परामर्शदाता ( वृक्क विज्ञानी ) , सर गंगा राम अस्पताल , दिल्ली को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में पांच वर्षों के लिए निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

अतः अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्यमंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 138 में नि लेखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्: -

उक्तअधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधाय ( 1 ) में खण्ड ( ग ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 19 के बाद निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

आर. एम . जी. दिल्ली " 20. डॉ. देविन्दर सिंह राणा ,

[PART II-Sec. 3 (i))

conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency of Delhi where from Dr. Devinder Singh Rana, Sr. Consultant (Nephrologist), Sir Ganga Ram Hospital , Delhi has been elected to be member of the Medical Council of India with effect from the date of issue of this notification .

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provison of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , the Centrat Governmenthereby makes the following further amendment inthe Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministryof Health number 5.0. 138 , dated the 9th January, 1960, namely:-

In the said notification , under the heading, "Elected under clause( c) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 ' , after serial No. 19, the following entries shall be added , namely :-

"20. Dr. Devinder Singh Rana Sr. Consultant(Nephrologist) Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Delhi"

[No. V- 11013/3/2005 -ME(Policy-I) ] T.J. S. CHAWLA , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली. 12 जून . 2007

का.आ. 1854, - भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्अधिनियम, 1956, (1956) का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " कुवेम्पु विश्वविद्यालय " और उससे संबद्ध प्रविष्टियों के बाद " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय बंगलौर" जोड़ा जाएगा और " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय " के सामने ' मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान आर्हता' [ ( इसके बाद स्तंभ (2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' । ( इसके बाद स्तंभ (3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) ] के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा ; अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

एम. बी. बी. एस.

आयुर्विज्ञान तथा शल्य

विज्ञान स्नातक

वरिष्ठ परामर्शदाता ( वृक्क विज्ञानी ) , सर गंगा राम अस्पताल , दिल्ली"

[सं. वी-11013/3/2005 - एम ई ( नीति-1 ) ]

टी. जे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (DepartmentofHealth) New Delhi , the 8th June,2007 .

S. O. 1853. Whereas the Central Governmem in pursuance of clause (c) c. sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1951

(यह पान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता होगी जब यह ए. जे. आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान मंगलौर , कर्नाटक के छात्रों के संबंध में मार्च, 2007 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो। ) [सं. यू. 12012/43/2001- एम ई ( पी-11 ] के. वी. एस. राव , उप सचिव NewDelhi , the 12th June , 2007

S. O. 1854. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical 4045 [ भाग 11 खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आवाद 9, 1929

NewDelhi , the 12th June,2007 Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely:

S. O. 1855. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) , the Central Government, after consultingthe Medical Council of India, hereby maikes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the saidAct, namely:-

In the saidFirst Schedule after "Kavesupu University" and entries thereto "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore" shall be added and against "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' (hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , and under the heading "abbreviation for Registration " (hereinafter referred to as column(3) ) , the following shall be inserted , namely :-

(2)

()

Inthe said First Schedule after " Kuvempu University" and entries thereto " Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore " shall be added and against "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore " under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as coluran (2) ] , and under the heading "abbreviation for Registration " [hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ) , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

MBBS .

(2)

(3) Bachelor ofMedicine and Bachelor of Surgery

M.B.B.S.

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

(This shall be recognized medical qualification when granted on or after March, 2007 in respect of students ofA. J. Institute of Medical Sciences, Karnataka) Mangalore.

(This shall be recognized medical qualification when granted on or after March , 2007 in respect of students of Navodaya Medical College, Raichur Karnataka) [No. U. 12012/43/2001 - ME(P - II) K. V. S. RAO, Dy. Secy.

[No. U. 12012/76/2001 -ME(P- II) K. V. S. RAO, Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 जून , 2007

नई दिल्ली, 12 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1855.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956, (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदस शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्: -

का. आ. 1856.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956, ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा (2 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एक्यूद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " कुवेम्पु विश्वविद्यालय " और उससे संबद्ध प्रविष्टियों के बाद " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय बंगलौर" जोड़ा आएगा और " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय " के सामने ' मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता [ इसके बाद स्तंभ ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ ( इसके बाद स्तंभ ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) ] के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा; अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " कुवेम्पु विश्वविद्यालय " और उससे संबद्ध प्रविष्टियों के बाद " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर " जोक्ष जाएगा और " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर " के सामने ' मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता ' [ इसके बाद स्तंभ (2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [ इसके बाद स्तंभ (3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा ; अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

(2)

एम. बी. बी. एस्।

एम. जी. मी. एस.

आयुर्विज्ञान तथा शल्य विज्ञान स्नातक

(यह मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अहंता होगी जब यह नवोदय आयुर्विज्ञान महाविद्यालय, प्रयचूर, कर्नाटक के छात्रों के संबंध में मार्च, 2007 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।

(यह मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता होगी जब यह वैदेही आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र, बंगलौर , कर्नाटक के छात्रों के संबंध में मार्च , 2007 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । ) [सं. यू 12012/76/2001 -एम ई ( पी-11 ] के. वी. एस. रावं , उप सचिव

[सं. यू. 12012/33/2001-एम ई ( पी- II ) ] के. वी. एस. राव , उप सचिव 4046

[PART HSEC 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

New Delhi , the 12th June, 2007

S.O. 1856. Ir: exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical CouncilAct , 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government , after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely:-

In the said First Schedule after "Kuvempu University" and entries thereto "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore" shall be added and against "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification ' ( hereinafter referred to as column ( 2 ) ) , and under the heading ' abbreviation for Registration' (hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ) , the following shall be inserted, namely :-

(2)

(3)

M. B. B. S.

Bachelor of Medicine and Bechelor ofSurgery

(This shallbe recognized medical qualification when granted on or after March, 2007 in respect of students of Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka)

[No. U. 12012/33/2001 - ME(P -II) ]

K. V. S. Rao , Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1857.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 , ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा ।। की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " कुरूक्षेत्र विश्वविद्यालय " और उससे संबद्ध प्रविष्टियों के बाद " महर्षि दयानंद विश्वविद्यालय , रोहतक , हरियाणा " जोड़ा जाएगा और " महर्षि दयानंद विश्वविद्यालय , रोहतक , हरियाणा " के सामने ' मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता ( इसके बाद स्तंभ ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ' [इसके बाद स्तंभ ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित्त के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा ; अर्थात्:-

(2)

(3)

एम. बी. बी. एस.

आयुर्विज्ञान तथा शल्य चिकित्सा स्नातक 0

(यह मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अहंता होगी जब यह महाराजा अग्रसेन मेडिकल कालेज , अग्रोहा , हिसार , हरियाणा के छात्रों के संबंध में मार्च , 2007 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) ।

[सं. यू. 12012/64/2000-एम ई (पी- II) ]

के. वी. एस. राव, उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th June, 2007

S.O. 1857. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 2 ) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical CouncilAct, 1956, ( 102 of 1956 ) the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely :--

Inthe said First Schedule after "Kurukshetra University " and entries thereto "Maharishi Dayanand University , Rohtak, Haryana " shall be added and against " Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana " under the heading 'RecognizedMedical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2 ) ] , and under the heading of ' abbreviation for Registration (hereinafter referred to as column (3) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely :-

(2)

(3)

M. B. B. S.

Bachelor ofMedicine and Bechelor of Surgery

(This shall be recognized medical qualification when granted on or after March , 2007 in respect of students of Maharaja Agrasen Medical College, Agroha, Hisar ,Haryana) .

No. U. 12012/64/2000- ME(P- II) ] K. V. S. Rao , Dy. Secy.

4047 [ भाग-खण्ड ( ii ) ]

'भारत। का राजपत्र : 'जून 30, 2007/ आषाद 9, 1929

नई दिल्ली , 12 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1858.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद्‌ अधिनियम , 1956 , ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बंगलौर और उससे संबद्ध प्रविष्टियों के बाद अमृता विश्वविद्यालय , ( सम विश्वविद्यालय ) , कोची " जोड़ा जाएगा और " अमृता विश्वविद्यालय (सम विश्वविद्यालय ) , कोधी " के सामने मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता' [ ( इसके बाद स्तंभ ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत और ' पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण' [ ( इसके बाद स्तंभ (3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित जोड़ा जाएगा ; अर्थात्:-

(3)

(2)

एम. बी. बी. एस.

आयुर्विज्ञान तथा शल्य विज्ञान स्नातक

(यह मान्यता प्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता होगी जब यह अमृता आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान एवं अनुसंधान केन्द्र , कोची के छात्रों के संबंध में मार्च , 2007 में अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

[सं यू. 12012/72/2001 - एम ई ( पी-11) ]

के. वी. एस. राव, उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 12th June , 2007

S.O. 1858- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2 ) ofthe section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956, ( 102 of 1956) the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the said First Schedule after "Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore " and entries thereto "Amrita VishwaVidyapeetham (Deemed University) , Kochi " shall be added and against " Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham (Deemed University), Kochi " under the heading "Recognized Medical Qualification ' ( hereinafter referred to as column (2)] , andunder the heading ' abbreviation for Registration " [hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ) , the following shall be inserted , namely:-

(3)

(2)

M.B. B. S.

Bachelor ofMedicine and Bechelor of Surgery

(Thisshall be recoginized medical qualification when granted on or afterMarch,2007 in respect of students of Amrita. Institute ofMedical Sciences&Research Centre , Kochi )

[No. U. 12012/72/2001 -ME(P- II)] K. V. S. Rao , Dy. Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विज्ञान )

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1859, केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय ( खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग ) के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन भारतीय खाद्य निगम के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाध क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करता है :-

1. जिला कार्यालय ,

भारतीय खाद्य निगम, 17-सी/डी, गांधी नगर , जम्मू-180004

[सं. ई-11011 /1 /2001-हिन्दी ]

संजय कुमार श्रीवास्तध, संयुक्त सचिव 2811 GI/2007-2 4048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9. 1929

(PART II- SEC. 3( ⅱ) ] MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi , the 20th June, 2007

SO. 1859. In pursuance of sub-rule14 of Rule 10 of the Official language ( use for official purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of Food Corporaiton of India under the administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food & Public: Distribution (Department of Food & Public Distribution) , where of more than 80 % of staft have acquired the working k knowledge ofHindi.

District office,

Food Corporation of India, 19-C/D, Gandhi Nagar ,Jammu - 1800х4

(No.E- 11011/1 /2001 -Hindi ] S. K. SRIVASTAVA, Jt. Secy,

(उपभोक्ता पाफ्ले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 20 जून, 2007

का.आ. 1860.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एत्तद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विचरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है , वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापिस ले लिये गए हैं :

अनुसूची

रई किये गये मार्नक की

टिप्पणी

भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 ,

क्रम संख्या संख्या और वर्ष

उप खंड ( ii ) में का.आ. संख्या

और तिथि प्रकाशित

( 1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

1. आई एस 4435 : 1967

का. आ. संख्या 1720 दिनांक 18-05-1968

2. आई एस 10324 1982

का.आ. संख्या 3328 दिनांक 27-09-1986

3. आई एस 3076 : 1985

का.आ. संख्या 1535 दिनांक 02-06-1990

4 आई एस 13711 : 1993

का.आ. संख्या 1745 दिनांक 30-07-1994

[संदर्भ : सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञा. एफ. एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 20th June , 2007

SO . 1860. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, it is hereby notified that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule given hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn .

SCHEDULE

SLNo.

Remarks

S.O. No. & Date published in

No. and year of the Indian Standards Cancelled

theGazette of India , Part- I , Section-3 , Sub - section (ii )

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

IS4435: 1967

S.O. No. 1720 Dated 18-05-1968

IS10325: 1982

S.O. No. 3328 Dated 27-109-1986

IS3076: 1985

S.O. No.1535 Dated 02-06-1990

IS 13711 : 1993

S.O. No. 1745 Dated 30-07-1994

[Ref. No. CED/Gazette

A. K. SAINI , Sc. ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg .) 4049 [ भाग -खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : भून् 0,2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

नई दिल्ली 2.: जून , 2007

का.आ. 1861.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1989. के विनियम 4 उपविनियम (5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

मई 2007 में स्वीकृत किये गये अनुज्ञप्ति

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पत्त

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि 1. 7736084

30-4-2007

हैंडलूम काटन बैंडेज बलाच नान सर्टिलाइजष्ठ 863:1988

द स्ट्रलिंग सरजिकल कंपनी , जे 18 , पहला फेस , इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , जी आई डी सी; वापी 396 195

2 7735688

30-4-2007 वी एस सोनी तथा कंपनी , सर्फ बाजार , पंचमहल 389 001

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहर्राकरन आई एस 1417:1999

3. 7735991

27-4-2007

पैकेजबंद पेयजल 14543:2004

राज एंटरप्राईस , ए/25/117 , कृष्णा इंडस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , बी आई डी. सी, गोरवा रोड , बड़ोदा 390016

4 7737086

4-5-2007

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417:1999

श्रीजीज्वैलर्स , 24, यूएल , अग्रवाल टावर, भुयग देव चार रस्ता, शोला रोड , घाटलोडिया , अहमदाबाद

5. 7737894

9-5-2007

पैकेजबंद पेयजल 14543:2004

नानेश वेस्ट तथा कैमिकल , 2906/1 , जे टाइप , फर्स्ट फेस , जी आई डीसी, ता पारडी, वापी , वलसाद 396 195

6 7739902

14-5-2007

घरेना ज्वैलर्स , 6 , नोंदनी काम्पलैक्स , नारायण नगर, बस स्टाप के पास , बैठक रोड, नरोडा अहमदाबाद

7. 7740176

14-5-2007

श्री प्रमुख ज्वैलर्स, 12, राज मंदिर काम्पलैक्स, हरि वल्लभ सोसाइटी के सामने, महा प्रभुजी बैठक के पास, नरोडा

8 7739292

14-5-2007

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417 : 1999

स्वर्ण भूमि, 2 रघुवीर पार्क , स्वामीनारायण सोसायटी के सामने, निकोलगाम रोड , पी ओ निकोल , अहमदाबाद 382 350

14-5-2007 9. 7739595

कनुभाईज्वैलर्स, जी ई 4-5 मंगल मूर्ति एपार्टमेंट, महालक्ष्मी प्रोविजन स्टोर के पीछे , विंडसर प्लाजा के सामने , आर सी दत्त रोड , अलकापुरी बड़ोदा 390 005 4050

[PART II-SEC . 3( 6) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस सोज्या

क्रम सं

10. 7739494 सोनी विनोदकुमार ज्वैलर्स, 6/713, मोटा बाजार , नवसारी 395445 11. 7739393 सिद्धीज्वैलर्स, 7, नंदीनी शॉपिंग सेंटर , नारायण नगर बस स्टैंड के पास , नरोडा , अहमदाबाद 12. 7740277 लक्ष्मी ज्वैलर्स , पूजा चैमबर्स , डा गिरधर पटेल मार्ग , गुरूनानक चौक, बनसकांटा 385 001 13. 7739797 अमर ज्वैलर्स प्रा. लि. , 18 ई, नोध नंबर 363/3 , श्रीजी आवास , पटेल समाज के सामने , सरदार चौक , वारा रोड, सूरत 395 006

14. 7739696 अमर ज्वैलर्स प्रा. लि., 18 ई , नोध नंबर 363/3 , श्रीजी आवास , पटेल समाज के सामने , सरदार चौक , वारा रोड, सूरत 395 006

15. 7739801 रोश गोल्ड पैलेस , 9, अभिमनु काम्पलैक्स, गोविंदवाडी के सामने, इसनपुर, अहमदाबाद 382 443 16. 7740075 दागिना , 14, वाईट हाउस पैलेस रोड , बनसकांटा385 001

17. 7740984 पूनम ज्वैलर्स, जी एफ 21 , श्याम शिखर काम्पलैक्स, अडानी हाइपर मार्केट के सामने बापूनगर , अहमदाबाद 380 024 18. 7741279 श्री ज्वैलर्स , 4, श्रीनाथजी काम्पलैक्स , शिवम अस्पताल के नीचे , चांदलोडिया , अहमदाबाद 380 081

19. 7741077 संगम ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नंबर 5 , अमरदीप काम्पलैक्स, अंबा माता मंदिर के पास , धोबीबाड, बलसाद 396 001

20. 7741178 एस पी ज्वैलर्स , शॉप नंबर 1669/11 , प्रगति बैंक के पास, हाइवे रोड, पी ओ धारा , बनसकांटा 385 555

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि

14-5-2007 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417:1999

14-5-2007 चांदी एवं चांदी मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 2112: 2003

14-5-2007 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417: 1999

16-5-2007 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417:1999

17-5-2007 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417: 1999

15-5-2007 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417: 1999

17-5-2007 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417: 1999 [ भाग II-खष्ठ 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

4051 लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

स्थ्ीकृत क्रम सं

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

करने की

तिथि 21. 7741986

18-5-2007

जे के ज्वैलर्स, कीर्ति गुज सोसाइटी के पास , सरकारी एफ कालोनी के सामने , शाह आलम तोलनाका, अहमदाबाद 380 022

22 7741885

18-5-2007

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्णं मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417: 1999

न्यूमोमा ज्वैलर्स, मगनीराम एस्टेट , जैन देरासर के पास, मणीनगर स्टेशन के सामने , अहमदाबाद 380 008

23. 7742180

18-5-2007 पारसमल इजारीमल चोकसी, 312, सत्यनारायण नगर , आजाद चौक , अमरःहवाडी, अहमदशराबाद 380 026

24. 7742079

18-5-2007

शिवमज्वैलर्स, 113-114 , सिद्धी विनायक काम्पलैक्स, शिवरंजनी क्रास रोड, सैटेलाइट, अहमदाबाद 380 015

25. 7742685

18-5-2007

सीमा ज्वैलर्स फ्र. लि. 207-208ए, समीर काम्पलैक्स , म्यूनिसिपल मार्केट के सामने, सी बी रोड, नगरंगपुरा , अहमदाबाद 380 009

26. 7742786

18-5-2007 40, प्यूनिसिपल मार्केट, स्टेशन रोड, गांधीनगर 382 721 राज ज्वैलर्स,

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र भातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417:1999

27. 7742887

18-5-2007 कावेरी गोल्ड पैलेस, भमारिया नाला के पीछे, एसटी वर्कशॉप रोड, मेहसाना 384002

28. 7742584

18-5-2007 डीएमज्वैलर्स, 2, गौतम काम्पलैक्स, लाइब्रेरी के पीछे , दादनगवाड , नवसारी 396445

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धत एवं मुहरांकन आई एस 1417:1999

29. 7743081

15-5-2007

पैकेजबंद पेयजल 14543:2004

उमा हैल्थकेयर, साबर हेरी के पास , पाड़ाकेन्द्र के सामने, एट तथा पोस्ट गाठोडा , हिम्मतनगर, साबरकांय 383 001

30 7744689

24-5-2007 अर्जनदास तथा सन्स, शॉप नंबर 98 , झूलेलाल मंदिर, सरदार नगर , अहमदाबाद 382 475

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

ए. के. तलवार, उप महानिदेशक (मुष्हर) (PART 11-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : Π'NE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

4052

New Delhi, the 22nd June , 2007

S.O. 1861.-In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

LicenceGranted for the month ofMay 2007

Name and address of the licensce

Article/process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licensee

No. Licence

SL No.

Date of Grant of license

30-4-2007 1. 7736084

Handioom Cotton Bandage Cloth, Non-Sterilized IS863: 1988

The Sterling Surgical Company J-18 , First Phase, Industrial Estate, GIDC, Vapi 396 195

30-4-2007 2. 7735688 V.S. Soni & Co .. SarafBazar, Distt . Panchmahal 389 001

Gold and Gold Alloys . Jewellery /Artefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417: 1999

27-04-2007 3. 7735991

Packaged Drinking Water tother than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) 14543:2004

Raj Enterprises , A/25/ 117, Krishna Indl. Estate, Opp . BIDC , Gorwa Road, Vadodara 390016

4-5-2007 4. 7737086

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery /Artefacts-Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999

Shrrji Jewellers , 24, UL, Agrawal Tower, Bhuyangdev Char Rasta, Sola Road , Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad 380061

9-5-2007 5. 7737894

Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water ) 14543:2004

Nanesh Waste & Chemicals . 2906/1 , J Type, First Phase , GILKC, TA: Pardi , VapiValsad 396195

14-5-2007 6 7739902

Gold andGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417: 1999

Gharena Jewellers , 6. Nandini Complex , NRNarayan Nager Bus -Stop, Bethak Road, Naroda Ahmeriabad

14-5-2007 7. 7740176

Gold and Gold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts--Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999

Shree Pramukh Jewellers , 12, Raj Mandir Complex, Opposite Hari Vallabh Society, NearMahaPrabhuji Bethak , Naroda

14-5-2007 8. 7739292

Gold andGold Alloys . Jewellery/Artefacts--Fineness and Marking Specification IS 1417: 1999

Suvarnabhoomi , 2. Rezhuvir Park, Opp . Swartumarayan Society, Nikolgam Road, P.O. Nikol , Ahmedabad 382350

14-5-2007 9. 7739595

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417: 1999

Kanubhai Jewellers , GE-4-5, Mangal Murti Appartment. B/H . Mahalaxmi Provision Store. Opp.WindsorPlaza , RCR Alkapuri , Vadodara 39000 [ भाग-खण्ड ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

4053 Name and address of the licensee

SI. No.

Licence No.

Article/process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licensee

Dateof Grantof license 10. 7739494

14-5-2007 Soni Vinodkumar Jewellers , 6/713,MotaBazar , Navsari 395445

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts Fineness and Marking Specification IS1417:1999

11. 7739393

14-5-2007 Siddhi Jewellers , 7, Nandini Shopping Centre , NearNarayan Nagar Bus Stand, Naroda, Ahmedabad

Gold andGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness andy Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999

12. 7740277

14-5-2007 Laxmi Jewellers, PoojaChamber ,Dr. Girdhar Patel Marg . Gurunanak Chowk Banaskantha- 385001

GoldandGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking-Specification IS 1417: 1999

13. 7739797

14-5-2007 Amar Jewellers Private Limited, 18E,Nondh No. 363/3, Shriji Awas , Opp. Patel Samaj , Sardar Chowk, Varachha Road, Surat-395006

Gold andGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

14. 7739696

14-5-2007 Amar Jewellers Private Limited, 18E, Nondh No. 363/3 , Shriji Awas, Opp. Patel Samaj , Sardar Chowk, Varachha Road, Surat -395 006

Silver and Silver Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999

15. 7739801

14-5-2007 Roshani Gold Palace, 9. Abhimanu Complex, Opp .Govindvadi, Isanpur, Ahmedabad-382443

Goldand GoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

16. 7740075

14-5-2007 Dagina, 14, White House , PalaceRoad, Banaskantha 385 001

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

17. 7740984

16-5-2007 Poo..am Jewellers, GF21, Shyam-Shikhar Complex, Opp.Adani Hyper Market, Bapunagar . Ahmedabad-380024

Goldand GoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and Marking- Specification IS1417:1999

18. 7741279

17-5-2007 Shri Jewellers, 4, Shrinathji Complex , Under Shivam Hospital , Chandlodia Alunedabad- 380081

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999-

19. 7741077

15-5-2007 Sangam Jewellers, ShopNo. 5, Amardeep Complex , NearAmba Mata Mandir, Dhobiwad Valsad-396001

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

20 7741178

17-5-2007 SPJewellers, Shop No. 1669/11 , Nr. Pragati Bank, Highway Road, P.O. Thara Banaskantha -385555

Gold andGoldAlloys. Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999 [PART I-Sec . 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

4054

Name and address of the licensee

$l . Licence

Article/process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licensee

No. No.

Date of Grantof license

18-5-2007 21. 7741986

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness and Marking- Specification IS1417: 1999

JK Jewellers , Nr. Kirti- Kunj Society, Opp.Government F-Colony, Shah-Alam Tolnaka Ahmedabad-380022

18-5-2007 22. 7741885

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS 1417: 1999

New Mona Jewellers , Magniram Estae, Nr. JainDerasar Opp. Maninagar Rly. Station Maningar Ahmedabad 380008

18-5-2007 7742180

23.

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and Marking-Specification IS 1417: 1999

ParasmalHajarimal Choksi, 312, SatyanarayanNagar , Azad Chowk, Amrsiwadi , Ahmedabad 380026

18-5-2007 24. 7742079

GoldandGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS1417:1999

Shivam Jewellers , 113-114, Siddhi Vinayak Complex. Shivranjani Cross Road, Satellite Ahmedabad 380015

18-5-2007 25. 7742685

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Marking-Specification IS 1417: 1999

Seema Jewellers P. Ltd. , 207-208/A, Samir Complex, Opp .Municipal Market, C.G. Road, Naungpura , Ahmedabad-380009

18-5-2007 7742786

26.

Raj Jewellers, 40, Municipal Market, Station Road, Gandhinagar-382 721

Jewellery/Artefacts- Fineness and Gold and Gold Alloys , Marking-Specification IS 1417:1999

18-5-2007 7742887

27.

Kaveri GoldPalace, B/HBhamaria Nala, St. Workshop Road, Mehsana-382002

Gold andGoldAlloys, Marking-Specification IS 1417: 1999 Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and

18-5-2007 28. 7742584

GoldandGoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artefacts -Fineness and Marking- Specification IS1417: 1999

D.M. Jewelleri , 2, GautamComplex , Opp. Library, Dadangwad, Navsari-386445

15-5-2007 7745081

29.

Packaged Drinking water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) 14543:2004

Uma Heal Thcare, Near sabar Dairy , Opp . Padakendra , At & Post gadhoda , TA : Himatnagar, Sabhanta-383001

24-5-2007 7744689

30.

Gold andGold Alloys, Jewellery/Artefacts -Finen Marking-Specification IS1417: 1999 and

Arjandas & Sons , Shop No. 98. Opp. Thulelal Mandir , SardarNagar, Ahmedabad-382475

[No. CMD/13: 11 ]

A. K. TALWAR , Dy. Director General (Marks) [ भाग 1 ] -वन्द ( 1 ) ]

भारता कर राजपत्र : मूल 30 , 2007 /आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

4055

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1962- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफँनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड शरा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए; !

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवस्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भभूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एस्.सुब्रमन्यम राजु, सक्षम अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट सं 104, घटसला टार्वस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस, चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

मंक्स: पलामानेर

जिला: वित्पूर

राज्य : आमाप्रदेश

सबंधन से-

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

उप- खण्ड से.

अन्य से.

हेक्टर

पर्न बिटर

73, पलामानेर

984

731

[फा. सं. आर-25011 /5/2007-ओ,आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 2811 GI/2007-3 [ भाग 1]-राष्ठ 3 ( il ) ]

भारत का रामपत्र जून 30, 2007 / बाद 9, 1929

4055

.पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1962.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनमुष्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिषदन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और कैन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए मह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है किउस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए आने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन मिछाने के संबध में श्री एस्. सुक्रमन्यम राजु, सक्षम अधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट से 104 , क्टसला टार्वस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस, कित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

मंडल: पशामानेर

मिला: चित्पुर

राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश

क्षेत्रफल

गाँवकाक्रम

उप-छह से.

सर्वेक्षण से- राष्ट से.

वर्ष बिटर

एकर

हेक्टर

75, पलामानेर

984

731

4 00 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007-ओ.आर. -1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 2811 GI/2007-3 [PART 11-Sec. 3( i)] 4056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

S. O. 1862. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline shouldbe laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Andwhereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

! Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri S.Subrahmanyam Raju , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai-Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh.

SCHEDULE

State:Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandal : Palamaner

Area

Sub- Division No.

Sq . Mtr.

SurveyNo.

Hectare Are

Name of the Village

984

26 73, PALAMANER

731

[F. No. R-25011 /5/2007-0.R . - 1 ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4057

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 30, 2007/ाद 9, 1929

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1863.-- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है किलोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में, चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुद्धि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, केंन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रत्तियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एस्. सुब्रमन्यम राजु, सक्षम अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन , लिमिटेड, चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट सं 104, क्टसला टार्वस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस, चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 4068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

अनुसूची मंडल: बंगारुपालेम

[PART 1 Sec. 3 (ii) ]

राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

उप-खण्ड सं.

गाँव का नाम

सर्वेक्षण से- खण्ड सं.

3 1

105

67, कुमपिल्ले

100

5C :

340

७४, कल्लुरुपस्ले

340

331

203

195

192

177

171

151

क्षेत्रफल

वर्गमिटर

हेक्टर

एयर

14 [ ग ][-ण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

गारपत्र 30, 2007/ाद 9 , 1929

1E 62 , करशुस्पल्ले ( क्रमाः ...)

* ६७ , अंबुवरिपरिल

105

106

103

102

101

8591004 70, गौल्लापल्ले

1103461034254672 18

4059 5

00 00 00

00 00 00 00 00

00 00

00 888 08

91 4060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

70, गोल्लामस्ले ( क्रमशः ... )

145

147

148

150

175

182

181

180

257

71, पालेर

253

72, मोनिलि

252

249

250

264

284

282

283

290

277

211

144

146

148

149

150

[PART 11-SBC . 3(ii) ] 4

0000

00 4061

भारत का राजपत्र : पूजून 30, 2007/ाचार 9, 1929

[भाग 11- 3 ( ii ) ]

150

72, मोगिलि ( क्रमतः ... )

150

153

173

171

172

169

101

99.

[फा. सं. आर-25011 /5/2007-ओ.आर. -1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

S. O. 1863 Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited .

Andwhereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose oflaying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

4062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-SBC.3( Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri S.Subrahmanyam Raju , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Bangarupalam

District : Chittoor

State:Andhra Pradesh

Area

Name of the Village

Survey No. Sub- Division No.

Hectare Are Sq. Mtr.

6 67, KURMAIPALLE

105

100

3D 3F

62 58, KALLURUPALLE

340

32-

331

203

195

00 00 8888

192

20 4063

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आपाड़ 9, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

177

68, KALLURUPALLE

177

(Continued...)

177

171

151

14 02

00 00 88

2G 2112-34201010101BA2 1G

105

69, JAMBUVARIPALLI

106

103

00 00 00 88888888 00 00 00

102

101

00 00 00

17.859303014 1 3D 3C

70, GOLLAPALLE

10346B3425

00 00 00

2811 GI/2007-4 4064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

3 1

70,GOLLAPALLE ( Continued...)

145

147

148

150

175

182

191

180

257

71, PALERU

253

1 72, MOGILI

252

249

250

264

284

282

283

290

277

211

144

146

148

149

[PART 11SBC . 3( ii) ] 5

010

64 [ भाग ]]- खण्ड 3 (1 ) ]

4065

भारत का राजपत्र : चूजून 30, 2007/आपद 9, 1929

3. 1

149

72, MOGILI ( Continued...)

150

153

173

171

172

169

189

11.1097

101

16.

10531 4

[F. No. R -25011/5/2007-O.R. -IJ S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1864.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा "चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

4066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 ,1929

[PART I-Sec. 3( 0) ] अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइफलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो ठक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री एस्. सुब्रमन्यम राजु सक्षम अधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट सं 104, वटसला टार्वस, नाएड्डु बिलडिंगस , चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची मंडल: गंगावरम

राज्य : आन्ध्रप्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

उप-खण्ड से, गाँवकानाम

सर्वेक्षण से- खण्डसं.

343

74, गंगाक्रम

38/2

343

369

345

364

362

387

522

523

524

509

508

11B304ABCABC

508

497

496

495

494

589

620

618

28203860-12

618

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मिटर

हेक्टर

एयर

00 4067

भारत का राजपत्र : जूत्र.30 2007/ाद 9 , 1929

[श्चल 11-3 ( ü ) ]

617

74. ( ...)

617

629

514

612

607

旧 2-2 1A

1A/1

769

1A/28

788

701

781

761

757

758

756

758

756

744

739

342

341

337

316

315

139

140

158

189

170

3450-38302.128152--1212.- 5C 3C

168

166

165

165 48--

177

178

179

159

75, मासुपारिश

160

160 1136

160

101

161

182

162

163

183

131

129

05.

16 60

17 201

00 00 00 00 00 00

72 4068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

129

4 75, मादुपल्लि(क्रमशः ... )

129

128

119

118

212

807

2B 76, देहपस्से

807

3A :

809

808

806

804

1B/A

804

18/B

804

1B/C

804

1B/D

803

790

736

738

732

932

735

734

733

717

716

714

246

2C 77, वीटमान्मुलापरिल

246

249

4B i

249

262

1E !

202

267

268

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 4

38 [ पात्र II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भास्त कर राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/भाबाद 9, 1929

722

B 73, मामाहुणु

722

638

640

A2/1

640

A2/2

A2/3

640

A4/C

640

A4/A

640

A4/B

A5/D

640

641

842

ABB-

644

645

669

506

507

505

661

667

666

508

512

21-1--13-142BCA旧

513

525

旧日C

525

523

394

1B /A

4069 4

6 00

48 00

67 00

91 00

12 00

57 00

10 00

07 00

48 00

86 00

29 00

48 00

17 00

86 00

67 00

63 00

29 00

10 00

31 00

45 00

40 00

07 00

05 00

91 00

81 00

05 00 4070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 ,1929

393

78, किमतः ...|

393

392

413

B 79, पाचिकोडर

415

417

421

422

425

427

428

426

312

314

315

339

341

342

343

-1-243030451A23AAABA.K-

142

150

1-1459867-

340

50, कीस्तापरिल

57210

24/1

24/2

[PART II-SBC.3( )) 4

06 88 03

00 00 00

01 08 58

03 888

00 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/माद 9, 1929

4071

28/3

80 , कौलापरिस ( क्रम: ...)

110

117

206

205

206

00 04

206

208

255

253

254

00 00 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011 /5/2007- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

S. O. 1864.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government thatit is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Andwhereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

2811 GI/2007-5 4072

[PART II-SEC. 3( 1) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri S. Subrahmanyam Raju , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai -Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings, Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

SCHEDULE

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandal : Gangavaram

Sub -Division No.

SurveyNo.

Name of the Village

343

3A 74, GANGAVARAM

38/2

343

369

345

364

362

3€2

387

522

523

524

509

508

497

496

495

494

589

620

618

617

2-1B4ABCABCA0024-282035050-12以

617

629

旧队2

614

612

607

1A Area

Are Sq. Mtr .

Hectare

00 [भग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4073

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाडू 9. 1929

د 74, GANGAVARAM

607

2 (Continued...)

607

1A/1

769

1A/2B

789

1A/3

769

761

781

761

757.

757

750

756

744

739

342

341

337

316

315

139

140

169

170

168

188

166

165

177

178

179

159

1 76, MAREDUPALLI

180

160

180

151

161

162

163

183

131

8 6

69.

102

00 00 00 0445

00 00 00

00 09

4074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

129

76, MAREDUPALLIMARED

129

5 (Continued... )

128

119

118

212

807

2B 76, DANDAPALLE

807

809

808

806

804

18/A

804

18 /B

804

1B/C

804

18/D

803

790

736

738

732

932

735

BR- 1B 1A

734

733

717

716

714

AAA

246

77, JEEDIMAKULAPALLI

246

249

262

267

268

[PART II-Sac. 3( 1) 4

72 00

81 00

26 00

64 00

05 00

86 00

87 00

40 00

81 00

79 00

69 00

10 00

48 00

45 00

40 00

83 00

86 00

24 00

57 00

26 00

24 00

67 00

83 00

45 00

43 00

83 00

64 00

43 00

07 00

21 00

43 00

05 00

38 4075

भारत का राजपत्र: मूल 30, 2007/आबाद 9, 1929

[ भा II- 3 ( i ) )

722

38 78, MAMADUGU

722

638

640

A2/1

840

A2/2

640

A2/3

540

640

A4/C

640

AWA

040

A4/B

540

A5/0

640

841

641

542

6 BABB-

644

645

845

21-

660

506

507

505

661

607

066

868

506

508

512

513

525

523

394

k..13.142802ABBRBCD34M2B

394

48 4076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :

JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

3 1

394

1A 78, MAMADUGU (Continued...)

1B/A

394

393

392

413

79, PATHIKONDA

415

417

421

422

425

427

428

312

314

315

339

341

342

343

3C -2343830451A23AAABA-

142

150

1-1-14567-

340

80, KEELAPALLI

59 57210

[PART I-SBC.3( 1)] 5

00 00 00 00

00 00 [भग II- अष्ठ ( 1 ) ]

4077

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आपाड़ 9 , 1929

2A/1

90, KEELAPALLI ( Continued...)

24/2

28/3

110

117

206

208

206

208

255

253

254

.67

A 4

[F. No. R-25011 /5/2007-0.R . - I ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का, आ. 1865.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है किलोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुद्धि टॉर्मिनल , बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " निछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है किउस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अथ, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना 4078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-Sec. 3 (ii)] की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इविकस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एस्.सुब्रमन्यम राजु, सक्षम अधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट सं 104, चटसला टार्थस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस, चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची मंडल: वैदेडीपल्लि

राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

गाँवकानाम

उप- खण्ड सं .

सर्वेक्षण र्स- खण्ड सं.

144

81 , पेाचिरलारिगुंटा

6 83, गोल्लाश्रीमनापस्लि

3B :

84, माशापल्लि

274

271

-1242

271

254

255

261

262

269 2-23 2

269

257

258

249

209

146

147

148

143

144

167

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मिटर हेक्टर

एयर

29 00

62 00

91 00

26 00

12 00

88 00

86 00

77 00

81 00

64 00

10 00

48 00

86 00

02 00

64 00

91 00

40 00

29 00

07 [ भाग 1]-वरण ( ii ) ]

4079

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ असद 9, 1929

167

84, आलापल्लि ( क्रमशः ... )

167

163

168

170

172

173

10 00

57 00

31 00

07 00

17.

38 00

67 00

93 00

12 00

46 00

15 00

10 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007 -ओ.आर. -1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2007

$0.1865.Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Rafinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi . Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Andwhereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose oflaying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

2811 G1/2007-6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

[PART 1 ] Sec. 3(u )] 4080

land to Sri S.Subrahmanyam Raju , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai-Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers, Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

SCHEDULE

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandal : Baireddypalli

Area

Sub-Divisiori No.

Nameof theVillage

SurveyNo.

Are Sq. Mtr .

Hectare

144

81, PEDDACHELLARIGUNTA

, GOLLACHEEMANAPALLI

312-12 3B

274

79 84, ALAPALLI

271

(11

271

254

255

261

21.-2

262

269

257

258

249

209

146

147

148

143

144

167 [ II-याण्ड ( ii ) )

4081

भारत का राममंत्र : भूत 30, 2007 /ाद 9, 1929

3 1

167

84, ALAPALLI (Continued ...)

107

103

163

105

170

172

173

1B 4

IF. No. R-25011/5/2007 -O.R.- I ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1866.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुद्धि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;.

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एस्.सुब्रमन्यम राजु, सक्षम अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, चेन्नै - बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट से 104, घटसला टार्वस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस, चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 4082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

अनुसूची

[PART 1 ]-Sec. 3(ii))

राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

मंडल: विजवपुरम

सर्वेक्षण सं-

उप-खण्ड सं .

गाँव का नाम

खण्डसे.

153

28, नाहरपुरम

157

152

149

150

136

135

133

124

125

120

129

121

120

136

29, महाराजापुरम

-475541

22 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मिटर

हेक्टर एयर

5 20

4 00

00 188

48 भारत का राजपत्र : खून 30, 2007 /आषाढ़ 9, 1929

15 20 , महाराणापुरम ( क्रमशः ... )

101

27. 32, पाथअरफोड

101

100

12A

204

4083 4

00 00 00 888888

888 00

31 4084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA.9 , 1929

PART I SEC . 3 (ii) )

204

32, पाथारकोड ( क्रमशः ... )

203

233

234

239

241

247

96328

247

250

251

1314647 78

163

161

156

157

153

114

1,2

109

[फा. सं. आर-25011 /5/ 2007- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकार' , अवर सचिव 4085

भ्ररत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

[भाग 1 ]-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2007

S. O. 1866. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri S.Subrahmanyam Raju , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai-Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers, Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh.

4086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA9, 1929

[PART 11 Sac. 3 ( 0 ) ]

SCHEDULE

District:Chittoor

Mandal : Vijayapuram

Sub-Division No.

SurveyNo.

Name ofthe Village

153

1 28, SRIHARIPURAM

157

152

12 !

152

149

150

136

135

133

124

125

23 !

125

120

129

121

120

136

5 29, MAHARAJAPURAM

476

15 State: Andhra Pradesh Area

Hectare Are Sq. Mtr.

05 [ प्रग II- खण्य 3 (ii ) ]

4067

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

29, MAHARAJAPURAM

(Continued...)

11 32, PATHA ARCOD

101

100

204

12A

204

24 2811 Gl/2007-7

00 4088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

203

2 $2, PATHA ARCOD (Continued...)

203

233

234

239

241

247

250

251

163

161

156

158

156

157

153

114

1,2

109

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] 4

[F. No. R -25011 /5/2007-0.R . - I ) S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1867.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि अन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वार्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

4089

भारत का राजपत्र : खून 30, 2007/9 , 1929

[ भाग - न्य (ⅱ) ]

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और सानिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1982 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जावी है, इविकस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइफलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एस्.सुब्रमन्यम राबु सधाम अधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट से 104, घटसला टार्वस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस, चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आोप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: चित्पुर

मंडल: फलसमुद्रम

उम- खण्ड से.

गाँव का नाम

सर्वथन से- बन्द र्स .

167

47 , श्रमेरियनुपुरम

165

162

181

342020181234111098752317513-3

160

159

131

वर्ग फिटर

ईक्टर

क्षेत्रफल एक्र

3888888888888888

00 4090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA9 , 1929

3 47,

130

129

114

111

110

110 110

110

159

14118854101

114

111

30 16376

114 64

48, फलकूदम

[PART II-Sec. 3(ii) ] 4

00 04

81 15

07 [ भर - वण ( ii ) ]

4091

भारत का राजपत्र : भूरु 30, 2007/ 9, 1929

26,

130

139

140

141

144

183

49, वैनवण्नुहुन

183

181

10A

162

182

185

149

150

4A 4

00 40

00 00 00

00 00 40

00 00

83 4092

T13 GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

150

4B वक्त (क्रम ....

150

192

102

192

191

186

188

186

148

147

10A

147

108

147

117

13A

117

138

117

118

115

114

126

128

125

[PART 11-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] 4

00 00

12 [ भाग II- खप्प 3 ( ii ) ]

4093

भारत कर राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आकाव 9 , 1929

43. ( ...)

96

95 888888888

85.

45A

264

18A 50, अनुद

18A

204

284

198,19C

144

284

264

148

254

17A

263

7 158

253

263

253

263

3 01

45.

00 00 88

01.

00. 40

43 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA9, 1929

4094

262

251

243

247

130

248

250

225

195

188

631221EILCAKB 24

188

160

180

161

161 OCDEF

161

163

[PART II SBC. 3(ü)) 4

24 भाता का प्रचचत्र : खून 30, 2007/ 9, 1929

163-

28 ()

163

164

104

147

148

135

128

130

12A

120

135

136

195

136

138

136

16 16

32 888888888888 3

18C

4095 6

90 48

29 .

01 오오요!

오오 01

3888 02 02

00 00 888888888888888888888888888888 00 00

10 2811 GI/2007-8

10 02 05 17 01 04 88888888888888888888 03 20 4096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA9, 1929

[PART II-Sec . 3( 6)]

00 00

102

178

102

103

101

104

106

100

107

[फा. सं. आर -25011 /5/2007- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2007

S. O. 1867-Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

! Andwhereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

4097

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

[ पग II--ख०४ 3 (li ) ]

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section (1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri S. Subrahmanyam Raju , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers, Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh.

SCHEDULE

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Mandal : Palasamudram

Sub-Division No.

SurveyNo.

Name of the Village

44, KRISHNAJAMMAPURAM

107

47, SRIKAVERIRAJUPURAM

165

162

181

180

159

131

130

129

114

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.Mir.

8888 02 06 04

00 00

01 4096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

ווו

1 47, BRIKAVERIRAJUPURAM

111

(Continued...)

110

110 110

110

159

114

111

114

376213 06 00 898

48, PALASAMUDRAM

00 00 00 00 8888888 00

20 11586530306 28

07 [भन ][-पष्ट 3 ( ii ) ]

4099

भारत का राजपत्र : भूत 30, 2007/9 , 1929

44,PALABAMUDRAM

[Continued...)

79.

130

96 330301211755 34

130

139

140

0765432 8

140

141

144

45 49, VENGALRAJUKUPPAM

183

104

181

182

185

149

00 88888888 00 00 00 00

132346734

150

83 4100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

150

4B 43, VENGALRAJUKUPPAM

150

(Continued...)

150

192

191

186

148

147

10A

147

10B

147

117

13A

117

138

117

7日

117

116

115

114

126

125

[PART 11-Sec.3(ii)] 4

00 [ भाग II- वाष्प ( ii ) ]

4101

भारत का राजपत्र : जूत्र 30, 2007 / 9. 1929

1A 41, VENGALRAJUKUPPAM

(Continued...)

1210398

9日

2/8

45A

264

1BA 50, AMUDALA

264

18A

284

198,19C

264

14A

264

14B

264

284

263

17A

263

283

15B

253

263

283

263

283

3 4

00.

00 00

43 4102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

262

,AMUDALA ( Continued...)

262

251

243

247

130

248

246

250

225

195

188

11096312221EILCAKBE F

188

160

180

160

180

160

150

160

161

ABCDEF

163

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 4

03 [ भाग 1 ]-खष्ठ 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : खून 30, 2007 /आपाद 9, 1929

163

2B 50, AMUDALA(Continued...)

163

103

164

147

148

136

128

136

12A

135

120

138

135

136

138

136

138

136

18786078431

51 , AMUDALA PUTTUR

989

18C

2811 G1/2007-9

4103 4

00 00 00 00

180320 04

00 00 00 00

8588838 08 04

21 4104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; JUNE 30, 2007/ ASADHA 9 , 1929

..:

9 61, AMUDALA FITTUR

(Continued...)

102

103

101

104

106

107

[PART II-SEC 3( ⅱ) ]

[F. No. R-25011 /5/2007-O.R. -1 ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.ओ. 1868.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रत्तीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलूर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा "चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है किउस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइफलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

[भ ]]- खण्ड ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/माद 9 , 1929

4105 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एस्. सुब्रमन्यम राजु, सक्षम अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट से 104, वटसला टार्बस, नाएडु ब्लिडिंगस, चित्तूर - 517001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची मंडल: गंगाथरनेल्लोर

राज्य: मानाप्रदेश

विता: पित्तूर

सर्वचन सं-

गाँव कानाम

उप-शब्द सं.

390

14 52, মুরিদ

390

385

387

389

374

375

376

375

238

375

373

376

1BA

376

188

371

28 क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर

वर्ष मिटर

एयर

0.0 4106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

371

52, युर्वेद्रम ( क्रमश: ... )

371

370

3C !

370

308

18 :

308

312

313

18A

313

321

319

323

279

281

285

286

[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii) ]

00 ( भाग II- अप्प 3 ( ii ) )

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/भासद 9 , 1929

3 52, बुद्रम ( रा ..)

286

288

280

286

296

295

296

295

298

296

297

78910112158

298

296

1240 2A

296

198

158

200

10340

200

202

203

204

91022434519173设

204

205

242

228

229

231

15A

231

239

241

4107 4

07-

02 43

45 4108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

241

52. मुद्रण ( क्रमशः ... )

241

213

132

53, मम्बोदरापल्ले

132

129

130

124

123

113

117

14B

117

115

297

287

286

B10-23283412F1 1C 2H

285

284

1 B4, एल्लापिल्ले

PART 11-SBC. 3 ( i ) ) 5

ов

00 [भाग - खण्ड ( ii ) ]

4109

भारत का राजपत्र जूर 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

54, एल्लापेल्से ( দা: ...)

00 40

22.

00 40

00 00 00 00 00 88888888888 00

00.

4B 223214630507812131105684987762 1

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007-ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव 4110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 / ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-Sec. 3 (ii)] New Delhi , the 27th June , 2007

S. O. 1868.Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline ( Acquisition of Right of User in land ) Act 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri S. Subrahmanyam Raju , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh.

[ श्रग II- वष्ट ( ii ) )

4111

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आपाड़ 9. 1929

SCHEDULE

State:Andhra Pradesh

District : Chittoor

Mandal : Gangadharanellore

Survey No. Sub-Division No.

Name of theVillage

390

52, THUGUNDRAM

390

385

387

389

374

375

238

375

373

376

18A

376

18日

371

370

2811 GI/2007-10

Area

Are Sq. Mtr .

Hectare

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

4112

370

52, THUGUNDRAM

370

(Continued ...)

370

308

312

313

18A

313

ΘΑ

313

321

319

323

279

281

285

286

[PART 11-SEC. 3(ii) ]

09.

00 4113

भारत का राजपत्र जूभ 30, 2007/भाड़ 9, 1929

[भग 11- काष्ठ ( ii ) ]

286

52, THUGUNDRAM

286

(Continued...)

286

296

297

298

198

200

202

203

204

58124201553469102434

204

205

242

228

229

231

15A

231

239

241

81,

00 4114

JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

6A 52, THUGUNDRAM

213

(Continued ...)

213

2日

283

1:2

1 63, AMBODARAPALLE

132

1.2

129

130

150

130

124

123

1:3

113

117

14B

11?

117

115

15.

515

$15

297

287

286

285

205

285

284

234

122232354111213 2F 2H

1 54, ELLAPELLE

[PART II Sac. 3 ( u) ] 4

888 04 04

00 00 00 888

220 29 01

00 00 888

19 4115

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/माषाद 9, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

54, ELLAPELLE

(Continued...)

[F. No. R -25011 /5/2007-0.R. -1 ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy .

4116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30. 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

[ PART II Sec.3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2007-

को.आ. 1869.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है किउस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उधयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

i कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री एस्. सुब्रमन्यम राजु, सक्षम अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट से 104, बटसला टार्वस, नाएडु ब्लिडिंगस, चित्तूर- 517 001, आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ माग | I- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007 /आंध्रक 9 , 1929

अनुसूची

4117

राज्य: आन्ध्रप्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

मंडल: चिचूर

उप-खण्ड से.

गाँव कानाम

सर्वेक्षण से- खण्ड सं .

211

55, अनंतपुरम

212

213

214

204

195

178

177

161

163

172

165

143

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मिटर हेक्टर

एयर

12.

64 00

40 00

67 00

83 00

67 00

29 00

50 00

64 00

86 00

24 00

05 00

00 4118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

143

55. अन्नपुरम ( क्रमशः ... )

143

142

108

112

114

115

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii )]

03 4119 [पग ][- ]( ii ) )

भारत का राजपत्र : पूत 30, 2007 9, 1929

65, अनंतपुरम ( क्रमशः ...)

3811.

06 350

45789674

279

04 01 여어0

56, रातीला (मुद्रक

101

57, तालोबेडू

101

102

00 00 00 00 00 8888888888888 00

03 01 06 03 04 128888888888 10 02

1235--234523-9

58 , चिंतलगुंटा

00 00 00 8888

3786

2811 GI/2007-11 4120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

20 53

58 , चितलगी ( क्रमशः ... )

110

211

214

3265--608910113-9103053 1A 4

108

218

244

218

2A5

218

2D/A

218

121

212

213

120

110

109

111

59, पेरुमाल्लाकोडिगा

4A1

4A2

[PART 11-Sec. 3 (ii) ]

21 00

62 00

29 00

50 00

43 00

02.

02 00

86 00

88 00

64 00

45 00

29 00

86 00

03 00

64 00

05 00

15 00

10 00

69 00

62 00

31 00

43 00

27 00

93 00

60 00

43 00

24 00

00 मास्त का राजपत्र फल 30, 2007/आभाव 9, 1929 [भग 11 - वष्य ( ii ) ]

7 58 , पेस्मारकांकिगा (क्रमाः ...)

10A1

108

128

12C

201

80, नारिगापल्ति

201

200

197

145

269

257

256

266

256

255

256

4121 4

62 00

62 02

83 00

83 02.

48 00

29 00

12 00

53 00

24 00

50 00

98 00

83 00

24 00

02 04

05 00

07 00

21 01

87 00

81 00

62 01

24 00

10 00

ΟΣ

19 00

79 00 4122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 ,1929

252

50, भारियापल्लि ( क्रमशः ...)

252

251

100

1 1B

[PART I-SBC. 3(ii)] 4

77 00

12 00

05 00

88 00

98 00

64 00

83 00

29 00

81 00

53 00

29 00

00 [ भाग II- याम्प 3 ( ii ) ]

4123

महत्ता का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/उपाय, 9. , 1929

60 , नारिमापल्लि ( क्रमशः ...)

38627853

9C 9D $88000 98

154

5 61, अनुप्पल्ले

154

153

152

150

151

130

128

126

00 00 00

07 89

03.

24 4124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JUNE 30 , 2007/ ASADHA 9, 1929

126

61 , अनुप्परले ( क्रमशः ...).

126

124

[ PART I-Sec. 3(1) ] 4

6 00

29 00

88 CO

26 00

72 00

58 00

48 00

96 00

27 00

15 00

010

03 00

69 00

[फा. स. आर.-25011/5/ 2007- ओ. आर ] ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

Maw Lietni , the 27th June , 2007

S.O. 1869 Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennal Petroleum Corporation Limited , Marali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , it appears to the Central Govemment that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Scheduie annexed to this notification ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the fand described in the said Schedule may within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of Liser therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sn S. Subrahmanyam Raju , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project, Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4125

भारत का रावचत्र जूল 30 , 2007 /भाव 9, 1929

SCHEDULE

Mandal : Chittoor

State: Andhra Pradesh

District: Chittoor

Area

Name of theVillage

Survey No. Sub-Division No.

Are Sq.Mtr .

Hectare

211

55,ANANTAPURAM

212

213

214

204

195

176

178

177

161

163

172

00,

172

165

185

165

105

143

29.

143

67 4126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

143

6 66, AMANTAPURAM

143

(Continued...)

143

142

108

$12

112

114

115

5421108544853

115

222

7 :

18.

(PART 11-Sec. 3(i )] 4

00 ( भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

55, AMANTAPURAM

(Continued...)

57891674

279

56, ARATHOLA (MUTHUKUR)

101

57, THALAMBEDU

101

102

1235-234523-9

58, CHINTALAGUNTA

7 281.1 GI/2007-12

4127 5

04-

00 00 DO

00 00 00 00 00

29.

01 4128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

8 58 CHINTALAGUNTA

(Continued...)

110

211

108

218

10111265-508910113-81030534231

218

244

218

245

218

2D/A

218

121

212

213

120

110

109

111

109

PART II-SEC. 3(ii)) 4

93 [पन II- अण्ड 3( 1) ]

4129

भारवकर 30, 2007 9, 1929

54,M, MBRUMALLAKANDIGA

4A1

442

11-

10A1

108

128

120

201

SO,NARIGAPALLI

201

200

197

145

259

209.

260

269

257

256

00 40

88-8888888185 02 90 05 14

10100

00 00 00 00 00 38888888888888888

24 4130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA9 , 1929

३

256

18 60, NARIGAPALLI (Continued...)

256

255

252

251

68674

251

24.

100

18 14012785104 4C

100

25 2876 2

[PART II-Sec. 3( ü ) ] 4

;

21.

10 [भाग II- खण्ड ( ii ) ]

4131

भारत का राजपत्र : जूत 30, 2007/ 9, 1929

60,NARIGAPALLI (Continued...)

¥ 6857MB

030

154

81, ANUPPALLE

154

54321012

154

153

13120 3

153

153.

153

152

150

42823 3.

150

151

00 00 00 00

03.

00 00 00 00 88888

00 4132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA9 , 1929

130

$1, ANUPPALLE (Continued...)

130

128

126

124

36543435 3.

[PART I-Sec. 3(i )] 4

.00

IF. No. R -25011/5/2007-O.R. -11 S.K. CHITKARA, Ünder Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1870- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि आन्ध्राप्रदेश राज्य में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली कि रिफैनेरी से देवनगुष्टि टॉर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाईन " बिछाई आनी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है किउस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है। उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइफलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतिमाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइफलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एस्. सुब्रमन्यम राजु, सक्षम अधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड,चेन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अर्पाटमेंट सं 104, वटसला टार्वस, नाएडु बिलडिंगस, चित्तूर - 517 001 , आन्ध्रप्रदेश को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ II- 3 ( ii ) ]

4133

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/माचाद 9 , 1929

अनुसूची

जिला: फिजूर

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

उप-सखण्ड से.

हक्टर

खण्डसं.

234

21C

22A

22B

1A1

2B2

241

6G1

00 ৪৪ន

84, पेरिसंवाडि

249

101

249

1A1

250

246

00 00 00 888888888 00

248

246

1A2

243

242

239

237

87 4134

[PART I-SAC. 3(H) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 ,1929

231

14. पेरियोबादि (क्रमशः ... )

231

1A !

234

434

85, बादामारि

434

435

431

430

428

416

415

412

397

-34561

397

396

389

390

391

392

129

22C

130

224

130

22B

130

124

123

131

00 [पल 11- अण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4135

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007 / षाढ़ 9, 1929

120

66, बादामारि ( क्रमशः ...)

139

140

110

140

141

144

150

152

00 00 00 888

00 00 88

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007- ओ.आर. -1 ] एस. के, चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 2811 GI/2007-13 4136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART JI-SEC. 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2007

5. 0. 1870.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying sucm pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri S: Subrahmanyam Raju . Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

4137 [ पग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ भाद 9 , 1929

SCHEDULE

State : Andhra Pradesh

District : Chittoor

Mandal : Yadamari

Area

Sub- Division No.

Name ofthe Village

SurveyNo.

Hectare Are Sq. Mtr .

40 63,MADHAVARAM

23A

21C

22A

228

1A1

2B2

241

6G1

249

84, PERIYAMBADI

249

1D1

1A1

249

250

245

00 00 00

246

1A2

246

243

242

239

৪৪৪ 00

237 4138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

3 1

231

64, PERIYAMBADI

231

(Continued... )

231

234

434

65,YADAMARI

434

435

431

430

428

416

415

412

397

396

389

390

391

392

129

22C

130

22A

130

22B

130

124

123

131

[PART IISHC. 3 ( ii) ]

48 [ मान II- खण्ड ( ii ) ]

4139

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आवाद 9, 1929

120

53 65, YADAMARI ( Continued... )

139

140

01.

141

144

150

152

34454342110

66 , BUDITIREDDIPALLE

3214

[F. No. R - 25011 /5/2007 -O.R. -i ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

4140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA. 9. 1929

PART II---SEC. 3 ( i ) ]

AWARD

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2007

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No.L -12012/ 125/ 2005-1R ( B - I ) , dated 1-12-2005 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows :

"Whether the claim of Shri N.Cianesan against the management of City Union Bank Ltd. , Kumbakonam for reinstatement with back wages is legal and justitied? If not , to what relief the workmen is entitled to?"

का.आ. 1871.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सिटी यूनियन बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम नद्यालय चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 123/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/125/2005 - आई आर बी ।

अजय कुमार. डेस्क अधिकारों

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

2.After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 123:2005 and notices were issued to both the parties and they have entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Chain Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2007

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are brietly as follows :

S.O. 1871.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government bereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 123/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - 1 ahour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of City Umon Bunk Ltd. , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 1-6-2007,

[No. L- 12012/ 125/2005-18 (13-1

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday , the 26th April , 2007

PRESENT

K. JAYARAMAN, PRESIDING OFFICER Industrial Dispute No. 123/2005

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication unkler clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 : 1947 ) between the Management of City Union Bank L.uk. and theirworkmen)

BETWEEN

Sri N.Ganesan

1 Party/ Petitioner

AND

II Party/Managemen.

The Operation Manager ,

(Personnel),

The Petitioner was employed as an office assistant ic. the Respondent/ Bank in the year 1991 and he was serving in Thiruvidaimaruthur branch from 1-8-1991 . Subsequently , he was appointed as permanent staff and his appointment was also confirmed. While so , the Respondent Managemem obtained the signature of the Petitioner in blank papers on 31-1-94 anci he was directed to come for duty after one year , as the number of staff in the branch are excess and therefore , he was not provided job. On the assurance, the Petitioner bad waited for one year and after that when he approached the Respondent/ Management . hewas orally informed than he was terminated from service on31-1-94 itself. Thereafter , he has raised the dispute before labour officer , Thanjavur fur conciliation and the conciliation was ended in failure and the matter was referred toLabour Court . C'addalore . After that the Labour Court . Cuddalore has dispused of the matter that the Court has no jurisdictionto entertain the matter , as the . Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal - cum- 1.abour Court alone has the jurisdiction . Accordingly , the Petitioner has filed an application before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) , and after that the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. The Respondent/Management in terminating, the services of the Petitioner has acted against the provisions of 1.D. Act and has not followed the rules and regulations . No enquiry was conducted on the basis of principles of natural justice . Therefore , the termination is illegal android ab initio. Hence, the Petitioner prays this Tribunal to set aside the order of termination and reinstate the Petitioner imo service with continuity of service and back wages .

City Union Bank Ltd. , Kumbakonam.

APPEARANCE

For the Petitioner

Mr. W.T. Prabhakar ,

Advocate.

: Mr. K. Jayaramian

For the Management

Advocalu

4. As against this, the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that it is no doubt true that the Petitioner was employed as a messenger . It is false to allege that he was terminated w.e.f. 30-1-1994 . lt is also false to allege that Respondent Managemem has oblained the Petitioner's signature on sorne blank papers on 31-1-1994 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3( u) ]

4141

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

acknowledging the letter on 2-2-1994. Therefore, the question of termination will not arise in this case.

9. But, again , on behalf of the Petitioner it is contended that the allegation, that the Petitioner has given letter of resignation on 18-1-1994 is not true and it is also not true that he has written the letter and when it was written by him, the reason stated in the letter due to Petitioner's family situation , be is not able to do his cuties properly is false. Therefore , it canbe presumed that the letter was obtained by coercion and compulsion and therefore, it is a unfair labour practice adopted by the Respondent/Bank upon the poor Petitioner and hence , no reliance can be placed upon the resignation letter.

and he was directed to come after one year due to excess in number of staff . It is also false to allege that the Petitioner was terminated . On the other hand , due to family circumstances, the Petitioner resigned his employmentby letter dated 18-1-1994 and the said resignation was accepted and he was relieved w.e.f. 31-1-1994. His relieving order was sent on the same date and it was received by him or. 2-2-1994. Thereafter there is no relationship of workman and employer existed between the Petitioner and the Respondem/Management . The allegation muude against the Respondent/Management were not only false but made for the first time and it was taken up by the Petitioner belatedly as an afterthought . This Respondent has nol violated any of the provisions of the 1.D. Act much less 1.D. Act. The Petitioner was not at all terminated in any manner as alleged . Inasmuch as the element of termination is absent, the Petitioner cannot invoke Section 24 of the 1.D. Act . The Petitioner vas not dismissed and hence, fraining of charge and taking up of enquiry do not arise. The Petitioner has taken different stand before various forums . Hence, the Respondent prays that the petition may be disrnissed with costs.

5. In the reply statement , the Petitioner contended that only to get rid of the Petitioner from Respondent/ Bank, the officials of the bank forcibly obtained his signature on a blank paper on 18-1-1994 and directed the Petitionerto come after one ycar. The Petitioner had signed the resignation letter out of fear and coercive methods adopted by the Respondent . The resignation was not voluntary and therefore , the termination is illegal , arbitrary and contrary to principles of natural justice and this amount to unfair labour practice . Hence , he prays an award in his favour .

6. In these circumstances, the points for my consideration are :-

( i ) "Whether the claim of the Petitioner against the Respondent/Management for reinstatement with back wages is legal and justified ?

( a ) To what reliefthe Petitioner is entitled?"

Point No. 1:

1. The allegation of the Petitioner in this case is that he was appointed as office assistant at Thiruvidaimaruthur branch by the Respondent/Bank in the year 1991 and subsequently, he was confirmed on 26-3-1993 in that post. While so the Respondent/Management has obtained his signature on blank papers on 31-1-1994 and he was not provided with job on the ground that there were excess stafi in their establishment .

10. But , as against this, the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the Petitioner has given a letter dated18-1-1994 which is marked as Ex . M 16 in which the Petitioner has admitted his signature . Subsequently, the HeadOffice has accepted his resignation and was relieved from service on 31-1-1994 as per the orders ofhigher officers and he further received the relieving order on 2-2-1994 and the acknowledgment is also marked as Ex . M8 . After receiving all these things, the Petitioner has not taken any steps nor disputed the resignation letter. Only on 18-11-1995, nearly after two years,he raised the dispute before the labour authorities , as if he was illegally terminated . Even in that application namely under Ex. M9, he has not made any whisper about his resignation or obtaining of his signature in blank papers . Though in the present dispute, he has raised the contention that the signature was obtained in blank papers, in the cross- examination, he stated that body of the letter was not written by him . A perusal of the document would clearly reveal that the Petitioner has resigned his employment and consequent upon his resignation, he was relieved from the employment. The fact that he did not say anything about the resignation clearly establish that his resignation letter was a concocted one cannot be accepted. Further, the Petitioner alleged that this letter under Ex . M 16 was obtained by Respondent/Management by undue influence of coercion , therefore , the entire burden is upon the Petitioner to establish that this document has been concocted or obtained by coercion undue influence and so on, but, on the other hand , there is no evidence on the side ofthe Petitioner either oral or documentary to establish that his resignation letter was obtained by force or coercion. Further, the fact that he did not take up the contention of concoction or resignation letter in the earlier proceedings clearly establish that his contention is only an afterthought and made only for the purpose of this case .

8.As against this , the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was not terminated as alleged by him . But , on the other hand , he has given a letter of resignation on 18-1-1994 and it was accepted by the Respondent/ Management and he was relieved from service on 31-1-1994 and he has also received relieving order by

11.Again , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that present reference is being under section 2A of the I.D. Act and the real dispute is one relating to resignation and in the absence of admitted case of termination , Section 2A cannot be invoked. Further, in the absence of any reference regarding resignation, the issue 4142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ ASADHA 9 , 1929

[PART II- Stc. 3 ( ii ) ]

to this letter, but he has not taken any steps towards that nor has he given any complaint to the authorities . Under such circumstances , the allegation that he was terminated bythe Respondent/Bank cannot be accepted. Under such circumstances , I find there is no point in the contention of the Petitioner that he was terminated by the Respondent/ Bank. Therefore , 1 find this point against the Petitioner.

Point No. 2 :

The next point to be decided in this case is to whal relief the Petitioner is entitled?

13. Inview of my foregoing findings that the claim of the Petitioner against the Respondent /Management for reinstatement with back wages is not legal and justified, I find the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 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 26th April , 2007)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :--

For the Petitioner : WWI Sri N. Ganesan

MWI Sri K. Kasinathan. For the Respondent :

Documents Marked:-

For the I Party Petitioner : Nil

For the Il Party/Management: ---

Ex.No. Date

Description

MI 19-7-91 Хетоx copy of the office order as apprentice

M2 1-8-91 Xerox copy of the joining report of non - employment cannot be disposed of and the same would enlarge the scope of reference . Further, he relied on the rulings reported in 1984 I [ 1.1N 297 SITARAM VISHNU SHIRODKAR VS. ADMINISTRATOR, GOVT . OF GOA AND OTHERS. In that case , the employee contended that he was removed from service , while the contention of the employer was that the employee had voluntarily abandoned the job . Thus the real dispute is whether the services of employee were terminated or whether he had voluntarily abandoned the job? However the reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Acı was to, the effeel that whether the termination was legal and justified and if the answer is in negative , to what relief the workman was entitled? The question in that case is whether the reference interms is legal? Wherein the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that , " the Tribunal could not travel beyond the reference, and decide the question whether the workman had abandoned his service and the Petitioner/ employer had terminated the services of workman was an act fastened on the employer by this reference and the only question left open for decision was whether the lermination was legal and proper . As the real dispute was notmade the subject matter of the reference , the reference itselfwas bad and was liable to be quashed." Relying on this decision , learned counsel for the Respondent argued thatthough the Petitioner alleged that he was illegally terminated by the Respet dent/Management, it is really whether the Petitioner has resigned the post of messenger or whether be has been terminated as alleged by the Petitioner, but the reference is not with regard to whether the resignation is true or not . Under such circumstances. this Tribunal cannot go beyond the reference made to it. Under such circumstances , the allegation of the Petitioner has to be rejected summarily, as he is not entitled to any relief.

M3

26-03-92

Хстоx copy of the order of probation

Xerox copy of the order of confirmation

M4

26-3-93

M5 5-3-93 Signature of the Petitioner in his letter to Respondent

M6 18-1-94 Xerox copy of the signature of Petitioner in the Resignation letter

M7 31-1-94 Xerox copy of the office order reliving the Petitioner fram Service

M8 Nil

Xerox copy of the postal acknowledge . ment card

M9

18-11-95

Хетох copy of petition before Labour Officer, Thanjavur

M10 16-12-95

Xerox copy of the reply given by respondent bank before Labour Officer

M11 NI Xerox copy of the 2A petition filed by Petitioner

M 12 N

Xerox copy of reply statement filedby Respondent hefore Labour Court , Cuddlalore

12. Though I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent, in this case, the evidence was let in by both sides and both sides have produceddocuments to prove , their case . In this case, though the Petitioner alleged that the Respondent/ Management has obtained his signature in blank papers and they have created the resignation letter, it is not established by the Petitioner that the RespondentBank has obtained his signature in blank papers . Further , even accordingto the Petitioner , his services were terminated from 31-1-1994, but he has taken action against the Respondent Management only in the year 1995 i.e. nearly about two years after the incident. The Petitioner has not stated for what reason, he has kept quite for nearly two years. Furthermore , on 2-2-1994 the Petitioner has received aletter under Ex . M7 which says that his resignation Jetter has been accepted . It really, the Petitioner has got any grievance against that letter or if really , his signature was obtainedby coercion or force , he would have sent a notice or taken action against the concerned persons with regard [ भाग -खण्ड 3( i) )

4143 भारत का राजपत्र जून 30 , 2007/आवाद 9 , 1929

AND

M113 16-3-05 Xerox copy of the 2A petition filed by Petitioner before Labour Enforcement Officer(Central)

TheAsstt . General Manager Bank ofBaroda, Regional Office ,19WayRoad, Lucknow.

AWARD

M14 20-4-05 Xerox copy of the reply filedby Respondentbefore Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) Madurai

M15 5-3-93 Original letter from the Petitioner to Respondent/Bank Along with original billdated3-3-93 .

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi referred the following dispute vide No. L- 12012/18/ 2003- IR(B- II) Dt. 19-5-2003 for adjudication to the Presiding officer ,CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow:

M16 18-01-94 Xerox copy of the resignation letter from Petitioner to General Manager of Respondent/Bank

"Whether the action of the management ofBank of Baroda in terminating the services of Shri Sukh Deo Kumar Sto Shri Ram Swarup w.c.f 25-1-2002 is legal andjustified? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

M1731-01-94 Xerox copy of the letter from ChiefOfficer (Per) toTheManager ,Thiruvidaimarudur with regard toAcceptance of resignation letter o . Petitioner

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1872.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्राम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 64/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/ 18/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

Worker's case in brief is that he remained appointed since 16th Aug. 1999 at Bhadaiyan Branch Sultanpur of Bank ofBaroda and he continued working till 24-1-02 without any interruption . However, he has alleged thathe has notbeen paid from 17-1-2000 to 24-1-02. It is further alleged that without any prior information/notice worker was restrained from work. It is further alleged in para7 of statement ofclaim that he continued working at mainbranch ofthe Bank ofBaroda, Sultanpur since 26-12-95. Worker has therefore prayed that hebe reinstated in Bhadaiyan branch ofBankof Baroda, Sultanpur w.e.f. 24-1-02 with all consequential benefits and back wages .

NewDelhi , the 4th June, 2007

Worker has filed photo copies of the following documents with his statement of claim :

1. Paper 2/4 , 2/5 the statement work unsigned.

2. Photo copy ofdetention ofworker on 15-2-96, PaperNo. 2/6

3. Detention ofworker on 20-1-97 рарет по . 2/7 S.O. 1872. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2003) ofthe Central Goverrument Industrial Triburial -cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman , received by the Central Government on 04-06-2007.

[No. L- 12012/18/2003 - IR (B-II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

4. Photo copy of Statement of Prabhu Dayal dt. nil having signature of Sukh Deo Kumar dated. 21-1-97 to the effect that the worker is working on daily wage in Bank of Baroda , SultanpurBranch. Paper No. 2/7

ANNEXURE

5. Photo copy of detention of worker in Bhadaiyan branch of the bank on 18-3-97 . PaperNo.2/8

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

6. Photo copy of certificate of detention ofworker ов19-3-97. Paper No. 2/9

Shrikant Shukla, PresidingOfficer L.D. No. 64/2003

Ref. No. L-12012/ 18/2003- IR (B- II) Dt. 19-5-03 BETWEEN

7. Photo copy of writing address to some Pandeyji statingthat Sukh Deo Kumar is sent with the request that money be deposited and the payment be made dt. 4-10-2001. Paper No. 2/10

8. Photo copy of writing address to Pandeyji for getting the money deposited as there is no money due in the account . Paper No. 2/11 .

Sh . Sukh Deo Kumar , S/oRam Swarup, VillageAhiraili, Malikpur P.O. Pakharaili Súltanpur.

9. Photo copy of extract of some writing without anysignature.Paper No. 2/12 to 2/15.

2811 GI/2007-14 4144

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (i ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

worker as labour, the opposite party has stated that the same is wrong. Opposite party has accordingly prayed that the worker is not entitled to any relief.

The representative of the opposite party has filed the following vouchers .

1. Voucher dt . 20-9-97 cost of water and fetching charges paidto Sukh Deo Kumar from 15-9-97 to 20-9-97 total six days Rs . 332/- papeг по . 4/2

2 Voucher di . 10-9-99 showing payment of Rs. 420/- for supplying water @ Rs . 6/ - per bucket for 5 bucket a day for 14 days i.e. from 16-8-99 to 21-8-99 paper no. 4/3

3. Voucher dt . 1-10-99 for supplying of water for 16days w.e.f. 1-9-99 to 20-9-99 total Rs . 480/- paper no.4/4

4. Voucher dt. 16-10-99 for Rs . 480 /- for supply ot water for 16 days Paper no .4/5.

5. Voucher dt. 6-11-97 for payment of water charges for 16 days Rs . 480/- Paper no. 4/6.

Assit. General Manager , Bank of Baroda , Regional Office, Lucknow has filed written statement on behalf of the opposite party and has stated that the worker was never appointed by the Bank against any vacancy in any capacitywhatsoever and hence the question of termination does not arise . It is further submitted that none of the branches mentioned in the statement of claim i.e. Bhadaiyan and main branch of Sultanpur are authorised to appoint any person . The Branch Manager are not the appointing authority hence the question of appointing the worker does not arise. The appointment in the bank is governed by certain statutory rules and guidelines issued by the Government of India and the appointment of any person in sub staffcadre is to be made through Employment Exchange only.Whenever any post of staff falls vacant the names of the candidates are called from the employment exchange andafter interview, selected person is issued appointment letterby the competent authority. Sri Sukh Deo Kumar has never been sponsored by the employment exchange and he has never been subjected to selection process like interview etc. and no appointment letter is issued to him as such he has no claim . In fact the worker supplied the water etc. and he was paid the cost of the same by Bhadaiyan branch for the period w.e.f. 16-8-99 to 17-1-2010) and the payment has been duly received and acknowledged by the worker . The worker was ver engaged after 17-1-2000. It is again submitted that worker was not required to supply water after 17-1-2000 hence no payment was warranted thereafter. It is also submitted that worker himself has stopped coming after 17-1-2000. It is submitted that contention of the worker that he worked at hank's main branch at Sultanpur w.e.f. 26-12-95is totally wrong and false. In fact the worker supplied water to the branch on the following days:

28-10-1996 10 02-11-1996 6days

04-11-1996 to 09-11-1996 6 days

Worker has filed the reply of written statement . Worker has reiterated that he was also working in the main branch of Bank of Baroda w.c.f. 26-12-95 and during the working the authority given certificate of working in the bank. It is also alleged that the work is available under the supervision of the opposite party and higher authority are well aware of the fact . They are also aware of shortage of the staff in which place the worker is working since 1997 10 2000 head branch as well as Bhadaiyan branch . It is submitted that worker has been dis -engagement without following the prescribed procedure as laid down in 1.D. Act . Worker has alleged that " It is also relevant to mention here that opposite party had not filed any documents evidence about work of the applicant is water supply and also not filed by documentary evidence for payment of water supply of the applicant ". It is reiterated that the worker has worked as casual labour .

12-11-1996 to 16-11-1996 5days

18-11-1996 во 23-11-1996 6 days

Worker has again filed the photo copies of рарет по. 2/7, 2/6, 2 / ft , 2/9 , as already stated above .

25-11-1996 ю 30-11-1996 6days

02-12-1996 to 06-12-1996 5days

Opposite party has filed following additional documents for payment to the worker Sukh Deo Kumar, 09-12-1996to 13-12-1996 6days

16-12-1996 το 21-12-1996 6days

23-12-1996 10 28-12-1996 6days

1. Voucherdt . 30-8-99 expenses incurred towards sending postal aritcle Rs . 54 alongwith postal received.

29-12-199610 04-01 1997 7days

05-01-1997 10 11-01-1997 7 days

2. Voucher dt . 16-9-99 for Rs . 300/- Electrostal charges alongwith the receipt of Rs . 300 30-03-1997 to30-03-1997 1day

11-08-1997 to 15-06-1997 5 days

3. Voucher dt. 16-9-99 for Rs . 490/-for Ecectrostat charges alongwith receipt .

16-08-1997 to 18-8-1997 3days

4. Voucher d1 , 18-9-97 cost of Bulb , holder Rs . 50 23-08-1997 to23-08-1997 I day

15-09-1997 10 20-09-1997 15days

5. Voucher dt. 21-9-99 Rs . 388/- for Electrical goods.

6. Voucher dt . 21-9-99 for Rs . 378 /- for electrical goods.

Replying to the para & of the statement of claim that Manager of main branch of Bank of Baroda directed the Branch Manager, Bhadaiyan branch for engaging the 4145 [भाग - खण्ड 3(ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

7. Voucher dt. 21-9-99 for Rs . 422/- for electrical goods.

8. Voucher di. 5-9-99 for Rs. 78/- for Ecectrostat.

9. Voucher de 9-10-99 for Rs. 110/- for misc, goods.

10. Voucher dt. 14-10-99 for Rs .77/-

11. Voucher dt. 16-10-99 for Rs . 4 for misc. items .

It is also not a case wherein the worker was given any appointment letter to the effect that he has been engaged as daily wage worker. Similarly there is no termination order as well. The voucher filed by the opposite party in original contained the signatures of Sukh Deo' Kumar theworker and the same are not denied. Paperno. 4/2 to4/6 goes to show that worker was paid for supply of water as follows:

12. Voucher dt. 20-10-99 for Rs .133/-

1.15-9-99 10 20-9-99

6days

13. Voucher dt. 21-10-99 for Rs .8-

216-8-991031-8-99

14days 14. Voucher dt. 31-10-99 forRs .30/-

3.01-9-991020-9-99

16days 15. Voucher dt. 6-11-99 for Rs.450/-

4.21-9-99109-10-99

16days

5.11-10-99to30-10-99

16days 1.6. Voucher dt. 6-11-99 for Rs. 300/- for Ecectrostat charges.

68days 17. Voucherdt. 15-11-99 for Rs. 330/- for supply of water from 1-11-99012-11-99 .

18. 17-1-2000 for Rs . 240/- for supply of water 15-11-99 to22-11-99 and 17-1-2000.

Opposite party has also filed 2 additional vouchers ofRs . 330/-and 240/- respectively which shows the details as under:

All documents filed by the opposite party are original . Though the opposite party has also filed photo copy there- of.

1.Water supply charges 1-11-99 to 13-11-99 11 days 2.15-1-99 10 22-1-99 and 17-1-2000 Rs . 240/-8 days @Rs. 30/- per day

Worker has filed the originals of 2/6, 27, 2/8 and 2/9.

Thus total number of days are 87 days .

Iftheoriginal documents filed by the worker are taken intoconsideration then the fact emerges is that the worker worked on20-1-97,21-1-97, 15-2-96, 18-3-97, 19-3-97 thus thetotal number of days which comes on record is 92 days.

It is relevant to mention here that court ordered case to proceed ex -party against the worker on 14-10-03 and the next date was fixed 12-12-03 and on 12-12-03 the opposite party examined Sri Kali Sewak Shukla , Chief Manager of the bank . Thereafter 19-12-03 and 23-3-04 was fixed for argument . However, worker was issued registered notice for his prolong absence on 25-3-04 and on 8-6-04 , authority letterwas filedby Advocate Sri M.S. Siddiqui and he was made available the copy of written statement . On 20-7-04 worker moved an application for setting aside ex -party onder against him which was allowed at the cost ofRs .200.

From careful perusal of the above document it shows that the worker last worked and paid on 17-1-2000. It is needless to mention that worker was paid consolidated water charges from 15-11-99 to 22-1-99 and 17-1-2000 this clearly shows that worker was not in continuous service as he tried to allege in his statement of claim. He has not worked a single day in Dec. 1999.

Worker examined1nself and closed his evidence.

Opposite party examined Sri Chandra Bhal Gautam . Heard representatives of the parties and perused evidence on record.

The provisions contained in section 25D of ID Act are required tobe complied with ifthe workman concerned liad completed 240 days ofservice, with in the period of12 months preceeding the year of termination. It is alos settled law that the burden to prove lies upon the worker who asserts the protection of section 25F of the 1.D. Act .

Worker has stated in his statement of claim that he remained engaged as daily wage worker since 16-10-99 but has not mentioned till what date he remained in the employment there at Bhadiayan branch of Bank of Baroda ofSultanpur.

Inthe present case workman raised contention of rendering continuous service w.e.f. 26-12-95 till 24-1-2002 and the learned representative of the worker has tried to argue that worker has worked from 26-12-95 till 24-1-02 and to prove the said fact. Worker has filed certain documents which by themself are not sufficient to prove the continuity of the service.

It is also noteworthy that worker has stated that he worked in the main branch of the bank till 24-1-02but has not clearly mentioned as to from which date he worked in the main branch of bank at Sultanpur.

It isadmittedbythe worker that he has not been paid from17-1-2000, to 24-1-2000 . However, he has stated that w.e.f. 16-8-99 to 17-1-2000 he was not paid minimumwages.

Worker has examined himself in support of his case and he has admitted that from 17-1-2000 he has not been paid and he has tried to say that his wages to the tune of30 months are due on the Bhadaiyan Branch of the Bank of Baroda, Sultanpur .

The worker has stated in para 7 of the statement of claim that he continued working in main branch of the bank since 16-12-95 but failed , mention as upto what date he worked in the main branch from 26-12-95.

Worker has stated in his examination in chief that he worked in Sultanpur branch of the bank from 26-12-95 10 4146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART 11-SEC. 3( 1)]

by the worker in the court . The same pertains to letter of Peon Ram Kripal dt. 4-10-2001 and 22-11-01 which is reproducted as under :

खाता नं. 325

पाण्डे जी नमस्कार,

हम आपके पास सुखदेव को भेज रहा हूं । कृपा करके जो हो सके रुपया खाते में जमा करा दे और हम इन सब का भुगतान कर दे।

हस्ता-

राम कुमाल

बैंक ऑफ बडौदा

सुखदेव कुमार

4/10/01

1998 but he has not mentioned the date and the month of the19.98 and has stated that he does not remember . Worker bas thereafter stated in the examination in chief only that heworkedwie.f. 16-8-99 tó Jan. 2002 in Bhadaiyan branch of the bank. Ifhis statement is taken to be true then it is clear that he did not work at least in any branch of the bank from Ist Jan. 99 to 15th August 1999. According to his own statement there is interruption in the services and therefore there is no question of continuity. It is undoubtedly clear that theworkerwas not a regularly appointed worker instead hewas accroding to his own case was casual worker , who appoint him in Bhadaiyan branch in the bank and who appointed him in main branch of Sultanpur of the bank is notclear.

सेवा में पाण्डे जी नमस्ते,

आपके पास सुखदेव को भेज रहा हूं । आप कृपा करके जो रुपया हो बैंक में जमा करने का कष्ट करे बैंक में पैसा नहीं है ज्यादा से ज्यादा जमा करे ।

सील

हस्ता-

हस्ता/ -

बैंक ऑफ बडौदा

राम कृपाल

सुखदेव कुमार

22/11/01

The worker has stated in his examination in chief thathe was getting Rs. 55/- per day while he was posted in Sultanpur branch and Rs. 30/- per days when he was posted atBhadalyan branch . From the vouchers filed by the opposite party dt . 17-1-2000, it is clear that worker has been paid@Rs. 30/- per day . In the circumstances if his statement is taken to be true then job would have been different in the main branch of Sultanpur and that of Bhadyaiyan branch . From the documentary evidence on record it is found that the nature of work entrusted to the worker was fetching water in the bank for which he was paid the detalls ofwhich has already been mentiond above.

The above document have not been signed by any ofthe officers of Bank of Baroda but has been signedby Ram Kripal it does not go to show that there was any relationship of employer and employee then Bank of Baroda and Sukh Deo Kumar on 4-10-01 and 22-11-01 . It appears that worker has tried to make out the case half-heartedly thathe was in the service during intervening period from 17-1-2000 to 24-1-2002.

In absence of sepecific evidence as to who engaged him in Sultanpur main branch and in the Bhadaiyan branch of thebank as casual labour, the general presumptionwill be that concerned Branch Manager might have appointed himthe respective branches ifthe same is true . It is admitted fact that the worker did not go by the regular test, interview. Theworker himself stated that he does not to know who is appointing authority in the case of recruitment of sub-staff.

Although the worker stated in examination in chief at para3 thathe worked at Bhadaiyan branch w.e.f. 16th August, 1999to 24-1-02 but in question to the court at page2para 4 the worker stated that he received wages for 7-8months only. Meaning thereby accordingly to the worker hereceived salary up to March, April , 2001 whereas from the evidence on record he was last paid on 17-1-2000. From the entire evidence it is clear that the worker has not in continuous service of the bank up to 24-1-2002. It is not proved or alleged by the worker that he took any action for non-payment of salary w.e.f. 17-1-2000 to 24-1-2002. Оп the other hand the witness of the oppoite party has stated that the worker did work w.e.f. 16-8-99 to 17-1-2000 intermittently for supplying water and thereafter worker himself stopped providingwater .

In (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 100 Manager, Reserve Bank of India , Banglore vs. S. Mani and others Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the case of Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Madimani al para 30 and the same is reproducedbellow: " 3 ..... In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing 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 histermination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination . Filling 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 a workman had , in fact, worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman . On this ground slone the award is liable to be set aside. " Thewitness of the opposite party Sri C.B. Gautam has stated that there are two clerks and Branch Manager withapeon and apart time sweeper andthe name of regular peonRamKripal.

Worker has filed photo copies of the two documents i.e. 2/10 and 2/11 , the original of which has not been filed

In this case there is no cogent evidence the worker continued working up to 24-1-02 excepting his own evidence which is not sufficient as the same is not corroborated by any documentary evidence . In the circumstances I come to the following conclusion :

[ भाग ॥- खण्ड 3( U) ]

4147

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/आवाद 9, 1929

1. Worker was not continuously employed in Bhadaiyan branch of bank up to 24-1-02, instead hewas disengaged till 17-1-2000.

2.His services were not of continuous nature instead he was engaged intermittealy.

ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 4-6- 2007.

[No. L-12011/155 /2004- IR(B- II) ] Although there is recital of certificate for working in the bank but no such certificate is on the record.

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Workerhas filed documents paper no. 2/4, 2/5, 2/12 to 2/15 the said documents are not authentic and they are ignored.

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI.

I.D. No.3/2005

PRESENT:

Shri Harsh Aggarwal

-Ist Party

ShriRajatArora

-2nd Party

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri Ashok Sharma,

Sto Shri Ram Singh, C/o . Rashtriya Rajdhani Kshetra

Engg. &General MazdoorUnioη,

C-141, Karampura,

New Delhi -110015

Verms

Inthepresent case the worker's case is covered under section 25B(2) of the 1.D. Act and it has been held in (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 450 Sunder Nagar District PanchayatVs. Jethabhai Pitamber Bhai that burden ofproof likes on the workman it is for the workinan to adduce evidence apart from examining him to prove the said factom of240days continuous service. Such evidence in the form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of appointment or engagement but in the present case worker has not only failed to prove that he has worked 240days continuously before the termination of his service with 12 calender months and has also failed to prove that he was actuallyterminated on 25-1-02, with the result that employer was not obliged to give notice pay or compensation. The respresentative of the opposite party has argued that worker intended to get backdoor entry in the bank in violation of prescribed procedure laid down for recruitment.

TheManager,

Punjab &SindBank,

8-38-39, IndustrialArea,

Narayana Phase- 1,

Workerhas failed to prove that he was continuously worked till 24-1-02 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 25-1-02. Worker has also failed to prove that he worked satinuously for 240 days prior to his termination with 12 calender months .Award accordingly . Worker is not entitled toanyrelief.

NewDelhi-110015

Lucknow

AWARD

30-5-2007

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No.L-12011/155 / 2004- IR (B-II) Centrl Government dt 4-1-12005 has referred the following point for adjudication .

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer मई दिल्ली, 4 जून, 2007

The point runs as hereunder :--

"Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Rajdhani Kshetra Engg. and General Mazdoor Union in respect oftheworkman Shri Ashok Sharma for reinstatement and regularization in the establishment of Punjab and SindBank, New Delhi is just , fair and legal? Ifyes, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date."

का. भा 1873, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की भारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब व सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरप्प/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एल-12011/ 155 /2004-आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 4th June,2007

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement. It has been stated therein that the claimant was working as a peonwith respondent at its address mentioned in the cause title, continuously since the year 1994 at the last drawn wages ofRs .1900/- per month .

S.O. 1873. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/2005)

That during his period of service the claimant hadi beenworkingdiligently and to the complete satisfaction of 4148

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

the management, without giving any chance of complaint . worked for a very limited period on casual basis was paid in accordance with days of working and since he has not completed 240 days in one calendar year preceding the alleged date of his termination , it would not entitled him to any reliefby this Hon'bic Court .

It iswrong and denied that the claimant was working with the respondent bark as penn . That it is further wrong and denied that he was paid salary of Rs . 1900 p.m. the claimant was engaged only on daily wage/ casual basis and was paid for the said engagement ,

Acopy ofletter dated 2-7-1999 written by an officer of the respondent bank to the Post Master , Naraina , New Delhi clearly showing that the claimant was an employee of the respondent is annexed as Annexure C- 1 . A copy of certificate dated 8-2-2000 from the Manager of the respondent certifying, that the claimant was working as a peon is annexed as Annex . C- 2 . A copy of the organizational hierarchy chart of the respondent duly signed bythe concerned officiers is annexed herewith as Annexure- C-3 . Copies of various cheques/ drafts issued by the respondent to the claimant from time to time is annexed herewith as Annexure- C-4 (colly . ) . It is also pertinent to mention that at time the cheques issued by the respondent to the claimant the fictitious name which were bearer and overshed over the counter .

That despite repcated requests of the claimant the respondent neither gave any appointment letter to the claimant nor did it regularize the services of the claimant and nor did the respondent pay the minimum wages as fixed by Government from time to lime.

That in response to the request of the claimant. The managementjonly gave oral assurances to the claimant which turned out to be nothing but false .

That the respondent made the claimant to write/ sign that he was paid the money for preparation of small and large files, twice every month , whereas the respondent look the work of a peon from the claimant , which included all kind of routine office job of a bank . The poor and helpless claimant had no other option but under pressure and a threat ofclosing his job , to write whatever the respondent asked him .

11 is wrong and denied that the claimant had been working diligently or to the satisfaction of the management , as stated. The management has checked up with regard to the status of the letter dated 2-7-1999 . However the said letter would not show that the claimant was an employee ofthe bank. It is already submitted that the foregoing paras that the claimant was engaged only on casual/daily wage basis for which he was paid by the bank . It is noteworthy to point out here that the recruitment in the bank for the sub-staff is done through Employment Exchange and the claimant has not been registered with any such Employment Exchange. Further more the letter dated 8-2-2000 written by Shri Paramjit Singh , Sr. Manager does not inspire any confidence in view of the fact that Shri Paramjit Singh has himself declined to having written such a letter. The organizational hierarchy chart as submitted by the claimant is his own chart which is wrong and denied. The copy of the draft/annexures attached with the claim itself shows the false nature of the claim as some of the drafts/ cheques have been issued not in favour of the claimant but in favour of other persons namely Ashok Kumar , Jeot Sharma, Jídata Sharma, Sanjay Kumar etc. which itself show the false nature of the claim of the claimant .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averment of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence ofboth the partics has been taken.

That finally the patience of the claimant gave way and he once again on 12-9-2002 requested the respondent to regularize his services at the post of peon and pay him minimum wages as fixed by Government@Rs . 2667.40 per month in the month of February, 2002. Feeling agitated by the legal and justified demands made by the claimant , the respondent on 14-9-2002 terminated the services of the claimant with complete distegard to the law of land.

Heard argument from both the sides and perused the papers on the record .

From pleadings of the parties the following issues arise for determination :

1. Whether the workman has performed 240 days work during his period of employment ?

That the claimant sent a registered demand notice dated 10-9-2004 to the respondent thereby claiming regularization of service , payment of minimum wages , earnedwages for period 1-9-2002 to 13-9-2002 reinstatement in service etc. the respondent neither sent a reply to the said notice nor did it fulfil the demands of the claimant. A copy of the said notice is annexed herewith as AnnexureC-5 .

2. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement? 3. What amount of back wages the workman is entitled to?

IssueNo. 1:

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the workman has worked for 240 days every year during his entire tenure of employment . He has continuously worked for 240 days in all the years of his engagement .

The management has filed written statement . It has been stated therein that the claimant Shri Ashok Sharma was not an employee of the management bank and there was no employer-employee relationship between the parties.However, the claimant was engaged on daily wage basis for a limited period of time . The claimant having 4149

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

[भाग II-खष्ठ 3 ( i) )

My attention was drawn to Annexure C- 1 . this is letter of Shri Hari Prakash, Officer. This letter has been written to Post Master, Naraina and it has been stated that Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma is an employee of Punjab and Sind Bank. This letter has not been denied by the management so this is admissible in evidence . Only this letter establishes the fact that the workman is an employee ofthe bank.

cheques. MW1 has not been able to state whether Shri . SanjayKumar, Shri Jyot Sharma and Shiri Anil Kumar were ever engaged by the bank. So these names are fictitious and these names have been introcluced by the bank to create artificial breaks in the regular service of the workman. The workman has worked for 240 days during 1995 to 2002 in almost 5 years . This issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. 2:

It was submitted from the side of the management that even ifthe workman has worked for 240 days he is not entitled to regularization or reinstatea ment.

Another letter Annexure C- 2 has been issued by the Punjab and Sind Bank. This letter has also been admitted. In this letter also the management has admitted that the workman is atemporary peon .

My attention was drawn to (2007) 1 SCC408. It has been held as under :

Annexure C-3 is also admitted and Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma has been shown as Daftri and Shri Hari Prakash has been shown as Officer who has issued C-1 . All the 3 letters are admitted and the management has admitted that the workman is a temporary employee . He is a Daftry and he is a Peon of the bank. Besides these documents the workman has filed photocopy of cheques. B- 12to B -85. Management witness has admitted that all the cheques have been issued by the management . These cheques also show that the workman worked with the management from 12-9-1995 to 9-9-2002 . Management witness has admitted as under :

"That the claimant was engaged for casual work like binding, serving water and other miscellaneous work generally done by a Peon . I do not know the number of sanctioned post of peons in the concerned department of the bank. I cannot say how often is made for the requirement for engagingdaily wagers . I confirm that all the cheques relied uponby the claimant had been issued by the bank. I do not know whether in the present case, the bearer cheques in other's name were got encashed by the claimant . It is correct thatwe have not placed any letter on record denying the letter dated 2-7-1999 of Shri Hari Prakash which is Ex . C-1.1 cannot confirm or deny whether the claimant has worked for 240 days in one calendar year preceding the allegeddate of termination. It is wrong to suggest that the claimant has worked for years regularly with the bank even though the cheques have been issued by the bank every month. I cannot say whether Shri Sanjay Kumar, Jyot Sharma and Anil Kumar were ever engaged by the bank or for what purpose the cheques were issued. "

"Public Employment- Instrumentalities of State (Government Company) Creation of posts, appointment ofposts, regularisation, fixing of pay scales, continuation inservice, Promotions etc. Auth brities competent to take decisions in respect of Proper basis for such decisions Impermissibility of deciding on basis of sympathy or compassion-Held, all the said functions are executive or legislative and it is highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional case-The court cannot create post where none exists , nor issue directions to absorb or regularise temporary employees. Nor continue them in service, nır pay them salaries of regular employees , as these aret purely executive or legislative functions-Supreme Court cannot arrogate to itself powers of the executive or legislature Judicial activism in this connection, depreciated-Furthermore, such questions cannot be decided in court on basis of emotions and sympathies , but must be decided on legal principles Clarified that directions given by Supreme Court incertaincases for regularisation of temporary or ad hoc employees without laying down any principle of law, did not lay down any precedent and had to be treated as directions given under Art. 142-Situation of scarcity of jobs, and reasons therefore , posited Observed , jobs cannotbe created by judicial orders , nor even by legislative or executive decisions-Jobs are created when the economy is rapidly expanding , which means when there is rapid industrialisation Additional burden imposed on people at large to benefit a few, in case of State Created employment, pointed out-Public Sector-Service Law- State Owned/Operated Corporations. "

It has been held in (2007) 1 SCC533 as under:

The management witness has admitted that the cheques have been encashed by the claimant . The management witness has also stated that he could not confirm or deny whether the claimant has worked for240 days in one calendar year preceding the alleged date of termination . Management witness has neither confirmed it nor denied it. So it is proved that the workman has worked for 240 days during the period of his employment for 7years from1995 to2002.

It appears that some cheques have been issued in fictitious names but the workman has encashed all those

"Completion of240 days ' continuous service, held does not entitled employee concerned to regularisation and/or permanent status-Violation ofS.25F may leadto the termination of services being found illegal , but the same would not entitled workman concerned to regularisation- Reinstatement would only mean that the workman gets back the same status held by the workman prior to termination of his services . Held , said concept was întroduced so as to fasten statutory liabilities upon 4150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3( 0) ] employer to pay compensation as provided for in S. 25 F before retrenchiment, and not for any other purpose such as regularisation or grant of permanent status."

asudden. There is provision of retrenchment compensation for his removal . Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long interregnum of unemployment. In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.

It was submitted from the side of the bank that reinstatement is not the only reliefin all the cases of illegal termination. Section 11 A of the I.D. Act, 1947 provides for payment of compensation also.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that compensation is payable in cases where an undertaking bas become sick or it has been closed or it is in economic loss. It has not been established that the bank is in economic loss and it is a sick industry .

It was submitted from the side of the management that theHon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has putdown a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement . The Hon'bleApex Court has held that employment can onlybe made on the basis of procedure established in thatbehalf envisaged by the Constitution. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals . So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme.

It was further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment has afforded a right according to which the Government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages.

My attention was drawn by the Ld. Counsel of the workmanto2000 LLR 523 State ofUP and Rajender Singh . The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered for reinstatement with fullbackwages as the services of the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years was dispensed with without following the procedure for retrenchment . In the instant case also no retrenchment compensation has been paid . This case law squarely covers the instant case.

It has been held in 1978 Lab . IC 1668 that in case service ofa workman is terminated ülegally the normal rule isto reinstate him with full back wages.

My attentionwas further drawnto AIR 2002 SC 1313 . TheHonble Supreme Court has held that daily wager even ifserving for a short period shouldbe reinstated.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provisions of I.D. Act unconstitutional . The Government has got no license to make always appointment ofdaily wagers and to continue them for life time . Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointment cannot be the rule ofpublic employment . At the time of making temporary appointmentsArticles 14, 16, 21 23, 226 & 309 are infringed. There is no constitutional mandate that the Government is at libertyto go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that in the instant case Sections 2: 3, G of the 1.D. Act are attracted. InSection 25 of the I.D. Act it has been provided that if a workmanhas performed 240 days work and if the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be given pay in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no cessation of service in case provisions of Section 25Fare not complied. In the instant case no compensation hasbeen paid to the workman.

Incase aworkman has worked for 240 days in a year and the work is ofcontinuous and regular nature he should be paid retrenchment compensation . In case retrenchment compensation is not paid Section 25F of the I.D. Act is attracted. There is no cessation of his services . He is deemed continued in service in the eye of law. In case there is breach of Section 25F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence.

No suchArticle of the Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government of Public Sector units can continue incessantly to give temporary and fixedterm appointments again and again . Since fixed term appointments and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme , such discrimination will amount to vicious discretion . The Government of Public Sector unit will go on resortingto the method of pick and choose policy and give temporary and ad hoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution willbe given ago bye . Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex Court.However, in this judgment the provisions of the I.D. Act governing the services of the workman have not been declared unconstitutional . Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions enumerated therein or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legislations.

I.D. Act , 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of society. It appeals that Legislature wanted that such workmen should not be harassed unnecessarily so sections 25 F,U, T and Clause 10 ofVth Schedule have been enacted. The objects and reasons of I.D. Act, 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in any unfair labour practice. The workmen should not be engaged for years and then they should be removed all of

Section 11 A of the I.D. Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may , by its award , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require .

4151 भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आबाद 9 , 1929

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

order of discharge or dismissal being set aside . It has been held in (2003) 6 Sec. 141 that it is incumbent upon the labour court to decide the quantum of back wages .

According to this benign provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as it thinks fit.

II has been further held in this case that payment of hackwages having discretionary element involved it is to be dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case . No definite formula can be evolved.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has not annulled Section 11 A of the I.D. Act and the Legislatute has authorized this Tribunal to set aside dismissal or discharge on its consideration and direct reinstatement. The judgment cited by the management is not applicable inthe facts and circumstances of the case.

It has been further held in this case that payment of backwages in its entirety is the statutory sanction . In (2003) 4SCC 27 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view ofdelay in raising the dispute and initiating the proceedingsback wags need not be allowed . In the instant case there is no delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the dispute.

Athree Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in 1993-11- LLJ that termination of services affects the livelihood of not only of the employee but also of the dependents. So in case of illegal termination of service the workman should be reinstated.

Reinstatement should not be misconceived.as regularization . By the order of reinstatement. the status quo ante of the workman is restored. He is given back wages in order to compensate him for his illegal dis - engagement . This is a special remedy provided in I.D. Act and it has not been annulled and set aside by any judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The provisions of the 1.D. Act are still constitutional and they are to be given effect too.

In 1978 Lab . IC 1968-three Judges Bench of the Hon'bleApex Court held that payment of full back wages is the normal rule . In case services have been illegally terminated either by dismissal or discharge or retrenchment, in such circumstance the workman is entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness . In the instant case the workman was always ready to work but he was not permitted on account of invalid act of the employer.

In case the workman is reinstated with back wages the respondents have every right , after payment of back wages and reinstatement, to retrench him validly following the principles of first come fast go so that Section 25 , G & H of the ID Act are not violated.

In 2005 IV AD SC 39-three Judges Bench ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court held that reinstatement with full back wages is justified . In this case the workman has performed more than 240 days work and he has been retrenched without payment of compensation and pay in lieu ofnotice .

It was submitted from the side of the management that even if the workman is found to have worked for 244) days in all the 5 years of his employment, he does not deserve reinstatment in view of the judgmen: 2007 (1 ) SCC 408 and2007 (1 ) SCC533.

I have perused the judgments cited by the management . It has nowhere been held that a workman who has completed 240 days service in each year for almost 5years should not be reinstated. The judgments cited by the management are no dubt recent but they are of the Division Bench ,

It was submitted from the side of the management that reinstatement is not the only remedy . In such cases the workman may be given compensation . Section 11 A of the ID Act, 1947 provides that in case of dismissal or discharge is found illegal reinstatement should be ordered. It has been held in a catena of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that reinstatement with full backwages is the normal rule. The statute provides for reinstatement. In certain exceptional cases where the undertaking has been closed down or it has become sick there may be order for payment ofcompensation .

In view of the the facts pertaining in this case, the workman is entitled to reinstatement with 50 % backwages. This issue is decided accordingly.

It has been held by the 3 Judges Berich of Hon'ble Apex Court in 1993-I-LLJ, 1978 Lab . IC 1968 & 20054 AD SC:39 that reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule.

The reference is replied thus .

Inthe instant case the present workman has worked for 7years and in 5 years he has worked for 240 days in each year , so in view of Section 11 A the workman is entitled to reinstatement.

In view ofthe law cited above and the facts pertaining in this case , the workman is entitled to reinstatement . This issue is decided accordingly .

Thedemand of the Rashtriya Rajdhani Kshetra Engg. And General Mazdoor Union in respect of the workman Shri Ashok Sharma for reinstatement and regularization in the establishment of Punjab and Sind Bank, New Delhi is just, fair and legal . The management should reinstate the workman w.e.f. the date of his termination alongwith 50% backwages within two months from the date ofpublication ofthe award.

IssueNo. 3

The award is given accordingly.

Date28-5-2007. R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer It was submitted by the management that payment of full backwages is not the natural consequence of the

2811 G1/2007-15 4152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ ASADHA 9, 1929

नईदिल्ली, 4 जून , 2007

का. आ 1874.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2005 ) की प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/31 /2005-आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th June , 2007

S.O. 1874. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 55/2005) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 4-6-2007.

[No. L- 12012/31/2005 - IR (B- II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM.

LABOUR, CON RT- IL, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAL

1.D. No. 55/2005

PRESENT:

Shri Bhawani Shankar

--1stParty Mrs. Surabhi Rana

-2nd Party IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri Mahinder Singh, S/o Shri Surgat Singh , R/o Vill & Host : Daryapur Kalan Delhi, HouseNo. 532, Delhi-11039

Versus

TheOfficer- in -Charge,

Punjab National Bank,

Human Resource Division,

7,Bhikaji Cama Place,

New Delhi -110066.

AWARD

TheMinistryof Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/31 / 2005 -IR(B-1) Central Governmentdt. 13-7-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating Shri Mahinder Singh

[PART 11--SFC. 3 ( ⅱ) ) Ex-ArmedGuard by treating him to have abandoned service and not affording reinstatement in service along with continuity of services and back wages is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

The workman applicant has filed claim statement. Ir. the claim statement it has been stated that the workman joined the management as a member of subordinate stafi (guard) after being sponsored by Rajya Sainik Board. He was issued with letter dit . 9-9-1987 under the signatures of Sh . K.K. Gupta, Manager, whereby the workman was asked to attend the interview on 23-9-1987 along with the requisite documents.The copy of the letter dt . 9-9-1987 is enclosed a1 Annexure-A.

That prior to joining the management , the workman served the Indian Army which he joined 1971 as Driver and served it upto 1986. During his Army Services.he remained disciplined and served the army with full devotion , dedication and sincerity . His services were categorized as exemplary.

That after his service in the Army he applied for the post ofGuard in the Punjab National Bank and in response to his candidature he received a letter dl. 9-9-1987 to attend the interview on 23-9-1987 along with the requisite documents . Thereafter he was issued appointment letter dt. 12-2-1988 ( the copy of the same is enclosed at Annexure- B).

That since his appointment with the management as DriverGunman, the workman performed his duties with full devotion, dedication and sincerity to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and there was no complaint of any sort against him from any corner.

That the workman was detailed for duty with effect from 12-2-1988 at the Bank Guest House , near Khel Gaon under the orders of Chief Security Officer of the Bank.

That unfortunately the workman was falsely implicated in criminal case vide FIR No. 117/88 dt . 11-7-88 U/s . 302/307/452/34 IPC, Police Station Narela, Delhi . The workman along with two others was tried by the court of Ld . Additional Sessions Judge , Delhi and after a through trial , he was acquitted on 9-9-2000 . (The copy of the judgmentdt . 9-9-2000 delivered by Sh. R.S. Verma , is enclosed at Annexure -C) .

That on the date of alleged incident on which the FIR was registered, the workman was on his duty as is evident from the certificate no . 8531 dt. 17-9-1988 issued byManager , Punjah National Bank, General ServicesAdmn. Branch. Copy of which is enclosed as Annexure - D. The two defence witnesses namely Capt . Vikramjit Suri and Amarjit Shota appeared in the trial of criminal case and deposed that on 11-7-88 to 12-7-88 the workman was on duty.

That after release on bail on 16-5-1994 in the aforesaid criminal case, the workman went to the office of management 4153 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ⅱ ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007 /आपाड़ 9 , 1929

and met the officials thereby requesting them to take him onduty and further apprised them about his false arrest in the criminal case and release on bail .

That the authorities/ officials of management apprised the workman that the process for taking him on duty will only be initiated after finalization of criminal case pending against him and the workman was not allowed to join his duties despite request .

legal notice sent through his counsel Sh . Sama Singh bearing reforence No. N- 1 /PNB/M dt. 14-5-2003 callingupon the management to reinstate the workman /take him on service with continuity of service and full back wages etc. and with all consequential benefits. However the legal notice also despite service has elicited no response from the management and the same was not replied toby the management . A copy of the legal notice is enclosed berewith at Annexure -L- 1 . Even a reminder dt, 17-7-2003 was also sent by the counsel for the workman to the management butwithout any response from the management . The copy of the reminder along with registered postal receipt is enclosed at Annexure -M and M -1 .

That in pursuance to the assurance of the management, after acquittal in the criminal case , the workman went to the office of management and met the then Manager ofPunjab National Bank, Hauz Kha : Branch and requested him to take him on duty, the authorities directed him to meet on Sh . Nagpal in the office . Accordingly the workman met Sh . Nagpal and the application for this purpose was drafted by Sh. Nagpal and the workman handed over the applicationto the authorities , of the management Bank,

That though the workman was arrested, released on bail, tried in the criminal case and finally acquitted by the Ld. Court ofAddl . Sessions Judge , Delhi on 9-9-2000. The workman had not received any document in, response to the application submitted to the management regarding the service despite various visits and submissions of representation by the workman.

That when no reply was received theworkman had to send an application dt. 13-11-2000 addressed to the Chief, Punjab National Bank , GAD Head Office, New Delhi . Copy of the same is enclosed at Annexure-E.

That when workman has already been acquittedby theLd. Court ofAddl . Sessions Judge, Delhi Shri R.S. Verma and he had given in writing to take him in service along with the copy of the judgement . In view of this , it was mandatory on the part of the management bank to accede to the request of the workman. The judgement of the Ld. Court confirmed that the criminal case was foisted upon the workman. Not only this , the workman was falsely implicated.

That thereafter the workman submitted a detailed representation dt. 20-3-2002 addressed to the Personnel Officer, Gen.Admn. Services Deptt. , Punjab National Bank followed by reminder dt. 8-5-2002 requesting therein for his reinstatement in service/allowing him to join duties. The copies of representation , reminder Regd . Postal Receipt are enclosed at Annexure -FG andG -1,

That the workman received a letter dt. 13-5-2002 from the management under the signature of Chief (Security) vide which the workman was called in office along with all documents. The copy of letter is enclosed at Annexure -H.

That the acquittal of the workman in the criminal case fully establishes that the case of prosecution against himwas totally false and a cooked up story. After acquittal of the workman and others , the prosecution has not filed any appeal against the judgement delivered by Shri R.Ş. Verma , Ld . A.S.J. , Delhi and this fact further confirms that the workman was innocent .

That in response to letterdt. 13-5-2002 of the management the workman went to the office of management along with all the documents and submitted the same vide hisapplication dt. 2-7-200 2. Copy of the same is enclosed alAnnexure- 1 .

That after the acquittal of the workman along with others in the crininal case , nothing remains against him to debarhim to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits,

That when on reply was received, the workman sent another letterdt . 10-2-2003 requesting therein for reinstating him on service/allowing him to join his duties. Copy of the letter is enclosed Annexure -J .

That the character and antecedents of the workman which are clean and unblemished do not in anywaybecome impediment for the workzman to resume his duties in the Bank. It is reiterated that after trial of the workman in the criminal case followed by acquittal does not create any obstacle for him to serve in the bank nor mere false implication of the workman warrants his ouster from the roll of thebank.

That in response to the representation di . 20-3-2002 submitted by the workman, be received a letter bearing No. SEC/EST/ 153 dt . 21-4-2003 under the signature of Chief SecurityOfficer, Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi wherein it has been stated that the request of the workman for allowing him to join duties is not tenable, in view of the opinion of the H.R.D. Division . The copy of letter is annexed herewith at Annexure -K.

That when the efforts of the workman to continue his job and his efforts of visiting the management did not elicit any positive response, the work has got issued a

That it is disappointing to note that such a big organization like Punjab National Bank has not been able to accede to the genuine and legal request of the workman to allow him to join the bank even after his acquittal in the criminal case, particularly when the workman has all intentions to serve the Bank in the capacity in which he was duly selected as guard, Member of the subordinate staff.

[PART 11-SBC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDU JUNE 30, 2007/ ASADHA 9.1929

4154

neither any explanation in this connection was sought for. This the workman was nor afforded any reasonable opportunity to defend his service.

That during the period from 11-07-198 ( der of t registration of the case FIR No. 11788 , P.S. Na s 302/307/450/452/34 I.P.C. ) till the date of acquin: Jalibe workman viz . 9-9-2000 , had not committed omission which may justify the rejection of his appoint 7:11 or discharge/ removal frrin service or his oust file bank on any ground whatsoever .

That in the aforesaid circumstances and act and omission ca the part on the bank go in violation of provisions of Articles 311 of the constitution and principles of natural justice .

That as such , the management has terminated the services ofthe workman arbitrarily, whimsically, unilaterally and without following due process of law. The alleged termination is bad in law and contraryto the settled procedure of law more specifically the provisions of labour

th That the workman is married and has china ot school going age . Besides this, the workers multifarious, social and family responsibilities doking after his family . The responsibility of coccation , marriage of the children lies upon him . The work no other source of income and with meagre pensi the Indian Army it is almost impossible to make du ik ende meet in this age of inflation . has

That the workman is rendered unemployed ever since he was wrongfully and illegally terminated and could not get job despite efforts. Thus the workman has become a parasite upon his relatives and friends and it is also not known as to upto what stage such destitution and vagrancy will continue .

That the managerment has illegally terminated the services of the workman without any reason and the management is culpable and responsible for such acts and omissions . The workman is entitled to hack wages w.e.f. 12-7-1988 along with his reinstatement , continuity of service , and ali legal dues, consequential benefits.

That the managemem is a nationalized bank employing thousand of employees and is amenable to ali the statutory provisions pertaining as labour law, yet the management has violated the law with impunity .

That the minute scrutiny of the opinion of the 11 RD. Division in letter dt . 21-4-2003 will show that the ir spa מו istotally arbitrary . illegal , unjustified and def the H.R.D. Division has wrongly held that the koman had absented himself from duly with effect ironi 12-7- It is submitted that the workman has very clearly and unambiguous terms conveyed to the suthofio dei be was falsely implicated in the case referred in has also requested the authorities (managere.utake him on duty and the authorities have assured the worl that the musther would he taken up positively atter the tast was over and the workman was acquitted. Atl also workman verbally as well as ic writing magt. representation had again appealed to the magne take him on duty. and

That the termination /ouster of the workman, apar : from being idegal is also unjustified and hence liable to ha set aside on the ground of equity , far play , justice and good conscienсс .

That in the aforesaid circumstances and industrial dispute has arose between the workman and the management , which requires adjudication by this Hon'ble Court.

That when the management did not comply with the legal notice . The workman raised an Industrial dispute and Gled his clairn before the LJ. Regional Labour Commissioner (C'entral) New Delhi , copy of the statement of claim is enclosed at Annexure -N 1 .

That the management continued with its adamant attitude and instead of reinstating the workman back on duty, denied the same and filed its reply copy of which is enclosed as Annexure N' 2 '. The workman filed rejoinder to the reply of management copy of which is kept at Annexure N - 3 " .

That the observation of the ILR D. De ision a workman absented himself from duty trous 7-1488 without intimation is totally wrong . It is a whereabouts of workanan were not known to the back. is subanitted that workmen has been intimauing the tulbari-les ofthe bank regarding his talsc implication in tits cuencal case. In this connection the Manager of Punjab aliosial Bank has certified vide its letter number 85.3 : that workman was on duty from 11-7-88 (1 12-7-88 ( 6) Α.Μ. ) at Asiad Guest House ( the said certificate is enclosed an Annexure - Iribal case Capi. Vikram Jit Puri and Shri Amarid Shod wate examined and both had deposed abus! the fee of workman on duty is the night of incident form ( P.M. 1 6 AM para 3 of the judgement at page 9 is revered . Thus the observation of the H.R 10. Divisjon me totally wrong and tainted with prejudice . In the adoresaid circumstances the observation of the li.R.D Dision thai the case of workman is case of abandonnentences of his own accord due to alleged continued shserer fren daty is totally false and a concoted story.

That due to adamant attitude on the part of the management , the conciliation proceedings before the Ld . Asst . Labour Commissioner ( Central) could not yield any positive result . In this connection the letter No. ALC- II / 7 (11 )/03 dt. 7-3-2005 was sent by the Ld. ALC (Central ) 10 That despite the above , neither any he was served upon the workman nor any enquiry was stitute on the allegations of alleged absence [room du alleged abandonment of services of his owe accord , Hoover 4155 भारत का राजपत्र जून 30 , 2007/आवाद 9, 1929

[भाग ॥- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

the Secretary,Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour explaining the whole position with copy of the workman . Copy of such letter is Annexure N ' 4 ' .

That thereafter the workman sent letters dt. 26-5-2005 and 19-7-2005 the Secretary Ministry ofLabour and the Minister of Labour, Govt. of India for redressal of his grievances . The copies of letters with postal receipts are enclosed as Annexures N ' 5' and N ' 6 ' . Now the workman has received the notice dt . 29-7-2005 from the Hon'ble Court and accordingly the presem statement of claim is being filed.

That since his releasing on bail in 1994 the workman iswithout anyjob . He could not get any job despite efforts and the workman is not gainfully employed anywhere,

It is further submitted that Shri Mohinder Singh made his first representation the bank on 13-11-2000 requesting that he be taken in the service of the Bank only after he was acquitted by the Criminal Court vide its judgment dated 9-9-2000 of allegations under Sections 302, 307, 450,452 readwith Section 34 ofthe Indian Panel Code . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Nadangudi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Mahadevan Kuti and Others (ST 2000 (1 ) SC388 ] has held that after a lapse of 7 years no industrial dispute can be said to exist between employer and the employee warranting reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal . In the instant case Shri Mohinder Singh had kept quite for over 12 years and having regard to the law paid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is submitted that no industrial dispute can be said to exist between the bank and Shri Mohinder Singh warranting any reference for adjudication to CGIT.

It is submitted that Shri Mohinder Singh was appointed in the bank as Armed Guard vide appointment letterdated 12-2-1988 and in terms thereof he was to remain on probation for a period of six months. The submissions made contrary to the material on the record are wrong and denied.

It is further submitted that Shri Mohinder Singh abandoned his service during the period of probation only.

The aforesaid facts and circumstances fully establish that the workman has become prey to the arbitrary and illegal acts and omissior of the management and thus great injustice has been meted out to him in as much as that he and his family have been thrown on the road to starve and die. Such mechanical act of the management is highly reprehensive. The management has terminated the services of the workman illegally, without any reason and the management is culpable and responsible for that. The workman is entitled for back wages since 12-7-1988 along with reinstatement, continuity of service and all legal dues.

It is submitted that the criminal case registered against Shri Mohinder Singh had nothing to do with the bank and he was prosecuted along with 3 others for allegedly murdering one person and causing serious injuryto 2others. It ishowever, admitted that Shri Mohinder Singh was acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 9-9-2000.

It is, therefore, prayed that an award in favour of workman and against the management may kindly be passed and the wrongful termination of the workman"by the management may kindly be held illegal arbitrary the samebe quashed/set-aside and the workmanbe afforded reinstatement with continuity of service along with full back wages increment promotion , compensation and other legal dues .

It is categorically denied that Shri Mohinder Singh came to bank or met any official as alleged or otherwise. This is noting but an after thought only . It is also important to note that the contents of para 8 are vague . It is also submitted here that the first representation was made by Shri Mohinder Singh on 13-11-2000 and in his said representationhe never stated that he ever contracted any official of the bank or visited any office of the bank after getting bait from the said Criminal Court from 1994. The storyhas been cooked up with ulterior motive only.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

The Management has filed written statement. Inthe writter statement it has been stated that Shri Mohinder Singh joined the service of the bank on 12-2-1988 in response to the appointment letter dated 12-2-1988. In terms of clause 2 of the said appointment letter , he was to remain on probation for a period of 6 months from the date of his joining . It is submitted that Shri Mohinder Singh adınittedly remained unauthorisedly absent from the services after 12-7-1988 i.e. when he was under probation and admittedly did not submit any information to the bank as alleged the bank came to know about the pendency of the criminal case and his acquittal only when the same was communicated to the bank by Shri Mohinder Singh by a letter which was received on 13-10-2000 (copy of which has been enclosed at page 62 of the claim) , accordingly it is admitted position that for about twelve years Shri Singh neither reported for his duties nor informed the bank about his absence for such a long period. If that is so the action of the bank in treating the case of Shri Singh as a case of abandonment of service cannot be found fault with in any manner either on facts or in law.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that on the date of alleged incident on which the FIR was registered, the workman was on his duty as is evident from the certificateNo. 8531 dt. 17-9-1988 issued by Manager, 4156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 / ASADHA 9 , 1929

PARI -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Punjab National Bank, General Services Admn . Branch . Copy ofwhich is enclosed as Annexure -D . The two defence witnesses namely Capt. Vikramjit Suri and Amarjin Shota appeared in the trial of criminal case and deposed that on 11-7-8812-7-88 the workman was on duty.

up to 1994. It is also admitted that the management has not issued any notice to the workman for resuming his service. It is also admitted that he was given appointment on probation basis for 6 months . He could not complete his probation period . He did not turn up on or after 12-7-1988 in view ofhis false implication in the criminal case .

It was submitted that after release on bail on 16-5-1994 in the aforesaid criminal case , the workman went to the office of management and met the officials therehy requesting them to take him on duty and further apprised them about his false arrest in the criminal case and release onbail.

Itwas further submitted that the authorities /officials ofmanagement apprised the workman that the process for takinghim on duty will only be initiated after finalization of criminal case pending against him and the workman was not allowed to join his duties despite request .

11 transpires from perusal of the record that the workman did not approach the management in 1994 after getting bail . There is no evidence that the workman approached the management after being hailed out. The first letter sentto the management B -66 is of 2000. This letter is admitted to both the parties . The workman has not stated anywhere that he approached the management after being released on bail in the year 1994. In the second letter B-63 he has taken the plea that after being released on bail he approached the management for reinstatement . There is nodocumentary proof regarding his approach to the bank after being bailed out . He has not mentioned this fact in his first letter dated 13-10-2000 . Thus , it stands proved that the workman has taken a false case of approaching the management afier being bailed out. This fact has not been mentioned in his letter dated 13-10-2000 . He has not sent any letter in the year 1994. So it stands proved that the workman approached the bank on 13-10-2000 after his acquittal .

The submission of the management is that the matter has been raised after a delay of 12 years . There is substantial force in the argument of the management . It is settled law that no premium should be paid for delay and latches. Delay deprives a workman of the appropriate relief.

It was submitted from the side of the management that interms of clause 2 of the said appointment letter, he wasto remain on probation for a period of 6 months from the date of his joining . Shri Mohinder Singlı admittedly remained unauthorisedly absent from the services after 12-7-1988 i.e. when he was under probation and admittedly did not submit any information to the bank as alleged the bank came to know about the pendency of the criminal case and his acquittal only when the same was communicated to the bank by Shri Mahinder Singh by a letter which was received on 13-10-2000 . The admitted position that for about twelve years Shri Singh neither reported for his duties nor informed the bank about his absence for such a long period. If that is so the action of the bank in treating the case of Shri Singh as a case of abandonment of service cannot he found fault with in any manner eithedon facts or in law.

It was submitted from the side of the management that there is no explanation of delay. Not to speak of plausible or satisfactory explanation . There is no explanation at all what prevented the workman to approach this forum after a long period of 12 years . It is settled law that stale claim made after an inordinate and unexplained period could not be entertained.

It was further submitted that Shri Mohinder Singh made his first representation the bank on 13-11-2000 requesting that he be taken in the service of the Bank only after he was acquitted by the Criminal Court vide its judgment dated 9-9-2000 of allegations under Sections 302, 307,450, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code.

My attention was drawn to 2005 (5) SCC page 91 paras 12 and 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that long delay impedes the maintenance of the records . Belated claim should not be considered .

It has been held in (2001 ) 6 SCC. 222 as under :-

Itwas also submitted that the first representation made by Shri Mohinder Singh was on 13-11-2000 and in his said representation he never stated that he ever contracted any official of the bank or visited any office of the bank after getting a bail from the said Criminal Court from 1994 . The story has been cooked up with ulterior motive only .

"Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act . It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had sincebeen settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years ofthe order dismissing the respondent from service. " It is admitted to both the parties that the workman was appointed through due selection process by the management and he performed his duties till 11-7-1988 without any complaint . He joined the services of the bank on 12-2-1988 and he absented from duty on 12-7-1988 after 5month's service.

In the instant case reference has been made after a delay of long 12 years . Limitation Act is not applicable in ID cases but stale cases should not be considered . Delay It is also admitted that the workman was involved in a criminal case falsely and he remained in judicial custody [ भाग 1] -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

4157

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

in the instant case is inordinate and relief can be rejected on the ground of delay alone .

"In such circumstances holding of an inquiry before making the termination order, held , was not obligatory- Further held, the Conductor as a probationer had no substantive right to hold the post and the courts below erred in granting the relief of reinstatement with full back wages."

The 2nd case of the workman is that he has not been given one month's pay in lieu of notice . The workman was appointed on 6 months probation . He has not completed 6 months probation period.

Ithasbeenfurther held in 1999-(002)-LLJ - 0342- P &H as under:

Clause 2 of his appointment letter provides as under:-

"When a person is appointed on a specific condition that he willbe on probation, his employer has a right to adjudge the suitability of the employee in the light of his performance."

It has been further held in 1997 LLR 1004 as under:--

"You will be on probation for a period of6 months . Your services are however , liable to be terminated at the sole discretion of the bank even before the expiry of the probationary period without assigning any season but with onemonth's notice or on payment of a month's salary and allowances in lieu of notice ."

"There is nothing like automatic confirmation/ absorption of a candidate in service on expiry of the period ofprobation unless specifically provided." This clause provides that the workman will be given one month's notice or pay in lieu of notice . It is true that no such notice has been given to the workman . The management's another case is that clause 3 of the appointment letter is applicable in his case . It hasbeen mentioned in clause 3 of letter of appointment as under:-

"If after joining the bank service, you leave the service during the probation period without giving 14 days notice in writing you will be liable to pay the bank, a sum equal to 14days pay and allowance ."

There is a specific clause in the appointment letter of the workman. The workman was duty bound to inform the management regarding his absence in view of clause 3 of the appointment letter . So a duty is cast on the workman to inform the management regarding his absence . In case the workman was in judicial custody , he should have sent information to the management . The management has rightly invoked clause 3 of the appointment letter and has rightly held that the workman has abandoned his services.

11 was submitted that the workman abandoned the services of the bank though being in judicial custody on 12-7-1988 after 5 months . He has not completed probation period. He has not given any 14 days notice. He was during the probation period and he could send the notice even froinjudicial custody but the workman has not done so .So under clause 3 of the appointment letter it was ordered that he has abandoned his services without any information .

The workman was a probationer. The management has rightly invoked clause 3 of his appointment letter . He was absent without information for 12 years and his absence has been treated as abandonment of his service . He has no right to employment . Probation does not create any such right. The reference is barred by limitation in view of the judgment cited above . He does not deserve any relief.

The reference is replied thus:-

The action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating Shri Mahinder Singh Ex- Armed Guard by treating him to have abandoned service and not affording reinstatement in service along with continuity of services and back wages is just, fair and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 28-5-2007. R. N. RAJ , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 4 जून , 2007

का. आ. 1875, औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 73/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

My attention was drawnfrom the side of the workman to 1991 ( 1) LLJ SC386, 1996 (4) SLR 517, 1990(1) SCC 361 , AIR 2005 SC768, 2000 (3 ) SCC 588. These cases are not applicable in the instant case . The workman did not give information regarding his retention in jail. He has abandoned his services though under compulsion but this is none the less abandonment . It was his duty to inform the bank regarding his judicial custody. The bank can pass no order though the bank may be in the know of the fact that the workman was in judicial custody in the absence of any request from the side of the workman . There is no such request . The workman has approached to the bank for the first time on 13-10-2000 after a long period of 12 years . It is settled law that a probationer has not got any lien or right to service. His probation may be extended. His services may be terminated at the end of probation period rather his services will stand terminated in case it has not been confirmed or probation has not been extended . So the workman cannot claim retrenchment compensation and reinstatement in these circumstances .

Ithas been held in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases447 as under-

[सं. एल -12012/60/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी PART 11- SBC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 / ASADHA 9 , 1929

4158

New Delhi, the 4th Tune . 2007

That the workman worked in the name of Shri Javed on 7-8-2001 and payment to him was made in the name of Shri Javed and the services of the workman were terminated in the evening of 7-8-2001 . The termination of the services of the workman is absolutely illegal and un -constitutional . 'The workman has been refused duly orally and he has παι been paid any retrenchment compensation.

S.O. 1875. In pursuance of Section 17 14 the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 73-2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.11, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the the management of UCO Bank and their workman , received by the Central Governmenton 4-1-2007.

[No. 1-1201260/2002 IR ( 8-10 )

RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

That the workman worked under the respondents as a permanent worker and he served the bank for 240 days during each year of his employment but he has not been paid retrenchment compensation. Under Section 25 F of the IDAct his services cannot be deemed terminated.

ANNEXURE

That the duties performed by the workman are being performed by some other person breach of section 25(g ) and (h) of the ID Act

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL . TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR . COURT - IL, NEW DELHI

That the services of the workman have been terminated without any chargesheeland without providing any opportunity which is illegal and schitrarily.

1.1 ) No. 75 2002

PRESIDING OFIICER R.N.RAI .

In the Matter of:---

PRESENT:

That the termination of the services has been ordered inbreach ofArticles 14, 16, 17 and 19 of the Constitution of India. That the workman is unemployed since termination ofhis scrvices.

Shri Ram Hharosey

Sio. Shri Lakhi Ram ,

Village Buser, Post: Simbhaoli .

Ghaziabad -201001

(Uttar Pradesh)

Versus

That the employers have written a letter dated 3-9-1996 to the Divisional Officer, Bareilly mentioning therein that the workınan has been performing duties regularly with short gaps and the Branch Manager has recommended the name of the workman for considering him as tegular Peon .

The Branch Manager,

UCOBank,

Branch Simbhacii, Ghaziabad U.P. )-201001 .

AWARD

That the workman has never worked in stop gap arrangement and at the place of some other workman who proceeded on leave . That the termination of his services is absolutely illegal , arbitrary and unjustified and he is entitled to be reinstated.

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. 1. - 12012/00/ 2002( IR) (E- II) Central Govemmem Dt. 9-8-2002 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The Management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the alleged dispute as referred is not an Industrial Dispute as defined under Section 2(K) of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 .

The point runs as hereunder :

That there being no Industrial Dispute between the: parties herein the claim itself is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Rambhanoscy Sio Shri Lakhi Ram w.e.f. 7-8-2001's legal and justified? II' not, what relief the concernco workman is entitled to? "

That the claimant was not rendered a continuous Service with the Bank within the meaning of Section 25B ofthe Act for a period of over 240 days . Therefore, there being no right vested with the claimant and he can not claim employment in theBank.

The workman applicant has filed statement ofclaim. 11 has been stated thereir hat the workman worked det the management as water boy from 1941 to 7-8.2K ) for 10 years. He has served the bank satisfacrily without any complaint

Thai non employment due on non availability of work to any casual worker of after expiry of engagement which was for fixed period does not amount to retrenchment, hence there is no need to comply with Section 25-F of the Act. As the engagement of Shri Ram Bharoscy was for a day or more days i.e. two or three days in a week or month on casual basis as a daily paid due to absent of regular poon of the Bank, which cannot be treated as a regular appointment at all .

That the employers were taking several du ies lom the workmanbut they asked him to put los signature sometimes in the name of Shyam Singh , Kishan Jal Singh , Ram Saran. Rehmat Ali . Rarı Prakash , Rajesh Kumar , Harishchandra etc. and payment was received by the workman after putting the signature of these acitious persons.

4159 [भाग ॥ खण्ड 3(ⅱ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

Government lindertaking and there is no such practice as alleged by the claimant. The Bank always made the payment tothe said persons who worked with the Bank. The plea of the claimant is based on incorrect fact and imagination, which is based on ill advice and liable to be turned down with any consideration . The alleged non- engagement does not come in purview of retrenchment.

That theBank is an Undertaking of the Government of India and has its rules and regulations regarding recruitment in the Bank and all recruitment of Class TV or other category are subject to such rules and regulations and all vanacies are fulfilled as per prescribed procedure after conducting certain formalities with the conditions of eligibility, written test and oral test. Thus except said procedure nobody takes employment in the Bank nor any person is authorized to recruit or appoint any person on behalf of the Bank .

That Simbhaoli branch of the Opp . Party Bank is a rural branch and having very low staff/ strength and there is no post of Water Boy ever existed.

That the contents of Para 6 are absolutely false and incorrect and liable to turn-down without any consideration. In fact, the claimant was engaged off and on by the bank and each and every time whenever need arose, he engaged as a daily paid casual worker. Therefore , the question of compliance with Section 25 F of the Act did not arise as he never performed his duty in last twelve months not more than 240 days .

That no Industrial Dispute ever arose between the parties or on 7-8-2001 as referred in the order of reference. Thus the order of reference is bad in law and the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

That there was no power and valid espousal of the alleged industrial dispute nor no proper and real dispute/. issue has been referred for adjudication to this Hon'ble Tribunal , hence on this ground alone the order of reference is liable to be rejected.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

That the contents of Para 11 of the claim statement are not disputed, hence no comment.

From perusal of the pleadings of the parties the following issues arise for determination:

1. Whether the workman has completed 240 days during his period 1991 to 2001 ?

That the contents of Para 2 are not admitted hence denied . No such post existed in the branch as the said branch is a rural branch and has a very low staff i.e. members.

2. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstate- ment?

3. To what amount of back wages the workman is entitled ?

IssueNo. 1

Shri Ram Bharoscy was not in the service and employment of the Branch/Bank as a regular employee. On the contrary he was employed on a tea shop and he used to come to branch freequently for supplying/providing tea to the staff of the bank/branch a servant of the tea shop and on any day when pon of the bank/branch does not come to bank then to meet out the exigency of work the claimant was engaged on daily basis for the said day as a casual. The total working days in last twelve months of Shri Ram Bharosey are as under :

Total 3 days

21-08-2001 20-06-2001 02-07-2001

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he hasworked continuously from 1991 to 7-8-2001 as water boy and several duties have been taken from him. The workman has filed one photocopy letter written by the Manager on 25-9-1996. It has been mentioned therein that theworkman has worked continuously as water boy for 2 years with only short breaks . His name has been recommended for empanelment . This letter is a photocopy. though it bears letter number 108/96. It has been signed by the manager .

The workman has fited photocopies of the duties discharged by him but these are on blank papers and the management has denied all the photocopies . These photocopies are not admissible in evidence.

The management witness has admitted in his cross- examination as under :--

It is also denied that Bank had been made the payment to him in the name of S/Shri Shyam Singh , Kishan Pal , Ram Charan, Rahmat Ali, Ram Prakash , Rakesh Kumar, Harish Chand and Javed etc. It is also denied that on7-8-2001 payment was made to him in the name of Javed. In fact, on 7-8-2001 he neither worked nor any payment was madeto him in the name of Javed. The burden to prove this fact is upon the claimant , contrary to it nothing is admitted hence denied .

That the contents of Para 5 as stated are not admitted. No cause of action ever arose on 7-8-2001 nor the claimant ever worked on 7-8-2001 in the bank. The bank is a

"I cannot say on which date Shri Padam Singh was deputed on the work. I cannot say on which date Shri Padam Singh went on leave. I have not submitted any letter in this regard . I cannot say the date and year on which the extra workmen were engagedby 2811 GI /2007-16 [PART [ SEC. 3( ii ) ] 4160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

management . In the circumstances it is held that the workman has worked regularly from 1991 to 07-08-2001 as a casual worker and not against the leave vacancy . He has worked for 240 days in all the years of his employment . This issue is decided accordingly.

Issue No. 2

me . No office memorandum was ever displayed on thenotice board regarding the exigencies of the work. Attendance was not taken of the claimant Shri Rambharose. 1 cannot say for how many days Shri Rambharoseworked in a year . No record regarding the working days in a year of the claimant has been filed by the bank. Shri Rambharose used to work in the Tea Stall and used to serve the tea to the bank employees. Ido not know who was the owner of the Tea Stall. It is not in my knowledge that Shri Jitender junior to Shri Rambharose is working in the bank on the post ofPeon."

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that non- employment due on non - availability of work to anycasual worker or after expiry of engagement which was for fixed period does not amount to retrenchment , hence there is no need to comply with Section 25- F of the Act .As the engagement of Shri Ram Bharosey was for a day or more days i.e. two or three days in a week or month on casual basis as a daily paid due to absent of regular peon of the Bank , which cannotbe treated as a regular appointment at all.

MW1 has admitted that when the Peon Shri Padam Singh used to go on leave or due to exigencies of work some other persons were deputed on the work . He has further stated that he could not say on which dates Shri Padam Singh went on leave . He has further stated that he couldnot say the date and year on which the extra workmen were engaged.

It was further submitted that the Bank is an Undertaking of the Government of India and has its rules and regulations regarding recruitment in the Bank and all recruitment of Class IV or other category are subject to such rules and regulations and all vanacies are fulfilled as per prescribed procedure after conducting certain formalities with the conditions of eligibility , written test and oral test. Thus except said procedure no body take employment in the Bank nor any person is authorised to recruit or appoint any person on behalf of the Bank.

MW1 has also admitted that he could not say for how many days Shri Ram Bharose worked in a year . He has further admitted that Shri Rambharose used to work in the tea stall and used to serve tea to the bank's employees. He bas expressed his enability regarding the name of the owner of the tea stall. He has also no knowledge that Shri Jiteder junior to Rambharose is working in the bank on the post of Peon.

That Simbhaoli branch of the Opp . Party Bank is a rutal branch and having very low staff/strength and there is no post of Water Body ever existed.

Section 25 F provides that in case a workman has worked for 240 days continuously he shouldhe paid retrenchment compensation as per the rules and one month's pay in lieu ofnotice.

In the written siatement also the case of the management is that this workman was engaged when regular and permanent peon went on leave . In case there is engagement of a workman on leave vacancy, it was the duty of the management to file relevant records to show thattheworkman was engaged in exigencies . Engagement of the workman is admitted . In the circumstances it was necessary for the management to file the relevant records to show that engagement to this workman was given only on leave vacancies. The management has concealed these doduments.

The management has not disclosed as to how many Peonswereworking there . MW1 has expressed his enability to say whether junior Shri Jitender was working at the place of Shri Rambharose . It is not the case of the management that Shri Jitender is not continued at present . This establishes the fact that the work is still existing. The workman has been removed and Shri Jitender has been taken in his place. MW1 should state specifically whether Shri Jitender was working or not . He has given evasive reply. So it is held that the workman has been removed and Shri Jitender has been taken in his place.

The management has not denied that the workman wasnot engaged. Once engagement is admitted it becomes the duty of the management to file records regading the plea taken by the managernent . The plea of the management is that the workman was engaged when Shri Padam Singh went on leave. As such there are relevant documents regarding Shri Padam Singh proceeding on leave and engagement of this workman at his place but no such document has been filed to substantiate the plea of the management.

It was submitted from the side of the bank that reinstatement is not the only relief in all the cases of illegal termination . Section 11 A of the ID Act , 1947 provides for payment of compensation also.

11was submitted from the side of the workman that compensation is payable in cases where an undertaking has become sick or it has been closed or it is in economic loss. Ithas not been established that the bank is in economic loss and it is a sick Industry.

The relevant vouchers and records regarding ad hoc engagement ofthe workman on leave vacancy of permanent employed are with the management . The management ought to have fled the relevant documents to substantiate the pleathat theworkman was engaged only on leave vacancy. The documents are under the possession of the 4161 [ भाग ॥ - खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/ आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

public employment should be in terms of constitutional schema.

Itwas further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment has afforded a right according to which the Government is not precluded from making temporaгу appointments or engaging workers on daily wages .

My attention was drawn by the Ld. Counsel of the workmanto 2000 LLR 523 State ofUP and Rajender Singh. The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered for reinstatement with full back wages as the services of the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years was dispensed with without following the procedure for retrenchment . In the instant case also no retrenchment compensation has been paid. This case law squarely covers the instant case.

Ithas been held in 1978 Lab IC 1668 that in case service of a workman is terminated illegally the normal rule is to reinstate him with full backwages.

My attention was further drawn to AIR 2002 SC 1313 . TheHon'ble Supreme Court has held that dailywager even ifserving for a short period should be reinstated.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provisions of ID Act un-constitutional . The Government has got no license sò make always appointment of daily wagers andto continue them for life time . Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the ruleofpublic employment . At the time of making temporaгу appointmentsArticles 14, 16, 21, 23 , 226 and 309 are infringed. There is no constitutional mandate that the Government is at liberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that in the instant case Sections 25 F, G of the ID Act are attracted. In section 25 of the ID Act it has been provided that if a workman has performed 240 days work and if the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be given pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no cessation of service in case provisions ofSection- 25 Fare not complied. In the instant case no compensation hasbeen paid to the workman.

In case a workman has worked for 240 days in a year and the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be paid retrenchment compensation . In case retrenchment compensation is not paid Section 25F of the ID Act is attracted . There is no cessation of his services. He is deemed continued in service in the eye of law. In case there is breach of Section 25F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence.

No suchArticle of the Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government or Public Sector units can continue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term appointments again and again. Since fixed term of appointments and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme , such discrimination will amount to vicious discretion . The Government of Public Sector unit will go on resortingto themethod ofpick and choose policy and give temporary and ad hoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the constitution willbe given a go bye . Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in this judgment the provisions of the ID Act governing the services of the workman have not been declared un-constitutional , Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions enumerated therein or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legislations.

Section 11 A of the ID Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order ofdischarge or dismissal was notjustified , it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require . Accordingto this benign provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as i1 thinks fit.

ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of society. It appears that legislature wanted that such workmen should notbe harassed un -necessarily so Section 25 F, U, Tand Clause 10 ofVth Schedule have been enacted. The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in any unfair labour practice. The workmen should not be engaged for years and then they should be removed all of a sudden. There is provision of retrenchment compensation for his removal . Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long interregnum of unemployment. In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has not annulled section 11A of the ID Act and the legislature has authorised this Tribunal to set aside dismissal or discharge on its consideration and direct reinstatement. The judgment cited by the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It was submitted from the side of the management thatthe Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down a complete ban on regularisation and reinstatement. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that employment can onlybe made on the basis of procr tdhure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution . Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. So

A three Judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court hasheld in1993 - II - LLJ that termination ofservices affects [Раят 11-ЅHC . 3( ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ILINE 30, 20007/ ASADHA 9. 1929

4162

workman was always ready to work but he was not permitted on account of invalid act of the employer.

the livelihood of not only of the employee han aiset thu dependents . So in case of Flegal termination etvoric the workmanjshould be reinstated.

In AIR 2002 SC. 1313 the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the back wages to 25 %.

in 2005 IV AD SC39 three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that reinstatement with full back wages is justified .

Reinstatement should notbe misconcaned as regularization . By the order of reinstatenient the status quo ante of the workman is restored. He is given tak wages in order to compensate him for his illegal disparent . This is a special remedy provided in ID Act and it tas nut been anhulled and set aside. by any juhtment ot he Hon'ble Apex Court . The provisions ofthe vetare stell constitutional and they are in he given erfect sun .

In case the workman is reinstated with back wRGES the respondents have every right , after payrmeniack wages and reinstatement , to retrench hira validly following theprinciples of first come last go so that section 2.5. git of the ID Act are not violated.

In the instant case the workman has served the management for 7 years and he has served for more than 240 Jays in cach year almost for 5 years . Juniors to the workinen have been retained by the management . The workman no doubt is a manual worker . It cannot be said that he was sitting idle during his unemployment . He must be doing some job ell and on. He is not employed in any establishment . In view of the decisions cited above the workman is entitled to 50% back wages . This issues decided accordingly.

The reference is replied thus:

In view of the law cited above and the tuets paitaming in this case , the workman is entitled tonsinstatement This issue is decided accordingly.

Issue No. 3

The action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Rambharosey S/o Shri Lakhi Ram w.e.f. 7-8-2001 is neither legal nor justified. The management should reir state the workman w.e.t. 8-8-2001 alongwith 50 % back wages within two months from the date ofpublication of the award.

The award is given accordingly. Date: 31-5-2007 .

R.N. RAJ , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून , 2007

It was submitted that payınent of full auch wages is not the natural consequence of the order ni discharge of dismissal being set aside . It has been held in (MIS ) 6 SCC 141 that it is incumbent upon the labour court to kide the quanmunj of back wages . In the instant case the maller involved was a case of theft of large quantity aluminum Wire. Departmental inquiry was not cordacted in accordance with the principles of natural justice seismissal was found bad. In such circumstance the Baa'ble Apes Court held that ine order for payment of full hack wages was not justified if termination is set aside , in Ps. Raj Kumar (2001 ) 2 SCC 54 the Han ble Apex Coun opheld the 60% award ofback wages of the Tribunal .

It has been further held in this case chal payım.ess of backwages having discretionary element inled it is to be dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case. No definite formala can be evolved .

का.आ 1876.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 को 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियांजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणक्षम न्यायालय नं.- 2 . नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है. जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/ 119 /2003 -आई. आर. बी-1] ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 4th June , 2007 Ithas been further held in this case that payment of backwages in its entirety i: the statutory sanction In ( 2003 ) 4SCC27 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view of delay in raising the dispute and initiating the proceedings back wags need not be allowed. In the instant case there is no delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the dispute.

In 2004 VIII AD SC 444 the Hon'ble Apex Com upheld the order of reinstatement with 25 % back wages.

S.C. 1876.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award Ref . No. 131/2003 ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -curn -Labour Court No. 2. New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman . received by the Central Government on 4-6-2007.

[No. L- 12012/ 119/2003-1R (B- RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer In 1978 Lab IC 1968 three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that payment of full back wages is the normal rule . In case services have been illegally terminated either by dismissal or discharge or retrenchment. in such circurnstance the workman is entitled to fuil back wages except to the extent he was gainfully comployed during the entorced idleness . In the instant case the [ भाग II- खण्ड ( ⅱ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR, COURT - IL, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N.RAI .

I.D. No. 131/2003

In the Matter of:-

Shri Shyam Lat , S/o . Shri Nazroo Ram, Vill.: Dayolpur - Ballabhgarh, Faridabad(Haryana)

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Syndicate Bank ,

Personnel Department , Industrial Relations Division, Head Office: Manipal (Karnataka).

2. The Assit . General Manager (DisciplinaryAuthority) , Syndicate Bank Zonal Office , IndustrialRelation Cell , 6, Bhagwan Das Road , NewDelhi .

3. TheManager , Syndicate Bank, Chhainsa Branch , Telusil: Ballabhgarh, Faridabad (Haryana) .

AWARD

TheMinistryof Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/ 119/ 2003 - IR ( B - II) Central Government dated 14-8-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in ordering dismissal of Shri Shyam Lal, Sio . Nazru Ram from services w.e.f, 27-5-1999 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled." Theworkman applicant has filed statement of claim.

In the statement of claim it has been stated that Shri Shyam Lalwhile working as an Attendant ( Sub- staff) in Chhainsa Branch of Syndicate Bank in Faridabad, District Haryana was asked to perform/officiate as Cashier in the absence of all the clerical staff of the branch by the local management on regular basis and such work performed by Shri Shyam Lal was checked and supervisedby the Assistant Manager of Chhainsa Branch at the time .

That while officiating/performing clerical duties on various occasions as happens in all such cases, he might have committed some bonafide mistakes to be corrected by the supervisions there and then but since they failed to correct the same every responsibility was passed on to me though I was lower most in the cadre ignoring the principle of natural justice, " Higher the Higher the Responsibility".

4163

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30 , 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

That as alleged against me that while performing clerical duties, I committed certain lapses but the fact remains that neither there was any consumer complaint against me nor the bank was put to any loss. Nobody can believe that none of the customer was put to any loss and still bank goes to such an extreme step of dismissal from the service of the bank .

That it is alleged against me that 1 performed clerical duties at my own but it is worth mentioning here that the same work done by me is checked and supervised by the Assistant Manager of the branch which amounts to their consent and permission to perform clerical duties to me.

That ever since I joined Chhainsa Branch of Syndicate Bank i.e. w.e.f. 11-9-1995, 1 was asked by the Manager of the branch to perform çlerical duties at regular basis. I was asked to debit and credit the A/s . of Customer to prepare 0.6. - 167and other clerical work and the same was duly checked by the officer supervisor and the same amounts to permission/ order of the local management . My repeated requests to get my statement verified/ investigated by the Zonal Office of the Bank was turned down , hence the obligation that I performed clerical duties in full view and supervision of the local management at Chhainsa was only handedless of management .

Lastbut not to least there was no customer complaint against me and there was no loss to the bank . Bonafide mistakes on my part were taken as intentional and I was served with the order of dismissal from the services of the bank.

That in the light of above, I request this Hon'ble Court to quash the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority against my dismissal from the services of the bank and direct the bank to take me back in the service of the bank .

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the present reference has been made in routine and mechanical mаппет without the application of mind , therefore, the present reference is bad in law and is liable to be rejected.

That since the workman has concealed true and material facts from Hon'ble Court , the management hereby state the facts and circumstances of the case .

That the workman was initially placed under suspension vide order dated 24-12-1997 of the disciplinary authority and subsequently he was served with a charge sheet dated 22-4-1998 for the serious allegations on his part in the matter of misappropriation of money received from various customers towards deposit of their respective accounts and for which the workman was charged with gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interests ofthe bank vide clause 19.5 (j ) of the BPS for the following reasons:

That while the workman was functioning as an attender at Chhainsa Branch the un- authorisedly received 4164

TIF GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ ASADHA 9 , 1929

[ PART 11-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] asum ofRs. 1000 from Smt . Ramvati on 12-05-1997 holder ofSBA/ c . No. 5327 did not account for the same , received accepted Rs . 21 00 ση 23-05-1997 from Shri Gajraj Singh holder of SB A/ c. No. 1696 for credit of their accounts but credited a sum of Rs.2000 only and accepted a sum of Rs.10,000 on 26-04-1997 from Shri Raghubir Singh holder ofSBA/ c . No.7007 for credit to his account but remitted credited Rs. 8,000 only thus misappropriating Rs . 1000 , Rs . 100 and Rs.2000 respectively . The workman in order to conceal his fraudulent acts , he gave counterfoils for full amounts so received from the said customers which bear cash receipts stamp and also made entry for the full amount in the respective passbook of the customers . Thus , he manipulated/falsified the bank's records and also tarnished the image of the bank as specifically stated in the charge sheet served upon him.

That the workman preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority the same was also dismissed after giving him opportunity of personal hearing as there were no extenuating factors brought in for the consideration of the appellate authority by the workman and there was sufficient evidence on record to sustain the chargesfor which the workman was found guilty and there was no merit in the submissions made by the workman during the personal hearing, the punishment awarded was also not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committedby the workman and therefore, the punishment ordered by the disciplinary authority was confirmed . The workman has failed to raise any ground to challenge the fairness of the inquiry which would have caused any prejudice tohim. The inquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper as such the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected.

That since the punishment was awarded to the workman after conducting a fair and proper domestic inquiry by the management as per the provisions and service conditions applicable to the workman before passing the dismissal order against the workman , both the oral as well as documentary evidence was produced during inquiry and the charges were duly proved in the inquiry and all the proceedings have been placed before the Hon'ble Court . In case this coun comes to the conclusion that inquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper then in that eventuality the management reserves its right to produce fresh evidence to prove the misconduct committedby the workman .

It is denied that the workman was working as cashier on regular basis. In fact that the workman was an attender inthe subordinate cadre . The work man is put to strict proof of the allegation made .

That in response to the charge sheet the workman submitted his replies vide letter dated 2-.05-1998 and denied the charges. Therefore , it was decided by the disciplinary authority to proceed further by conducting departmental inquiry in the matter and appointed an Inquiry Officer . Accordingly the departmental inquiry was conducted on different dates and the workman along with his detence representative participated in the inquiry. The workman wasextended with all the fair and reasonable opportunities to defend his case during the departmental inquiry. The workman along with his representative utilized all the opportunities given to him by the inquiry officer. The inquiry was conducted as per the provisions of the BI'S by which the service conditions of the workman are governed and the principles of natural justice were duly followed. After the conclusion of the inquiry , the Inquiry Officer submitted its report to the disciplinary authority stating that the charges leveled against the workman were conclusively proved in the inquiry. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to the workman for his submissions , the workman also made his submissions on the inquiry report .

It is denied that the workman committed honafide mistakes as alleged. It is submitted that the mistakes admitted to have been committed by the workman were very serious in nature . The workman while working as attender had not only received cash from the customers but also misappropriated the same for his own benefit Further in order to conocal his fraudulent acts, he issued counterfoils for the full amount and accordingly made entry in the respective passbook of the customers thereby manipulated/ falsified the records of the bank . The allegations levelled in this para by the workman are baseless andhe is trying to shift away his responsibility . It is further submitted that the acts of misappropriation of the mопсу belonging to the customers are very serious in nature and the same were duly established in the inquiry by producing oral as well as documentary evidence.

11 is denied that there was no complaint against the workman and the bank was not put to any loss as alleged . lt is submitted that the workman misappropriated the money belonging to the customers and also issued counterfoil for the full amount and made entry in the respective passbook That the Disciplinary Authority had gone through the report as well as the submissions of the workman and was convinced that the workman was guilty of the charges leveled against him concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held that the workman is guilty of the charges. Considering the seriousness of the misconducis committed by the workman under clause 19.5(j ) and proved in the inquity, disciplinary authority proposed the punishment of dismissal from the services of the bank. Personal hearing was also given to the workman on 22-05-1999. The Disciplinary Authority had gone through all the records of the case and was satisfied that the charges leveled against the workman were duly established in the inquiry. The punishment imposed upon the workman was not dis-proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him and accordingly the proposed punishment was awarded to the workman vide order dated 27-05-1999 of the Disciplinary Authority.

4165

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

claimed. The claim raised by the workman is misconceived and the reference is bad in law. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed . The claim of the workman is liable tobe rejected.

It is , therefore, most respectfully prayed that the reference may be answered in favour of the management and reject the claim of the workman with costs .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In the rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written staternent. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

of the customers for the full amount . When the acts ofthe workmancame into light the workman reimbursed the money to the customers of the bank. 11 is subunitted that the workman had also manipulated and falsified the records of the bank. The acts of the workman are very serious and grave in nature and for the misconduct committed by the porkoman the management has lost confidence in him and theworkman has become mreliable and undependablefor the respondent bank. Ine respondent bank being a nationalized bank dealing in public money cannot be expected to employ the employees like the workman. The punishment awarded to the workman by the disciplinary authority is no way dis-proportionateto the gravity of the misconduct committed by him.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that the preliminary issue regarding fairness of the inquiry was decided by order dated 23-01-2007 . The inquiry was found fair. This finding on the fairness of the inquiry will form partof the award.

It is denied that as per the allegations made that simply because the work done by the workman was checked and supervised by the Assistant Manager of the haunk, il amountsto their consent and permission as alleged . It is submitted that the acts of accepting the money from the customers and issuing counterfoil for the fuil amount and also misappropriating the customer's moriey were accepted by the workman vide his letter dated 15-10-1997. Moreover, the charges were duly established and proved in the inquiry on the basis of oral and documentary evidence . Therefore, the allegation levelled by the workman are false and frivolous .

It was submitted from the side of the workman that an unfair and bogus inquiry was allegedly conducted by the management against the claimant without giving sufficient opportunity to participate in the inquiry and the inquiry officer did not inform the claimant that he had been appointed as an Inquity Officer by the respondent in this case. The main job of claimant with the respondent was as anAttendant (Sub -staff ) in Chhainsa Branch of Syndicate Bank, Faridabad but he was asked to perform/officiate as Cashier in the absence of all the clerical staff ofthe Branch by the local management on regular basis and such work performedby Shri Shyam Lal was checked and supervised byAssistant Manager of Chhainsa Branch at that time .

It is submitted that the workman was working as attender and the un-authorisedly accepted money from the customers and misappropriated the same . To conceal his fraudulent acts he issued counterfoil for full amountto the customers and made entry in their passbook for the full amount. The charges levelted against the workman were duly established in the inquiry. Therefore.. the allegations made by the workman in this para is baseless and is ofno consequence.

It was further submitted that during performing clerical duties on various occasions of claimant as happens inali such cases he might have committed some bonafide mistakes to be corrected by supervisors then and there but since they failed to correct the same every responsibility was passed on to the claimant though he was lower most inthe cadre ignoring the principle of natural justice. Higher the cadre-Higher the responsibility .

Itwas submitted that as alleged against the claimant thatduring performing clerical duties he committed certain lapses but the fact remains that neither there was any Consumer Complaint against the claimant nor bank was put to any loss. Nobody can believe that none of the customer was put to any loss. Some bonafide mistakes on partofclaimant were taken as intentional .

It is denied that there were no complaint against the workman and no loss was caused to the bank as alleged. It is further denied that the acts of misconduct observed on the part of the workman were bonafide mistakes and were not intentional as alleged. It is submitted that the acts of manipulation/ falsifying the bank's record have tarnished the image ofthe bank . The workman was dismissed forthe serious misconduct detrimental to the interest of the bank. The punishment awarded to the workman was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him. It is further submitted that in the present case the punishment was awarded , the workman after conducting a fair and proper domestic inquiry and in the claim statement the workman has failed to raise any ground to challenge the fairness of the inquiry. It is, therefore submitted that the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected straightaway.

It is further denied that the action of the management is illegal in any manner. It is further denied that theworkman is entitled to the reinstatement with full back wages as

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman misappropriated the money belonging to the customers and also issued counterfoil for the full amount and made entry in the respective passbooks of the customers for the full amount. When the acts of the workman came to light the workman reimbursed the money to the 4166

[PART 11-SEC 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

It is found proved that on 3 occasions the workman misappropriated the amounts mentioned above and when the inquiry was instituted he returned the amount to the customers . Though he has misappropriated only Rs. 3100/- only but misappropriation is misappropriation . The amount is not material .

customers of the bank. It is submitted that the workman had also manipulated and falsified the records of the bank. The acts of the workman are very serious and grave in nature and for the misconduct committed by the workman the management has lost confidence in him and the workman has become unreliable and undependable for the respondentbank. The respondent bank being a nationalized bankdealing in public money cannot be expected to employ the employces like the workman . The punishment awarded to the workman by the Disciplinary Authority is in no way dis-proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committedby him.

It was further submitted that the acts of accepting the money from the customers and issuing counterfoil for the full amount and also misappropriating the customer's money were accepted by the workman vide his letter dated 15-07-1997. Moreover , the charges were duly established and proved in the inquiry on the basis of oral and documentarylevidence .

My attention was drawn to 2000 LLR 1271. It has been that Section 11 -A-Powers of Labour Court or Industria ) Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of dismissal or discharge or orkmen-Disciplinary action- Quantum of punishment-Discretion of Labour Court- Labour Court giving specific finding that charge of misappropriation and breach of trust established-It , however, setting aside dismissal order and ordering reinstatement with 25 % back wages while imposing penalty of stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect- Unsustainable --One act of misappropriation is proved , maybe for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstating employee in service-Labour Court cannot substitute penaly imposed by employer in such cases .

Therefore, the allegation levelled by the workman are false and frivolous .

In case of proved misappropriation there is no question of considering past record . It is descretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases, bul the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer in such cases .

It is found proved that the workman has misappropriated Rs . 3100/- . He has committed a grave misconduct.

In the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment inflicted on the claimant is neither excessive nordisproportionate . He deserves dismissal and he was dismissed. No interference is required.

The law cited by the workman is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case .

The reference is replied thus ...

It transpires from perusal of the record that the workman received Rs. 1000/-unauthorisedly on 12-415-1997 from account holder of SB A/C No. 5327 and he did not account for the same , so he embezelled an amount of Rs. 1000/-. He received again Rs . 2100/-on 23-05-1997 from the account holder of SB A/ c No. 1696 and he credited only asum of Rs . 2000/-while he issued counterfoil for Rs . 2100/- and made entry in the passbock for Rs . 21000 /- , the workman again received Rs . 10,000/- on 26-06-1997 from Sh. Raghubir Singh account holder of SB A/ C No. 7( 17 hul he credited only Rs . 8,000/- and embezelled Rs . 2000/-.In all these cases he issued counterfoil for the full amount and he has entered the full amount in the passbook also buthe did not deposit it in the bank. Thus , the workman embezelled Es. 1000/- , Rs . 100/- & Rs . 2000/-on the dates mentioned above.

The action of the management of Syndicate Bank in ordering dismissal of Shri Shyam Lal , S/u . Nazru Ram from services w.e.f. 27-05-1999 is just and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that it was a bonafide mistake that the proper entries were not made in the records and this does not amount to so serious misconduct that the workman should be dismissed from service.

The award is given accordingly. Date:29-05-2007. R.N , RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2007

The inquiry held against the workman has been found fair. The fairness of the inquiry cannot be agitated again. The argument of the party should be limited to the quantum of punishment only.

का, आ. 1877. औद्योगिक विषाद 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 बिबाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-6-07 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/212/2003- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी It was submitted from the respondent that the workman became unreliable and undependable in view of serious misconduct committed by him . The wirkman besides misappropriation has manipulated and falsified the records of the bank. The misconduct is serious and grave in nature and the management has lost all contidence in him . The bank deals in public money and such enmployees cannot be retained. The punishment is not disproportionate in view of the gravit of the misconduct committed by him.

4167 भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (i ) ]

25-8-1999 to 26-8-1999

New Delhi, the 4th June , 2007

31-8-1999 to 2-9-1999

8-9-1999 to 11-9-1999

14-9-1999 to 15-9-1999

29-9-1999 to 3-10-1999

6-10-1999 το 12-10-1999

This chargesheet was issued by the Assistant General

Manager of the bank.

S.O. 1877. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Rel . No. 51/2004 ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhis shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the managemem of Syndicate Bank, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 4-6-2007.

[No. L-12012/212/2003- IR(B- II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-

LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELH

1. D. No. 51/2004

That it is admitted case that the workman did not attend office on in between days during 8-8-1999 10 12-10-1999. The workman did submit leave applications and medical certificates whenever he reported for his duties. Admitedly there is no rejection of leave . Hence treating the workman as unauthorized absence from duty during the above period is untreasonable and unjustified. The authorities arewell aware that the workman was not keeping good health and hence he could not attend office.

Presiding Officer: R. N. Rai

PRESENT:

-1st F'arty

Shri J. Buther

Shri K. S. Chouhan

-2nd Party

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Mohan Lal Bansal , A-4/ 14 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi -110063.

That the chargesheet dated 31-01-2000 therefore is the result of non-application of mind. Hence the entire action is bad in law. For single incidence/act of absence from duty the Assistant General Manager, purporting to be the Disciplinary Authority has imposed multiple punishments for single incident/act . This too shows non- application ofmind, mechanical act , and closed mind ofthe Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities.

Versus

The Assistant General Manager,

SyndicateBank,

Sarojní House , 6, Bhawan Das Road, New Delhi -110001.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/212/ 2003-4R (B - II) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT di . 08-3-2004 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

That the workman submitted reply dated 27-02-2000 to the chargesheet dated 31-1-2000 denying the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty during the period of 8-8-1999 to 12-10-1999. The workman had attended duties in between and also has submitted leave applications and medical certificates. Hence the absence from duty isjustified and reasonable . Without giving any reasons the Disciplinary Authority found the reply to the charge sheet unsatisfactory . Hence ordering inquiry is violative of principles of natural justice. Ordering inquiry in to the charge sheet dated 31-1-2000 is also result of non - application of mind.

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in terminating the services of Shri M.L. Bansal byway ofcompulsory retirement from service is legal and justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to, "

The workman applicant has filed statement ofclaim.

In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was permanent employee of the management bank and had been working as Attender in the Ashok Vihar Branch , NewDelhi. The workman joined the services of the bank in 1986 and has rendered 15 years of service . His services are governedby theprovisions of various bipartite settlements and awards.

That the workman was issued a charge-sheet dated 31-01-2000 levelling allegation or unauthorized absence for the following periods:

8-8-1999 to 14-8-1999

That the inquiry was held on only one date Le . 3-3-2000. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 13-4-2000 finding the workman guilty ofthe charges leveled in the chargesheet. The findings are perverse , since the findings are based on no evidence . The sole management witness, MW/1 in his chief stated that as per letter dated 23-9-1999 the workman was on extra -ordinary leave andon loss of pay for 277 days. MW/ 1 could not tell the reason for the absence. He has also admitted that the workman joined his duties . There was no evidence that the leave application and medical certificates submitted by the workman was rejected . The burden to prove the charges lies on the management. Presuming though not admitting that the leave applications and medical certificates were rejected, it is the duty of the authority concerned to convey the reasons for rejections , if any . No such communication rejecting leave with reasons was ever received by the workman . Hence the entire action of initiating the 18-8-1999 to 21-8-1999

2811 G1/2007-17 [PART 11-SEC. 3(ii) ) 4168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

disciplinary action is violated. In any event, the inquiry and the resultant actions are not sustainable in law being founded on perverse findings.

That the workman preferred an appeal dated 10-8- 2000detailed how the order of punishment of compulsory retirement is bad. But the submissions were not considered, rather rejectedby the Appellate Authority mechanically. The orderdated 14-10-2000 is unjust and illegal .

remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly without intimation/prior sanction of the leave from the competent authority. The workman was served with charge- sheet dated 3-2-1999 and charge - sheet dated 17-6-1999 for his unauthorized absence from duties on various occasions andwas awarded with the punishment of warning on both the occasions with the hope that he will realize and understand the seriousness of his tuisconduct and correct himself in future. Instead of amending himself the workman again started absenting unauthorisedly from duty on various occasions for which he was again served with charge - sheet dated 16-9-1999 and was awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of six months by the disciplinary authority .

That the workman again by showing disregard to the leave rules and advices from higher authorities absented himself from duties unauthorisedly on various occasions as mentioned in the charge -sheet dated 31-1- 2000 in question without any information/prior sanction of leave from the competent authority thereby disrupted the normal functioning of the branch/bank and spoiled the discipline among other staff of the bank and accordingly was scrved with the charge -sheet dated 31-1-2000 .

That the resultant order of disciplinary authority dated 30-6-2000 passed by the Dy. General Manager and the order dated14-10-2000 of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal is invalid and illegal . The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and had not considered the above vital aspects . He failed to appreciate that mere absence is not misconduct . Even the Appellate Authority did not consider the submissions made in the appeal dated 10-8-2000 . If at all any misconduct was committed, though not admitting , the same were stood condoned. Hence no disciplinary action could have been taken against the workman. Hence the entire disciplinary action is void being illegal and invalid. Taking leave on the ground of illness supported by medical certificates justifies the absence.

1. Absence without leave under clause 19.7 (a ) of theBPS.

2. Unpunctual and irregular attendance vide clause 19.7 (b) of the BPS .

3. Doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank vide clause 19.5 (j ) of the BPS .

4. Habitually doing acts which amount to minor misconduct as per the clause 19.5 ( f) ofthe BPS.

That the charge- sheet itself being bad, illegal and invalid in law , the further action on the charge -sheet are not sustainable in law, Levelling multiple punishments are blatant misuse of power and hence such arbitrary exercise of power vitiate the entire action being unreasonable , irrational for single act of absence. The exercise of power was for extraneous purpose and to colorable . That the punishment imposed on the workman though not warranted , it is still highly and shockingly dis -proportionate . On this ground also the action of imposing multiple punishments including compulsory retirement is illegal and invalid .

That the entire, disc.plinary action is in violation of bipartite settlements and awards . Levelling multiple punishments for single allegation of unauthorized absence, though not admitted are in gross violation of bipartite settlements .

That the authorities concerned have not exercised the power bonafidely and actions are indicative of oblique motive and extraneous consideration . Arbitary exercise of power iswrit large . The principles of natural justice have been violated.

The respondent/management has filed written statement. In the written staternent it has been stated that the present reference has been made in routine and mechanical manner without the application of mind , therefore thepresent reference is liable to be rejected.

That since the workman has concealed true and material facts from this Hon'ble Court, the management hereby states the facts and circumstances of the case.

The explanation submitted by the workman in response to the charge-sheet was not found to he satisfactory and it was decided by the disciplinary authority to proceed further by conducting departmental inquiry in the matter. Accordingly the departmental inquiry was conducted and the workman along with his defence representative participated in the inquiry . The workman . was extended with all fair and reasonable opportunitiesto defend his case during the departmental inquiry . Further the workman was assisted by the defence representative during the inquiry and utilized all the opportunities extended to him . The inquiry was conducted as per the provisions of the BPS by which the service conditions of the workman were governed and by following the principtes of natural justice. After the conclusion of the inquiry the inquiry officer submitted his finding vide report dated 13-4-2000 stating that the charges leveled against the workman were conclusively proved in the inquiry . The copy ofthe inquiry report was forwarded to the workman for his submissions but the workman had chosen not to make any submissions on the findings of the inquiry officer for the reasons best known to him . The Disciplinary Authority after a thorough perusal of all the records placed before him observed that the inquiry was conducted as per the That the workmans working as an Attender with Ashok Vihar Branch. While working he was in the habit of [ भाग 11-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

provisions of the BPS and in terms of the principles of natural justice and the findings of the inquiry officer are based on evidence produced in the inquiry both oral as well as documentary, concurred with the findings arrived in the inquiry and proposed the punishment of " reduction ofbasicpay in the scale of pay by one stage for a period of 6 months" for each of the misconducts under clause 19.7 (a) and 19.7 (b ) ofthe BPS respectively and " compulsory retirement from the services of the bank" for each ofthe misconducts under clause 19.5 (j ) and 19.5 (f) of the BPS respectively and offered the workman a personal hearing on the proposed punishment on 16-6-2000 . The workman alongwith his defence representative duly participated in the personal hearing.

That the workman could not bring any extenuating factors during the personal hearing warranting reconsideration of the proposed punisument , the disciplinary authority after considering the entire material placed before him awarded the punishment of " stoppage of next increment in the scale of state of workman for a period of six months " for each of the misconduct under clause 19.7(a) and 19.7(b) of the BPS respectively and are also awarded punishment of " compulsory retirement from the services ofthe bank " for each ofthe misconchict under clause 19.5 (j ) and 19.5( f) of the BPS respectively vide proceedings dated 30-6-2000 and corrigendum dated 8-8-2000 to the proceedings dated 30-6-2000.

Aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority the workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and challenged the orders of the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority also gave a personal hearing on 15-9-2000 to the workman in the matter and after perusal of all the records along with the submissions made by the workman during the personal hearing , the appellate authority observed that there is sufficient evidence available on record to sustain the charges leveled against him. Moreover the workman did not bring any extenuating factors warranting reconsideration of the punishment already awarded by the Disciplinary Authority . The Appellate Authority also observed that the misconduct committed by the workman are serious in nature and punishment awarded by the DisciplinaryAuthority was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him and dismissed the appeal vide proceedings dated 14-10-2000 . For the reasons mentioned above the reference is bad in law and is liable to be rejected.

However, it is submitted that the workman was served charge-sheet for his remaining absent from duties unauthorisedly on three earlier occasions and was awarded appropriate punishment .

It is denied that the workman can treat his alleged applications for leave to be sanctioned simply because they were not rejected by the management as alleged. It is denied that the workman was not keeping good health and

4169 was not able to attend the office. It is submitted that the workman was in the habit of frequently absenting himself from duties unauthorisedly without any information and prior sanction of leave from the competent authority , in spite of his repeated insurance to be regular in attendance and follow leave rules, be failed to keep up his commitment and resorted to being frequently absent unauthorisedly . The workman on earlier three occasions was served with charge- sheet for his unauthorized absence and was awarded with appropriate punishment on each occasion . The absence of the workman for the period in question was treated as unauthorized with consequent cut în pay and allowances as per the leave rules and service conditions governing the workman. The allegations made in this para are false and frivolous .

Itisdenied that the action of the management is bad in law. It is denied that the disciplinary and appellate authorities have acted without application of the mind as alleged. It is submitted that the charge-sheetdated 31.01.2000 was issued for the misconduct observed on his part and the sarne were duly proved in the inquiry on the basis of evidence produced both oral as well as documentary. The Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment for each misconduct leveled against him and proved during the inquiry . The allegations leveled by the workman are false and denied and the workman is put to strict proofofthe same.

It is denied that absence of the workman from duty was justified as alleged. It is further denied that the action of the management in deciding to get the matter departmentally inquired is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the absence of the workman on various occasions in question had been treated as unauthorized by the competent authority with consequent cut in the wages as per service rules as the workmanwas in the habit of remaining absent fromduties without information/sanction . The explanation in response to the charge-sheet dated 31-1-2000 submitted by him was not found to be satisfactory and therefore the inquiry was conducted in the matter by following the provisions of BPS and in consonance with the principles ofnaturaljustice which governs the service conditions applicable to the workman were followed. The allegations leveled in this para are baseless and false.

It is denied that the findings arrived in the inquiry werenotbased on evidence. It is denied that it is necessary for the management to communicate the reasons for rejection of the leave application as alleged. It is denied thatthe action of the management in initiating disciplinary proceedings is vitiated. It is further denied that the inquiry conductedby the management is not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the inquiry was held on 30-3-2000 . The Inquiry Officer after the conclusion of the management evidence requested the workman to lead his evidence but the workman failed to give any witness from his side and PART II---SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 30 , 2007/ ASADHA 9, 1929

4170

cantot be retained in service in view of the duties performed by the management .

It has been held in 2006 LLR 744 as under:

the inquiry ivas concluded . As per the eviden e produced by the management in the inquiry the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report dated 13-4-2000 wherein the charges levelled against the workman vide charge -sheel dated31-01-2000 were conclusively proved . The allegations made by the workman in this para are frivolous and bascles.

"Remaining absent for a long time could not be said tobe a miner misconduct and it could not be treated lightly-High Court or Tribunal, in exercise of its power ofjudicial review, wobid not normally interfere with quantum of punishment--impugned judgment could not be sustained. "

The workman applicant has filed rejoit.der . in his rejoinder be has reiterated the averments of this claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the wrinen statement. The management has also denied most of tlic paras of the claim statement.

My attention was drawnfrom the side of the workman that in the case of N. K. Tripathi Vs. Govt . of NCT Delhi 2006 ( 8 ) AD Delhi 169. The High Court ofDelhi has held as under :

It transpires from perusal of the record list the issue regarding fairness of the inquiry was decided by order dated5-3-2007 . The domestic inquiry has been invalid.

Heard both the par es on the point of quanium of punishincol .

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the principles of natural justice have not been followed during the course of inquiry . The workman was so circumstances prevented him from attending his duties He kept on isad health for a long time . He did not absent himself deliberately but he fell with a sad victim to the circumstances and he could not attend his duties.

Itwas further submited that the manageewould have held proper inquiry before passing the order of compulsory retirement .

"On a considération of the charge for which the petitioner has been heid guilty, viz . , making a false complaint against the officers that they were probably using air conditioners meant for the showroom in their residences, the Punishment of dismissal from service does appear disproportionate . At best , this was a failed attempt by a self appointed whistle blower. Surely, such conduci should not be condoned but then does it warrant dismissal ? By using the ultimate penalty in all the sundry cases, the authorities would end up losing the distinction between the really serious cases and the lesser ones . On a consideration of the all of these factors, it is held that the punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge for which the petitioner has been found guilty."

The case law cited by the workman is not applicable as it is in respect of making false complaints . In the instant case the workman has absented himself on 9 occasions . This case law is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present cuse.

11 was submitted from the side of the managemem that theworkman was in the habit of remaining ani from duty unauthorisedly without any information/ pror sanction of leave from the competent authority. He was served with charge-sheetdated 3-2-1999 and 17-6-1999 previously . He was awarded the punishment of warning with this hope that he will prove in near future and will adhere to leave rules and realize the sensusness of his misconduct and correct himself.

The workman was issued charge- sheet 16-5-1999 3rd time and a lenient view was taken and he was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment for a months . The habitual absence of the workman caused inconvenienceto the smooth functioning of the branch . Il also affected the customers service of the bank .

It transpires from perusal of the record that the workman has not filed any medical certificate in support of his case that he tell seriously ill so he could not attend his duties. In the absence of medical certificate nothing can be presumed regarding the illness of the workman . He should have filed even photocopy of the medical certificate to justify his illness . There is absolutely no medical certificate on the record .

The workman even after the charge -shret dated 31-12-2000 MEX 5 remained unauthorizedly absunt for 40 days in between the period 12-1-2000 10 9-3-2000 .

11was further submitted that warning to thi: workman for his unauthorized absence was issued twice and minor punishment was intlicted on him on 3rd time. Proper aquisy has been conducted.

It is admitted to the workman that he absented on 9occasions in between 8-8-1999 to 12-10-1999 , He has not filed any document to justify his absence on the 8 occasions in betweer. 8-8-1999 το 12-10-1999. It is also admitted that the workman was surved a charge- sheet on previous 2 occasions and he was warned for future. It is also admitted that his one increment for 6 months has been withheld on the 3rd charge- sheet. It is also adınitted that the workman absented for 40 days after service of charge- sheet dated 30-1-2000. He could not amend himself even during the pendency of the inquiry and he remained absent fot 40 days. Compulsory Retirement has been ordered after The bank provides customers service . Unauthorised absence causes hardship to the customers as well as 10 the bank. This workman has been in the habit of absenting unauthorisedly for 4 time Despite service el tas: charge- sheet he absented himself for 40 days . Such workman 4171

भारत की राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

[ भाग ॥ खण्ड (ii) ]

Reference(IDA) No. 454/2000

Central Bank of India

the 4th charge-sheet dated 31-1-2000 . There is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that he was prevented by some illness from auending his duties . Such workman in the habit of absenting himself from duties on several occasions cannot be given any relief.

The Zonal Manager CBIC/317, M.G. Road, Pune-411002 and ... Party

Shri Vijay Baban More

Bhopkhel , College of Military Engineering

Dapodi, Pune-12 Coram: Shri G. S. Wankhede ... Il Party

APPEARANCES :

The management has inflicted on the workman the punishment of compulsory retirement on the 4th charge- sheet. He has been chargesheeted thrice on previous occasions. While considering the quanturn of punishment previous misconduct is taken into account and the management has rightly imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Shri Kasbekar Advocate for 1 Party Shri Dixit-Advocate for II Party

AWARD (Dated:18-4-2007)

The workman has absented on several occasions as is explicit from the record. The order of compulsory retirement is valid. The workman does not deserve any relief

The reference is replied thus:

1. This reference is made by Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar/Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya , under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of industrial dispute between above referred parties over the following Schedule :

The action of the management of Syndicate Bank in terminating the services of Shri M.L. Bansal byway of compulsory retirement from service is legal and justified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any reliefas prayed for.

The award is given ccordingly.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management ofCentral Bank of India, in relation to its Nigadi Branch in terminating the services of Shri Vijay Baban More w.e.f. 14-8-1997 is legal and justified? If not , what relief the said workman is entitled to? "

Date :28-5-2007.

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1878,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियाजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय, पुणे (महाराष्ट्र) के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 454/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/27/2000 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2007

2. In short, the case of Second Party is that he was appointed by the First Party as a peon w.e.f. 17-10-1983 and posted at Daund Branch . After six months later, he was extended permanancy. Thereafter, he was transferred at Nigadi Branch . His last drawn wages were Rs. 4,000 рег month . While working in Nigadi Branch , he was always not keeping well and therefore , was not attended on duty but with prior intimation alongwith the Medical Certificate. The First Party issued memo in respect of absenteeism and sometimes Second Party was punished . The Second Party was servedwith the charge-sheet dated 12-7-1997 with the allegation that he was remained unauthorised absent from June, 1994 to31-12-1996. As a matter of fact, during this period most of the leaves were sanctioned by the First Party. However , he was issued charge-sheet with false allegation. The First Party also imposed some punishment for the period of some leaves. However, that period was also included in the charge -sheet and started departmental enquiry.

S.O. 1878. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 454/ 2000) of the Labour Court Pune (Maharashtra ) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and theirworkmen, receivedby the Central Government on 1-6-2007.

[No. L-12012/27/2000- IR (B- I) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI G.S. WANKHEDE, PRESIDING OFFICER THIRD LABOUR COURT, PUNE

3. In the enquiry, he was not allowed to engage Defence Representative nor given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and enquiry was concluded ex parte because theEnquiry Officer has not follolwed principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer thereafter by his findings held the Second Party guilty. The management placesreliance upon the findings, issued show cause notice and thereafter illegally terminated his services w.e.f.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 / ASADHA 19, 1929

4172

(PART 11--SEC. 3 (ii) ]

cannot be said to be punishment of shockingly disproportionate. In this way , there is no substance in the reference and hence it be answered in the negative.

8. From the rival pleadings of the parties above , the issues has been framed at Exh . 12, The issues are as under . I recorded my findings towards them with reasons to follow:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

14-8-1997 without giving him opportunity to offer his commentsto the show- cause notice . Thus , the termination of theSecond Party is illegal . After termination , he preferred an appeal before Dy . General Manager but that appeal was also decidedex-parte and confirmed order of termination . As the termination of Second Party was illegal , he raised dispute before Ministry of Labour, Government of India wherein the conciliation was not arrived at . Hence , the conciliation officer referred this dispute to this Court for adjudication . At last, Second Party submits that reference be allowed as prayed for .

1. Does Second Party proves that enquiry conducted by the First Party on alleged miscon-

Does not survive .

duct is not legal , fair and proper ?

Affirmative

2. Does he proves that his termination w.e.f. 14-8-97 isillegal ?

3. Whether misconduct as

Affirmative

4. The First Party by his written statement at Exh. 13, resisted the claim of Second Party. According to him, the contents of statement of claim are false and baseless, therefore, the demand of Second Party be rejected . The Second Party was appointed as a peon in Daund Branch . He was in habit of remaining absent without intimation and prior permission unauthorisedly . He was remained absent for 124 days in 1993-94 and punishment was awarded to censured on 7-6-96. At that time , Second Party assured that he will not repeat any such misconduct in future.

alleged has been proved by First Party with evidence beforeEnquiry Officer or before the Court?

4. What relief Second Party is entitled to get?

Reinstatement with Conti- nuity of service only.

5. What Award ?

Asgivenbelow.

REASONS

9. Heard learned counsel of the Second Party Shri Dixit and learned counsel of the First Party Shri Kasbekar orally as well as written notes of argument al Exh .50.

5. Despite above punishment and assurance . the Second Party continued to remain absent without intimation unauthorisedly for 75 days in 1994, 103 days in 1995 and 161 days in 1996. Total 339 days . Therefore , he was issued notice on 28-8-96 and 11-10-96 asking himto report on duty. The Second Party neither replied the notice nor reported on duty. Thereafter , he was issued show- cause notice dated 3-1-97 but again he was not replied the notice. Because of unauthorised absence of the Second Party' , the Bank hadto run with less staff and adversely effecting efficiency of the Bank . The First Party, therefore , have no alternative bul to issue chargesheet dated 12-3-1997 and started departmental enquiry .

10. In order to prove its case , the Second Party got examined himself at Exh . 46. The First Party declinedto lead oral evidence by purshis Exh . 49. However, he filed certain documents on record vide list Exh.14 including enquiry proceedings. ISSUE NO. 1 :

6. In enquiry, the principles of natural justice were followed. The Second Party participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer offered an opportunity to the Second Party to defend himself. In the enquiry, the Second Party admitted doquments and also accepted the charge of misconduct levelled against him.

11. This Issue has been decided by the Court on merit without touching as to whether the findings of the EnquiryOfficer are perverse and whether the Enquiry Officer considered all the material evidence oral as well as documentary while recording its findings and thereafter, declared the enquiry legal , fair and proper by order dated 7-12-2006 vide Exh. 45. Thus , at this stage , this Issue does not survive.

ISSUE NOS. 2AND3 :

12. It is well settled law that the fact admitted need not be proved by any other oral or documentary evidence . In the enquiry, the Second Party categorically admitted the misconduct alleged in the chargesheet . He further admitted the alleged misconduct vide document Exh . 41 and 42 and assured that he will not take without pay leave in future. If this is the fact then allowing or not allowing the leave application by the management by putting endorsement 7. Concluding enquiry , the Enquiry Officer gave his findings in which he held the Second Party guilty . The findings of Enquiry Officer therefore , based upon the evidence oral as well as documentary placed before him.. After receipt of the findings of the Enquiry Officer the Second Party has not made any comments on it . By show- cause notice dated 25-7-1997 he was informed the punishment of removed from services . He was informed to appear for personal bearing. In the personal hearing before disciplinary authority, the Second Party only stated that hewould not take leave without pay in future . Based on it and after considering the past record, he was awarded the punishment of removing from services from 14-8-1997 which [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) )

on it does not adversely effect the case of First Party. Even ifwe carefully gone through these applications it appears that all these leave applications has been submitted by Second Party after availing the leave and at the time of reporting on duty. The Enquiry Officer considered this aspect and recorded his finding by holding Second Party guilty. This finding of Enquiry Officer could not be said perverse, but is based upon oral and documentary evidencebefore him.

13. Now the question only remain as to whether punishment is proportionate and about back wages . Admittedly, the Second Party was remained unauthorisedly absent for 339 days during June 1994 to December 1996 . As per charge No. 1 of the chargesheet , because of unauthorised absence of 339 days , the Second Party has committed minor misconduct u/s . 19.7 (a) and (b) ofBipartite Settlement amended from timeto time . The Bipartite Settlement provides the punishment for minor misconduct under clause 19.8 of the said settlement such as (a) warned or censured, (b ) adverse remark (c) stoppage of increment for not longer than six months . Though the charge No. 1 has been proved, the punishment of removal from the services is unwarranted or shockingly disproportionate as well as contravented of the provisions of Section 19.8 of Bipartite Settlement.

14. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned , the period of absenteeism as stated in charge No. I also included in charge No. 2 and the management has treated absence of Second Party as unauthorised and hence on loss of pay. This appears from the endorsement put by the management on document Exh . 33. It means for unauthorised absenteeism for 339 days , the punishment of loss of pay is already been awarded to the Second Party.

15. Accordingto me , once the punishment imposed on committing alleged misconduct , another punishment for the same misconduct could not be awarded. If awarded it amounts to double jeopardy which is not permissible under the eyes of law . In charge No. 2 itself, it has been contended that by remaining unauthorised absence for roore than 30 days , the Second Party has committed gross misconduct in para 9.5 (p) of Bipartite Settlement .

4173

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

settled position of law. This has been observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Limited v/s. Babulal Ramlal Walmiki reported in 2005 III CLR675 (BOM HC) . However, with due respect the ratio laid down in the cited ruling is not applicable to the present case because of the differs of facts and circumstances of the cited ruling and case in hand.

18. It is further fact that after termination, the Second Party preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal by confirming the order of disciplinary authority. However , in the present case as I earlier stated that when charge No. 1 is for minor misconduct , the punishment ofdismissal is disproportionate and when chargeNo. 2 is defective which is contrary to the Bipartite Settlement , then again the punishment of dismissal in this charge has amounted to shockingly disproportionate. However, the fact remain that Second Party remained unauthorisedly absent for 339 days from 1994 to 1996 and therefore, some punishment must be awarded to him, so that other employee must take Icsson from him .

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, his longstanding service and even if the alleged misconduct proved in enquiry , I find that punishment of denial of back wages would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice instead of removing from the services . I therefore , answer Issue No. 2 and 3 in the affirmative

ISSUE NO.4 :

20. In view of my findings towards above, the Second Party has partly succeeded in his case and therefore , 1 answer this Issue accordingly and pass following order :

ORDER

1. The reference is partly allowed.

2 It is hereby held and declared that termination of Second Party w.e.f. 14-8-97 is illegal .

3. The First Party do reinstate Second Party on his original post with continuity of service.

4. The prayer of back wages stands rejected. 5. No costs.

Place: Pune

Date: 18-4-2007

16. Now let us see the contents of para 19.5 of Bipartite Settlement . After carefully gone through this para, the sub-clause (p) is not embodied in Bipartite Settlement. Hence, it is hard to believe that Second Party has committed gross misconduct as alleged . Thus , in my view charge No. 2 as per chargesheet dt. 12-3-97 has amounted to defective charge . Once the charge is defective , which is not based upon the Law laid down, then even charge proved the punishhunent of dismissal amounts to shockingly disproportionate.

17. No doubt that once the employer has evoked the managerial power under Model Standing Order and awarded punishment of dismissal, such an action cannot be interferred unless it is found to be contrary with the

G.S. WANKHEDE, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1879.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन 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 119/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/109/2005- आई.आर. ( बी- ॥ ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADLA 9, 1929

4174

New Dethi , the 4th June, 2007

S.O. 1879. In pursuance of Section 17 at the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Goverrunent thereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 119/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Iabour 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 1-6-2007.

No. 1. -12012/ 109/2005 - IR ( B-II ) ) RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 27th April , 2007

Present:

K. Jayaraman , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 119/2005

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947). berwoon the Management of Indian Bank and their workmen

Between

IParryPetitoner

Sri A. Muthu

AND

The Zonal Manager , Indian Bank ,

Vellore

Il Party Management

Appearaces:

: Mis . K. M. Ramesh, Advocates

For the Petitoner

M/ s . T. S. Gopalan and Co.

For theManagement

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 12012/ 109/2005 - IR (B -II ) dated 7-11-2005 has referred the dispute to this 'Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows:...

"Whether the punishment of awarding compulsory retirement on Shri Muthu . Agri . Assistant by the management of Indian Bank is justified not ? If not,to what reliefhe is entitled 10? "

2.After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as 1.D. No. 119/2005 and notices were issuedno hoth the parties and they have catered appearance through their advocates and filed theit Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in tise Claim Statementare briefly as follows :-

subsequently; he was promoted as clerk/shroff on 14-4-80. Thereafter, at his request he got transferred to Cheyyar branch. While he was working as agricultural assistant in Cheyyar branch, a charge sheet was issuedby Respondent/ Management on 23-6-2000 wherein it was alleged that he had advised one Mr. B. Babu to apply for a loan under SUME by giving him the SUME application duringMarch, 1996 and it was subsequently received by Chayyar branch duly forwarded by Thiruvathipuram municipality as per arrangement he made with them. After execution of loan documents on 17-3-97 by Sri A. Babu the borrower the loan was sanctioned for Rs . 10,000 to him for cut piece cloth retail sales business. Cheyyar branch issued a banker's cheque in favour of M/s . Kamakshi Silk House, Cheyyar as per quotation dated 12-3-97 for supply of cloth to Sri Babu. It was further alleged that the Petitioner has personally collected the cheque from Cheyyar branch without the knowledge of Sri Babu and delivered the cheque to the supplier of cut piece cloth M/s. Kamakshi Silk House, Cheyyar . But , during the investigation conducted, proprietor ofM/s . Kamakshi Silk House informed that Sri Babu had not approached for receiving quotation and not handed over the banker's pay order for supplying of cloth . Further, he stated in his letter dated 23-10-99 that the choque dated17-3-97 was deposited by hirm for collection through Union Bank of India , Anakkavoor and the proceeds were credited in his account and the cash amounting to Rs. 9700was given in his presence after (deducting Rs . 300 to then Branch Manager . It was alleged that the loan component had not reached Mr. Babu , the borrower and Mr. Babu denied that he obtained the loan proceeds at Cheyyar branch and on account of the above , Mr. Babu could not create any asset for the loan sanctioned to him . An enquiry was ordered to be conducted against this charge . The Enquiry Officer right from the beginning of the enquiry showed his personal interest in this case and went out of the way to help the prosecution . He has acted more as a prosecutor than as the Enquiry Officer . The Enquiry Officer is neither fair nor proper and the same is vitiated with serious and grievous illegalities and irregularities . After following the formalities, the Disciplinary Authority by his order daſed 18-6-2003 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement against the Petitioner . The Petitioner preferred an appeal but the Appellate Authority without properly applying his mind and without considering the appeal of workman in a proper perspective rejected the appeal . Therefore , the action of the Respondent/ Management in imposing the punishment ofcompulsory retirement is illegal and unjustified and is also a case ofvictimisation and unfair labour practice, It is palpably false and umrue to say that the Petitioner has got loan proceedings from the vendor of M/s . Kamakshi Silk House. This vital aspect has been completely eschewed out of consideration by Enquiry Officer . The conduct of Enquiry Officer is thoroughly biased and prejudiced . The findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and bad in ław The Petitioner joined the Respondent, Baak on 16-4-1968 as sub - staff in Teynampet branch , Cherunai and [भाग -खण्ड 3(i) )

and he has deliberately did not appreciate the evidence available on record in a manner known to law. The Enquiry Officer have placed the burden of proof on the shoulders ofthe Petitioner. Further , the Respondent/Management had not examined the said vendor Mr. Anbazhagan aind non- examination of the vendor in the enquiry is fatal to the prosecution. The whole approach of Enquiry Officer exposes hisbiased and committesd mind. The Disciplinary Authority andAppellate Authority without any application of mind mechanically affirmed the findings of Enquiry Officer and hence, the orders of punishment suffers from the viceofarbitrariness and non - application of mind . Any how, this Tribunal has got ample powers under Section 11A ofthe 1.D.Act to re- appreciate the entire evidence on record and come to an independent conclusion . Therefore the Petitioner prays this Tribunal to hold that the punishment of compulsory retirement is illegal and unjustified and to pass an award directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service with all attendant and consequential benefits .

4. As against this , the Respondem in its Counter Statement contended that from the reference , this Tribunal to consider only as to whether , the punishment awarded is justified or, not i.e. propriety of the punishment . Any how, during the year 1996-97 the Petitioner while he was working asan agricultural assistant in Cheyyar branca , the Regional Manager of Respondent/Bank at Thiruvannamalai received acomplaint dated 7-4-97 from one Mr. Babu complaining that he had applied for loan from Cheyyar branch and though the loan was sanctioned , he did not receive the loanproceeds, the Petitioner was delaying the payment of disbursement of loan and that therefore, necessary steps may be taken for disbursement of loan . When the matter was investigated only on persuasion of the Petitioner , Мг . Babu was made to apply for loan and it was the Petitioner who had taken all the st. s to get loan documents from Babu, that the loan was sanctioned for Rs.10,000 and disbursed by way of cheque dated 17-3-97 in favour of M/s. Kamakshi Silk House and it was the Petitioner who obtained a proforma invoice from M/s . Kamakshi Silk House that when the officials of the bank contacted the proprictor ofM/s. Kamakshi Silk House , he informed the officials that he had not seen the borrower and it was the Petitioner who was taking all steps that after encashing the cheque he paid the moneyto the Petitioner. Therefore , the charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner calling for explanation . Since it was not satisfactory, be was as ked, to appear for enquiry . The Petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry with defence representative of his choice . On 15-7-2002 the Enquiry Officer gave his report holding the charges framed against the Petitioner were proved . After following the formalities, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and tentatively decided to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement and he passed orders on 18-6-2003 2811 G1/2007-18

4175

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. Even though the Petitioner preferred an appeal , the appeal was rejected on 2-11-2004. The punishment of compulsory retirement is fullyjustified. The Petitioner by his intervention made it possible that the loan which was sanctioned by bank did not reach the borrower . There is no reason to believe that the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse and the Petitioner was not given proper opportunity to put forth his defence effectively. There is no violation of principles ofnatural justice . The banker's cheque in favour ofM/s . Kamakshi Silk House was collected by Petitioner and not byborrower and the borrower neither received the loan amount nor the goods were supplied to borrower from the vendor. The Petitioner was responsible for the loan amount pot being paid to borrower Mr. Babu and there is ample evidence to support that the Petitioner was responsible for the borrower not receiving the loan amount. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the EnquiryOfficer after due consideration and application of mind. TheAppellate Authority also after due application ofmind disposed of the same in accordance with law. Under such circumstances , the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be perverse or to be severe or harsh or excessive having regard to the charge proved against the Petitioner specially when he has totally failed tomaintain a absolute integrity and honesty in discharging his duties as bank employee. Hence , for all these reasons , the Respondent prays to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-

(i) "Whether the punishment awarded by the Respondem Management on the Petitioner is justified or not ?

(1) "To what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?"" PointNo.1:

6. In this case, the Petitioner who was working as agricultural assistant in Cheyyar branch was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement and the Petitioner raised the dispute for reinstatement with consequential relief. In this case, the Petitioner filed documents Ex , W1 to W21 and the Respondent has filed Ex . Mi to M23 . Both sides have not examined any witnesses.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that though the enquiry was ordered against the Petitioner on the charge framed against him , the Enquiry Officer appointed in this case has acted more as prosecutor than as Enquiry Officer and his conduct was neither fair nor proper and itvitiated with serious and grievous illegalities and irregularities .Though it is alleged that the Petitioner is responsible and he got the loan proceeds from the vendor M/s. Kamakshi Silk House , this allegation is palpably false and untrue. Since the proprietor of M/s . Kamakshi Silk House has admitted in his own handwriting that the same [PART II-SEC. 3 (1ⅱ ) ) 4176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

borrower narnely Mr. Babu did not receive the loan proceeds and the Petitioner who was delaying payment of disbursement of loan and it was the Petitioner who had obtained the proforma invoice from M/s . Kamakshi Silk House and it was also elicited from M/s . Kamakshi Silk House that the vendor has not seen the borrower and il was the Petitioner who was taking all steps that after encashing the cheque , he paid the money to the Petitioner. In the enquiry , the borrower namcly Sri Babu was cxamined as a witness and he has clearly stated that he has no knowledge about the status of loan and on the previous day, the Petitioner told that he repaid the loan and he need not attend the enquiry . The Enquiry Officer has clearly stated in his report that it was the Petitioner who advised the borrower to apply for loan under SUME scheme and it was the Petitionerwho gave SUME application to Mr. Babu inMarch, 1996 and it was the Petitioner who received the banker's cheque for Rs . 10,000 and it was the Petitioner who received the quotation for supply of cloth . Thus, the Petitioner had personally collected the cheque from Cheyyar branch without the knowledge of the borrower and delivered it to the supplier namely M/ s . Kamakshi Silk House and thus the charge framed against the Petitioner is conclusively proved and it cannot be said that the imposition of compulsory retirement awarded on the Petitioner is perverse or excessive. Learned counsel for the Respondent further contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposition of punishment can be stated as perverse only if it is satisfied the two fold tests namely:-

that the finding is not supported by any legal evidence at all ; and

(i) that on the basis of the material on record , no reasonable man could have arrived at the finding complained of.

Further , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the difference between the finding which is not supported by legal evidence and the finding which may appear to be not supported by sufficiem evidence or may be based on inadequate or unsatisfactory evidence. Awrong finding is not necessarily a perverse finding and a finding cannot be described to be perverse merely because it is possible to take a diffcrent view on the evidence , nor can a finding be called perverse , because in certain matters the line of reasoning adopted by Enquiry Officer is not very cogent or logical. But , in this case, the Enquiry Officer has given a valid reason for not accepting the contention of the Petitioner . Under such circumstances . itcannot be said that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse or without any legal evidence and the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded on the Petitioner is fully justified and it cannot be interfered with for all or any of the reasons urged by the Petitioner.

amount was paid to then Branch Manager Mr. Saranathan MW3 in the presence of Petitioner . Without considering this statement of Mr. Anbazhagan namely vendor of M/s. Kamakshi Silk House the Enquiry Officer has closed his eyes with regard to this fact and had come to the conclusion that the charge framed against the Petitioner has been proved. This conduct of Enquiry Officer is thoroughly biased and prejudiced. Further, right from the beginning the Enquiry Officer showed his personal interesi inthe case and went out of way to help the prosecution. Instead of acting as an impartial person, he exposed his personal bias and prejudice against the Petitioner . Whenever the Petitioner made any request for production ofdocuments or raised any objection, the Enquiry Officer rejected them without any valid reason or justification. Thus , he has acted as more Prosecutor than as Enquiry Officer and the entire enquiry is vitiated by irregularities . When the Petitioner asked for production of documents namely repayment of loan amount , the Enquiry Officer has given a niling to the effect that repayment of loan is not forming part of the charge sheet and hence the request of defence representative for production ofdocuments relating to repayment is not acceptable , which is clearly illegal and it shows that the Enquiry Officer is biased and prejudiced . Further, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and bad inlaw as he did not appreciate the evidence in a manner known to law. He has not stated with clear words that the Petitioner is the recipient of the month and there is no definite conclusion by the Enquiry Officer on the crucial aspect of receipt of money . Thus, the report of Enquiry Officer isevasive. Further , he placed the burden of proof on the shoulder's of Petitioner. It is clear from the record that the Enquiry Officer has taken sides with prosecution when he stated that Petitioner has to produce the vendor as his defence witness to prove his innocence and he failed tonotewhen the prosecution relies on the alleged statement made by Vendor Mr. Anbalagan to investigation official . In all fairness the said Mr. Anbalagan ought to have produced in enquiry especially when the said person bas given a letter stating that the amount was paid to Mг . Saranathan, then Branch Manager in the presence of Petitioner . But the non - examination of this witness Mr. Anbalagan is fatal to the prosecution . Had the said Anbalagan was produced in the enquiry , the Petilioner wouldhave the opportunity to elicit from him whether he had made any such statement during his investigation namely MW4 . Without placing any reliance on this aspect, the Enquiry Officer has stated that the Petitioner has not produced the vendor as defence witness to prove his innocence . This clearly shows his perversity . Therefore, the enquiry report is vitiated from irregularities and illegalities . Therefore , the learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that the enquiry report as well as the imposition of punishment on the Petitioner are to be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the Respondent further contended that in this case , it is clearly established by 8.As against this, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that in the enquiry , it is clearly established the भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आवाड़ 9 , 1929

[भाग ॥ खण्ड 3( ⅱ ) ]

4177 12. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly. Dictated to theP.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this day the 27thApril,2007.)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

None

Witnesses Examined: On either side

Documents Marked:

For the I Party/Petitioner :

Description

Ex. No. Date

W1

11-08-97

Xerox copy of the show cause notice ispred to Petitioner

W2 12-04-99 Xerox copy of the reply given by Petitioner

W3

23-06-00

Хегоx copy ofthe intimation to Petitioner regarding Appointment of Enquiry Officer

W4 04-07-01 Хегох copy ofthe letter from Personnel Dept. D.P. CellTo Petitioner

W5

17-07-01

Xerox copy of the letter from Personnel Dept. D.P. CellTo Petitioner

W6 17-07-01 Xerox copy of the reply given by Petitioner

25-07-01 Хегох copy of the reply given by Petitioner

03-08-01 Хетох copy of the intimation letterby Petitionerto Respondent.

W9

08-09-01

Хетох copy of the reply by Petitioner to Respondent.

W10 05-01-02

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent seeking Explanation from Petitioner W11 19-01-02 Xerox copy of the letter submission made hy Petitionerto Respondent W12 25-02-02

evidence that it is the Petitioner who has received the banker's cheque from the Respondent/Bank and it is the Petitioner who without the knowledge of the borrower has given it to the vendor namely M/ s. Kamakshi Silk House and obtained the amount. No doubt , the vendor has given a letter , but not accepting the said letter , the Enquiry Officer has stated that the reason for not accepting the same. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the finding given by the Enquiry Officer and the conclusion arrived allby the Enquiry Officer are not supported by any legal evidence or evidence is entirely opposed to the whole body of the evidence adduced before him . Under such circumstances, the punisl nent of compulsory retirement imposed on the Petitioner cannot be said to be servere or harsh or excessive. Having regard to the charge proved against the Petitioner and when he has totally failed to maintain integrity in discharging the duties as a bank employee , it cannot be said that the compulsory retirement isharsh or excessive. Learned counsel for the Re.pondent further contended that in a banking business , absolute devotion , diligence , integrity and honesty have to be preserved by every bank employee , otherwise the confidence ofpublic would be impaired. In this case, the charge framed against the Petitioner is very serious in nature and the acts of misconduct committed by the Petitioner are unbecoming of an employee of financial lending institution like the Respondent/Bank and therefore, it cannot be said that the imposition of punishment namely compulsory retirement is excessive or harsh. He further argued that the SupremeCourt and High Courts have heldthat in a case of financial irregularities , there cannot be a punishment other than the punishment of dismissal of workman as the bank has lost faith or confidence in the workman . In this case, the Respondent/Bank since lost the faith in the Petitioner, he was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. Under such circumstances, this Tribunal cannot interfere with the imposition of punishment, which is fully justified.

10. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for theRespondent because in this case , the charge framed against the Petitioner is the Petitioner who was responsible for not receiving loan components by the borrower Mr. Bauu and Mr. Babu could not create any asset for the loan sanctioned to him, which charge has been clearly established from the evidence adduced on the side of the management and because the reason statedby the Enquiry Officer is not acceptable to the Petitioner, it cannot be said that the finding is perverse and therefore, 1 find this point against the Petitioner.

PointNo. 2:

The next point to be decided in this case is towhat relief the Petitioner is entitled?

11. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for . No Costs .

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent Enclosing defence summing up

19-08-02

W13

Xerox copy of the defence summingup statement ofPetitioner

29-07-02

W14

Xerox copy of the letter enclosing finding ofEnquiryOfficer sent to the Petitioneт 15-07-02

W15

Xerox copy of the findings or Enquiry Officer

16-11-02

W16

Xerox copy of the show cause notice sent to Petitioner

12-12-02

W17

Xerox copy of the reply to show cause notice

18-06-03

W18

Xerox copy of the order imposing punishment ofcompulsory retirement on thePetitioner

26-07-03

W19

Xerox copy of the appeal preferredby Petitioner

03-11-04

₩20

Xerox copy of the letter intimating with enclosure ofOrder dated 2-11-04 passed byAppellate Authority [PART 11 -SBC. 3(ii )] 4178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA TUNG.30 , 2007/ASADHA 4. 1929

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून , 2007

W21 08-01-05 Xerox copy of the 2A petition filea bị Petitioner Before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central )

For the II Party /Management:-

Date

Ex. No.

Description

M1 23-06-00 Xerox copy of the chargeshed: red to Petitioner

Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

21-01-02

का.आ. 1880.- औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-06-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

M3 09-06-97 Хетох copy of the visit report of Mr. Rangarajan

Xerox copy of the complaian st 150

M4 07-04-97

[सं एल- 12012/129/2005-आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी M5 17-3-97

New Delhithe 4th June, 2007

Хетох copy of the loan dezenchl executed by Babu

M6 23-10-99 Хетох copy of the letter of Mr. Anadsgan 10 Respondent /Bank

M7 29-10-99 Xerox copy of the inter oftice lume am cheyyar branch To ZO

M8 24-10-97 Хегох copy of the lener from Assistant Manager To Zonal Manager

S.O. 1880 .--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 5/2006) 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 01-06-2007.

04-02-02 Xerox copy of the summing up talcruent ofP.O.

M10 25-02-02 Xerox copy of the summing up stalertient ofD.R.

No. L- 12012/ 129/2005 - IR (B -II) | RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

MJ1 15-07-02 Хетох сopy of the findings of Enquity Officer

M12

BEFORE THE CENTRAL COVT, INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURI, CHENΝΑΙ

Wednesday , the 25th April, 2007 29-07-02 Хегох copy of the letter fromDiscipinary Authority To Petitinner calling for comments

M13

Present . K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

20-08-02 Хегох copy of the letter from Respondent toPetitioner

Industrial Dispute No. 5/2006 M14 1908-02 Xerox copy of the reply given hy Petitioner

M15 16-11-02 Хегох copy of the 2nd show cause notice to Petitioner

(In the matter of dispute for adjudication under clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Managemeari of Indian Bank and their workmen ) M16 07-12-02 Xerox copy of the leller froin Resриписи to Petitioner to submit his reply

BFIWEEN

M17

Sri P. Sadasivam I Party Petitioner

AND

05-12-02 Xerox copy of the letter from Pelinoner to Respondent Requesting for is days time.

M18 12-12-02 Хетох copy of the reply of Petitioner tw 2nd show cause Notice

The Circle Head/ Disciplinary Authority, Indian Bank , Circle Office ,

: Party/Management M19

Dharmapuri..

31-06-03 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent offering Personal hearing

Appearances:

M20 10-06-03

For the Petitioner : M. K. M. Ramesh , Advocate Хегох copy of the proceedings of personal hearing

For the Maragernent

M21 18-06-03

: Mís . T, S. Gopalan and Co. , Advocates.

Хетох copy of the order of Disciplinary Authority

AWARD

M22 26-07-03 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by Petitioner

M23 03-11-04 Xerox copy of the letter front Respekiem enclosingOrder of Appellate Authority dated 2-11-04

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 12012/ 129 /2005 - IRB (B- II ) dated06-02-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows :

4179 भारत काः राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/ आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

[भाग II--खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

"Whether the management of Indian Barik is justified in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon Shri P. Sadesivam, Clerk/Shroff of Royakottah Branch? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2.After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as 1.D. No. 5/2006 and notices were issued toboth the parties and they have entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

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

the Petitioner have been proved. Therefore, the findings , ofthe Enquiry Officer are not based on evidence available on record and it is perverse and bad in law and no reasonable man would ever come to such conclusion. He hasnot considered the evidence of WW1 and WW2 which shows his biased and closed mind . He has arrived at the conclusion on assumption and presumption and surmises and conjectures . The Appellate Authority has also not considered all these things and hence the order ofAppellate Authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. Any how, this Tribunal has got ample power under Section 11A of the 1.D. Act to re- appreciate the entire evidence on record and come to an independent conclusion. Hence, the Petitioner prays this Tribunal to hold that the action of the Respondent/Management in imposing the punishment ofcompulsory retirement as illegal and to pass an award to reinstate him into service with all attendant benefits .

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that no doubt , the Petitioner was working in Bargur branch, a rural branch of Respondent/ Bank and subsequently, transferred to Royakottah at his request . But , the Petitioner with a misconduct of misappropriating a sum of Rs. 1000 given on 10-1-2000 by S.B. Account holder M/ s . Annai Mahalir Mandram , a self- help group of Respondent/Bank and in a departmental enquiry, the charges levelled against the Petitioner were proved and he was awarded with the punishment of compulsory retirement. In the reference , it is mentioned whether the Respondent was justified in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement ? Therefore, this Tribunal can only look into the propriety of the punishment and it is not permissible for the Petitioner invite this Tribunal to go into the question v. hether the enquiry held into the charges was fair and proper and whether he is guilty ofcharges . All the staff ofthe Respondent/Bank are required to maintain a high level of integrity and honesty . Ifthere is any shortage or excess in cash handled by cashier on any day, the same should be brought to the notice of the Manager at the end of the day . If there was any excess cash, it will be credited to sundry deposit account and if there is any shortage, it will be debited to sundry receivable account. In this case , even though the Petitioner has received excess amount, he has not credited the same into sundry deposit account nor informed the same to higher officers and in the denomination , it is mentioned that the amount remitted to the tune of Rs. 6467 but by mistake it was written as Rs . 5467 both in figures and words on the faceofpay in slip. Thus , the Petitioner has misappropriated the cash and after the complaint was lodged by M/s . Annai Mahalir Mandram, the Petitioner made good the loss and approached the M/s . Annai Mahatir Mandram through Chairman of Kingsley, community centre and obtained a letter from M/s . Annai Mahalir Mandram withdrawing the complaint . Subsequently also the Petitioner had indulged in similar malpractice only then the Respondent/Bank The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent/ Bank as a sub -staff in the year 1981 and subsequently, he was promoted as a clerk/shroff in the year 1996 and posted to work in Bargur branch . Subsequently, he was transferred toRoyakottah branch in 2003. While so , show cause notice was issued tohirmon 27-8-2001 wherein, it was alleged that while he was working as cashier in Bargur branch he had received a cash remittance of Rs. 6467 on 10-1-2000 made by M/s. Suguna, representative of M/s . Annai Magalis Mandram for the credit of M/ s. Annai Mahalir Mandram S.B. No. 10286,04 with cash filled challan for Rs. 5467 and he did not return the excess cash of Rs . 1000 to the party or the Branch Manager. It was further alleged that the said M/s. Annai Mahalir Mandram lodged a complaint to the Branch Manager on 9-8-2000 as well as Regional Office . Hence the Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him . Though the Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations made against him, the Respondent/Bank issued a chargesheet dated 18-1-2002. In the enquiry, the Respondent/Bank examined two witnesses and marked 9 documents . The Petitioner examined two witnesses and also marked & documents. Subsequently, the Respondent/Management by its letter dated 20-2-2004 proposed the punishment of disinissal without notice as per clause 6(a) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 and after following the procedure, the Respondent imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the Petitioner with superannuation benefits . Though the Petitioner preferred an appeal , the Appellate Authority has dismissed the same without applying its mind. The punishment of compulsory retirement is illegal , unjustified and is also a case of victimisation and unfair labour practice . The Petitioner has been made as a scapegoat for no fault of his. The Petitioner has not committed any misconduct warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings a ainst him . The alleged complaint given by M/s. Annai Mahalir Mandram is, false , baseless and unfounded . The evidence of MW1 anél MW2 is so unnatural , unrealistic and unbelievable and the Enquiry Officer ought to have rejected their evidence as untrustworthy and unbelievable. But on the other hand, he has come in a conclusion that the charges framed against 'THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA, 9, 1929

4180

[PART I SEC. 3(ii ) ] initiated disciplinary action against him. The enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and full opportunity was given to him. The findings of the Enquiry Officer was based on acceptable and permissible evidenced in the enquiry and was supported by adequate evidence and the punishment was fully justified . There was no reason why M/ s. Annai Mabalir Mandram should make a false complaint against the Petitioner. The fact that the concerned authorities noticed the fraud belatedly does not help the Petitioner to contend that the punishment should he reduced. Since the Petitioner had made good the lossto the M/s. Annai Mahalit Mandram they have withdrawn the complaint, therefore , it does not lie in the mouth of the Petitioner to say the alleged transaction did not take place at all . The evidence given by Smt . Suguna and Parameshwajan was cogent , convincing , adequate and reliable and Qere was no reason why their evidences should be rejected. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have applied their mind while passing orders . Since the charges are seric ..is in nature, the Petitioner being a staffmember of a public financial iinstitution and heing a cashier in rural branch, ought not to have attempsed to commit such a fraud on the womenfolk's account . The gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured wah the nature of offence . To instil the confidence of banking public in the establishment , the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal . But , the Respondent Bank imposed only compulsory retirement and it implies no stigma . The Respondent/Bank has lost confidence in the Petitioner and there is no room for misplaced sympathy on an undeserved person . Hence, for all these reasons . the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for thy consideration are-

(i ) "Whether the Respondent Management is justified in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the Petitioner? "

(ii)"To what reliefthe Petitioner is entitled ? "

Point No. 1:-

6. In this case, the Petitioner marked 15 documents and the Respondent marked 15documents and both sides have not adduced any oral evidence with regard to their claim.

evidence given by the two witnesses namely Mrs. Suguna , representative of M/s. Annai Mahalir Mandram and Mr. Parameshwaran are unnatural , unrealistic and unbelievable andthe so called complaint ofM / s . Annai Mahalir Mandram is very belated and no prudent man of any standard would evez lodge a complaint of excess cash payment after such a long lapse of time namely after eight months . Therefore , theEnquiry Officer should have rejected the very complaint on the ground of latches and as an afterthought . But on the other hand, he relied on the evidence given by two witnesses namely Mrs. Suguna and Mr. Parameshwaran and has come to perverse conclusion that the charges framed against the Petitioner were proved . The evidence given by two witnesses are untrustworthy and unbelievable and they have riot given any valid reason for highly bleated complaint . Further , the reason given for withdrawing the complaint is not at all an acceptable one and there is no proof for the same . Under such circumstances , based on the evidence, the findings given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse and bad in law as such , the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not based on evidence available on record and no reasonable man would ever come to such a conclusion and the findings given by Enquiry Officer is perverse and itcannot be relied upon . burthermore , the Enquiry Officer has not considered the evidence adduced by WW I and WW 2, which shows his hiased and closed mind and he has arrived at the conclusion only on assumption and presumption. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have not consideredthe submissions made by the Petitioner and they have not appreciated the evidence on record and hence their lindings are suffers from the vice of non-application of mind , Both authorities must have come to the conclusion that the alleged charges have not proved in a manner known to law. The authorities have mechanically affirmed the tindings of the Enquiry Officer and therefore , the findings suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and non - application of raind. There is no proof that they have paid excess amount of Rs . 1000 on that day and hence , il cannot be said that the Petitioner has misappropriate the amount and the reason that the Petitioner had made good the loss is a false story which has no relevance for the facts of this case and there is no proof to establish this fact. Under such circumstances , the Tribunal has to come to a conclusion that the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed by the authorities are perverse and without any reason .

8. But , as against this , the learned counsel forthe Respondent comended that from document Ex . M2, which isa copy of the M / s . Annai Mahalir Mandram challan with denominatior details , I am clearly mentioned that the amount paid through that challan is only Rs . 6467 and not Rs.5467 . The Petitioner had received the excess cash of Rs . 1000 on 10-1-2000 and not reported the same to the Branch Manager and he has misappropriated the said amount . Only 9-8-2000שישי when Mis . Annai Mahalir Mandram gave a 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Pentioner has not committed any misconduel warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him and the so called complaint of M/s . Annai Mahalir Mandram is false , bascless and unfounded and only because of that they have withdrawn the complaint and since the alleged complaint made by Mis . Annai Mahalir Mandram was withdrawn , there cannot be any reason to proceed against the Petitioner. Even assuming that the Respondent/Bank had enquired into the matter , the 4181 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

evidence of independent witnesses namely Mrs. Suguna and Mr.Parameshwaran , it is clearly established that the Petitioner who has received the excess amount has n01 returned the same immediately to the concerned party namely M/s . Annai Mahalir Mandram nor he has reported the matter to the concerned authorities namely Manager ofBargurbranch of Respondent/Bank. On the other hand, he has misappropriated the amount and only after the complaint was made by account holder , he has approached the M/s. Annai Mahalir Mandram and made good the loss and approached the M/ s . Annai Mahalir Mandram to withdraw the complaint and as such, the complaint was withdrawn . But, on that ground it cannot be said that this Incident has not happened. Therefore, the misconduct namely misappropriation has been clearly established by the Responden. Management Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed by the domestic authorities and as such , I find this point in favour of the Respondent/Management

PointNo. 2:

The next point to be decided in this case isto what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

10. Inview ofmy foregoing findings that the imposi- tion ofpunishment of compulsory retirement on the Peti- lioner by the Respondent/Bank is justified, I find the Peti- tioner is not entitled to any relief. No Costs.

11.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 25thApril, 2007.)

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

Nonc

Oneither side

Documents Marked:

Forthe I Party/Petitioner:

Ex. No. Date Description

W1 04-07-00 Xerox copyof the letter from M/s.Annaı Mahalir Mandram To II Party/ Management

W2 27-8-01 Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to Petitioner

N Xerox copy of the explanation given by thePetitioner

W4 18-1-02 Xerox copy of the memo issued to Petitioner

W5 12-6-02 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

complaint to Branch Manager about Rs . 1000 not being given credit, the fraud cortuumitted by the Petitioner came to light and after the receipt of the complaint the Petitioner made good the loss and approached the Chairman of Kingsley community centre and obtained a letter from M/s . Annai Mahalir Madram withdrawing the complaint and the evidence given by Mrs. Suguna, who had remitted the amountto the bank and Mr. Parameshwaran who was the master of the self-help ground clearly establish that the Petitionerhas approached the Kingsley community centre and paid the amount dueto M/ s . Annai Mahabir Mandram and only because of that they have withdrawn their complaint . There is no reason given by the Petitioner what is the motive for giving complaint against the Petitioner by M/s. Annai Mahalir Mandram . When the representative of M /s . Annai Mahalir Mandran stated that only after the amount has been received by M/ s. Annai Mahalir Mandram through the Petitioner , they have withdrawn the complaint , no valid suggestion was given by the Petitioner todisprove this fact. Under such circumstances, it is clearly established that the Petitioner has misappropriated Rs . 1000 belonging to account holder and he has repaid the amount only after the complaint made by account holder. Such circumstances, chinchingly prove the misconduct coramitted by the Petitioner . It is no matter that the amount has been fully paid by the Petitioner and because of that no enquiry should be conducted against the Petitioner. It is clearly established in the enquiry that misappropriation has been taken place and it is only the Petitioner who has misappropriated the amount . Under such circumstances, since the Petitioner being a staff member of public financial institution and being a cashier in a rural branch, he ought notto have attempted to commit such a fraud and a serious offence on the womenfolk's sccount . The submissions made by the Petitionerthat the amount was paid back and the complaint waswithdrawn could not be countenanced . The gravity of the offence must necessarily be measured with the nature of offence. Therefore , to instil the confidence of banking public in the establishment , the only appropriate punishment in such cases is dismissal . But, the Respondent/ Bank has taken a sympathetic view and imposed only compulsory retirement and by imposing such a punishment, the Petitioner's future will notbe affected. Only because the Respondent/Bank lost confidence in the Petitioner, they have taken such a serious step and there is no room for misplaced sympathy on an undeserved person and the Respondent/Bank settled all the terminal W3 benefits to the Petitioner and therefore , il cannotbe said that the action taken against the Petitioner is harsh or excessive and in such circumstances , it does not call for any interference and therefore , this Tribunal has to come to the conclusion that the imposition of punishment by the Respondent/Bank against the Petitioner is justified.

10-8-02 Xeгох copy of the defence summing up beforeEnquiry Officer .

W7 18-8-03 Хегох copy of the explanation submitted by Petitioner

9. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent because in this case from the :

PART 11-SBC. 3 ( ii )] 4182

ΤΕ ΠΑΖΕΓΓΕ OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून, 2007

W8 23-7-03 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent enclosing findings of Enquiry Officer

W9 19-7-03 Хегох сopy of the findings of Enquiry Officer

W10 19-704 Хегох copy of the order of corapulsory retirement Against the Petitioner

W11 31-404 Хетох copy of the appeal preterredby Petitioner

का, आ. 1881.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , कंन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्मई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 422/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

W12 17-205 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent enclosing Order of Appellate Authority

[सं. एल-2011 / 143/2002- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी W13 15-2-05 Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Authority

New Delhi, the 4 June, 2007

W14 19-1-05 Хегохсopy ofthe letter from Respondent to Petitioner

W15 Nil Xerox copy of the dispute reised by the Petitioner

Forthe II Party Management :

Date

Ex. No.

Description

S.O. 1881.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 422/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-6-2007.

9-1:00 Xerox copy of the resolution of M/ s . Annai Mahalir Mandranı , Bargur

No. L- 12011 / 143/2002-IR(B- II )] RAJINDER KUMAR, DeskOfficer M2 10-1-00 Хеток copy of the S.B. challan and denomination details of Mis . Annai Matalir Mandram

M3 10-1-00 Хетох copy of the cashier rough cash book

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR, COURT, CHENΝΑΙ

Xerox copy of the officer's scrull register

M4 101-00

M5 8-800 Xerox copy of the letter from Kingsley Community Centre to Respondent Bank

M6 9-800

Wednesday, the 25th April, 2007 PRESENT : K. JAYARAMAN , PresidingOfficer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 422/2004 Xerox copy of Mis . Annai Mabalit Mandram complaint

M7 Nil Xerox copy ofthe letter from Ms Annai Mahalir Mandram withdrawing complaint

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section (1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Central Bank of India and their workmen ] BETWEEN

M8 Ni Xeroxopy of the cash book of Bargur M/ s. Annai Mahalir Mandram

The General Secretary, :I Party/Claimant

Central Bank of India Staff Union

M9 12/7-01

AND

Xerox copy of the letter from Kingsley Community Centre to Branch Manager ofBargur

: II party/Management

TheRegional Manager ,

M10

Хегох copy of the enquiry findings

29-7-02

Central Bank of India RegionalOffice,

M11 238-94

Chennai

Хегох сcopy of the memo issued to Petitioner

APPEARANCE

M12 7-9-94

Mis. K.M. Ramesh, Advocate

For the Petitioner

M/ s. T.S. Gopalan & Co. , Xerox copy of the letter issued by Petitioner to Respondent/Bank Lo subunit bis explanation .

For the Management

Advocate

M13 21-11-94 Xerox copy of the carrion letter issued by Respondent/Bank

AWARD

M14 23-3-05 Хегоx copy of the fuli and linal reccipt executed by Petitioner for PF Juus

23-3-05

M15

Xerox copy of the full and final receipt executedby Petitioner for gratuity dues .

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 12011 / 143/2002 - IR (B - II) dt . 20-10-2004 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows:

[भाग --खण्ड 3 (H) ]

4183 भारत का राजपत्र जून 30 , 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

"Whether the claim of Central Bank of India Staff Union for payment of arrears with all attendant benefitsto the 14 Safai Karmacharies (As in Annexure) as per the IBA settlement by the management of Central Bank of India is legal and justified? If not , what reliefthe workmen are entitled to ? "

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I.D. No. 422/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and they have entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

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

between the absorbed and non -absorbed employee. The said Sept. Regina Rani joined the Respondent/Bank in 1989 and she had been working continuously and therefore, for the period from 1-11-92 to 10-2-2000 she is entitled to enhanced wages as per settlements mentioned above . With regard to other employees , the Respondent/Bank did not offer its remarks stating that the Petitioner union has no locus standi to espouse their cause as they are not its members. Therefore , all the 14 workmen on whose behalf the industrial dispute has been raised are entitled to the enhanced wages as per the settlement and circulars . Further, in the case of Srat. Chimamma , a part time employee the Respondent/Bank had paid enhanced wages for the , fentire period of her service till the date of her absorption as per settlements and circulars . But, further the Respondent Bank has adopted hostile discrimination in respect of the present 14 part time employees which is nothing but a clear unfair labour practice and victimisation . Hence, the Petitioner union prays this Tribunal to hold that the action of the Respondent /Management in not paying the enhanced wages to part time employees is not justified and consequently pass an award in their favour.

The Petitioner Union espouses the cause of 14 Safai Karmacharies, who are claiming payment of arrears as per Bipartite Settlement. On 28-11-97 the Petitioner Union along with the other trade unions entered into a seulement under. Section 18( 1 ) of I.D. Act with the Respondent/ Management regarding enhancement of wages to part time: employees employed in the Respondent/Bank. After that the Respondent/Bank in a circular No. CO: PRS: 97-98-194, dated 10-12-97 incorporated the terms of settlement and the settlement dated 28-11-97 fixed the wages for part time employees . Subsequent to the said settlement , another Bipartite Settlement was entered into on 27-3-2000 in respect of enhanced wages payable to part time employees. The said settlement prescribed the wages for part time employees w.e.f. 1-11-97. In the terms of the settlement and circular referred to above, 14 part time employees employed in the Respondent/Bank are entitled to enhanced wages for the periods they had been working in respective branches in Chennai region . Further, the Respondent/ Bank did notpay the enhanced wages to the said 14 employees as per the settlements and circulars for the reasons best known to it. It is a clear violation of settlements and also amounts to unfair labour practice and victimisation . Therefore, the Petitioner union raised an industrial dispute regarding enhanced wages to the said 14 part time employees vide letter dated 21-7-2000 fore RLC ( Central ) Chennai. Against that the Respondent /Bank in its remarks stated that with regard to two extuployces namely N. P. Prabavathy and Kanchana they have already been raised clispute and failure of conciliation has been recorded and hence, the same issue cannotbe raised once again . But the alleged dispute with regard to fixation of scale wages and not, for payment of enhanced wages in terms of the settlements, hence the present dispute is maintanable . The Respondent/ Bank further alleged in the remarks that another employee namely Smt . Regina Rani was paid consolidated wages from the date of her absorption from 5-11-99 and subsequently she has been paid 1 /3rd scale wages w.e.f. 11-2-2000 and hence nothing is due to her . But, according to the Petitioner union , the absorption in the bank fias nothing to do with the payment of enhanced wages to part time employees . The settlement does not discriminate

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Satement alleged that in this case , the reference has made with regard to Central Bank of India Employees Union and therefore , the claim statement filed by Central Bank of India StaffUnion is not permissible and therefore, no adjudication can be made on the basis of the claim made by Petitioner Union. The Petitioner union does not command membership from among the substantial section of the workmen of Respondent and to the knowledge of Respondent a substantial section of its workmen have not authorised the Petitioner 'union to espouse the demand of 14 workmen concerned mentioned in the order of reference . Therefore, the Petitioner union has no authority or competence to raise this dispute and the reference is bad in law. No doubt , the settlement was entered into with the union with regard to wages of regular Safai Karmacharies who are working less than six hours. As far as regular Safai Karmacharies are concerned, they were given arrears of wages in terms of settlement dated 28-11-97 and in respect of casual labourers who were attending to cleaning of the branches in the absence of regular Safai Karmachari , they were given arrears of wages from the date they were regularised . It is not correct to say that any of the Safai Karmacharies who were entitled to revised arrears of wages in terms of settlement dated 28-11-97 were not paid arrears . The Casual Labourers who attending to cleaning of the branch were concerned, theywere not paid wages ofSafai Karmacharies and therefore, they cannot make a claim as applicable to regular Safai Karmacharies and therefore , the claim of the Petitioner is not sustainable. Out of the 14 persons mentioned in annexure to the order of reference , Simt . N.P.Prabavathy who was made as regular Safai Karmachari from 27-7-96 and was made as Part Time Safai Karmachari on scale wages from 27-1-98 and was paid arrears ofwages 2811 GI/2007-19 [PART I-SEC . 3 (ii) ) 4184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

based on settlement dated 28-11-97 for the period from 27-7-96. Similarly , one Mrs. Kanchana was absorbed as regular parttime safai karmachari from 27-7-96 and she was also paid arrears from that date . Regarding Smt . Regina Rani, shewas appointed as regular part time safai karmachari on consolidated wages from 5-11-99 and subsequently she was clevated on scale wages from 11-2-2000 and from 5-11-99 shewas paid wages as applicable to part time Safai Karmachari and she has also given a letter dated 5-11-99 stating that she will not mac any claim for arrears of wages in terms ofsettlement dated 28-11-97, Further the persons mentioned in the order of reference would not have worked asregular part time safai karmachari during the period from 1-11-92 and therefore , they would not be entitled to any arrears of wages . It cannot be said that the Respondent / Bank indulged in unfair labour practice or victimisation , Hence, the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .

7. But, as against this, on behalf of the Respondent, it is contended that with regard to regular (part time) safai karmacharies they were given arrears of wages in terms of settlement dated 28-11-1997 and circulars issued by Respondent/Bank , but in respect of casual labourers who are working in cleaning of the branches in the absence of regular safai karmacharies , they were given arrears of wages from the date they were regularised . It is not correct to say that any of the safai karmacharies who were entitled to revised arrears of wages in terms of settlement were not paid arrears. But, the casual labourers who are not attending the cleaning of branches were concerned, they were not paidwages of safai karmacharies and they cannot make a claim as applicable to regular safai karmacharies . Though it is alleged that Mrs. Chinnamna was given arrears of wages , it is the case of the Respondent that she has been employed by stationery cell which is functioning under Regional Office and therefore , her work cannot be stated as a casual and as such , she has been paid arrears of wages .

5. Le these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-

0 "Whether the claim ofthe Petitioner union for payment of arrears with ali attendant benefits to 14 safai karmacharies mentioned in the reference as per IBA Settlement is legal and justified?*

(U) "To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

PointNo.:

8.But, again on behalf of the Petitioner it is argued that though it is alleged that she has worked in Regional Office, she was not a casual employee, the Respondents Bank has not produced any document to show that when the said lady Mrs. Chinnamına was appointedby the Respondent/Bank as regular employee . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that she is a regular salaj karmachari (part time ) and she is entitled for the arrears ol wages . Since Smt. Chinnamma was paid arrears of wager . the claim of 14 safai karmachames mentioned in the reference arc entitled for the arrears of wages as claimed by them.

9.As against this, on behalf of the Respondent it is contendedthat the Respondent/ Bank has produced the appointment order given to all the persons mentioned in the reference namely Ex.MJ , M5, M9, M10, M12 , M13, M14, M15, M16, M17 , M18 , M19, M21 , M22 , M23 , M24, M25, M26, M27 . M28 and M29 etc. and they have been paid enhanced wages from the date of their regular appointment as safai karmacharies (pan time) . Before that since they have worked only as a casual labourers , they are not entitled toarrears of enhanced wages . Further , it cannotbe said that they are entitled tor enhanced wages, even while they wereworking as casual labaurers. Under such circumstances the Petitioner union is not entitled to claim arrears ofwages .

10. But , then again , on behalf of the Petitioner it is centended that no valid reason was given by the Respondent/Management for what reason they have paid arrears to Smt. Chinnamma. No doubt , it is alleged that she was working in stationery cell which is under the control ef Regional Office far a longtime . But , the Responden/ Management has not produced any satisfactory evidence to show that she was a regular part time employee even prior to 1996. Under such circumstances , the Respondent / Bank has adopted a hostile discrimination , which is nothing but a clear unfair labour practice .

6. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner union that on 28-11-1997 under the original of EX.W6 the part time employees employed in the Respondent: Bank are entitled 10 enhanced wages for the period they have been working in respect of branches in Chennai Region. In thai settlement it is agreed , that from 1-11-1992 to 31-10-1994 the part time employees are entitled to wages . if they have worked upto three hours at Rs . 130 per month and if they worked more than three hours but less than six hours . they are entitled to Rs.375 per month and from J - 11-1994 it they worked upto three hours , they are entitled to Rs.150 pur month and if they worked more than three hours hut less than six hours, they are entitled to Rs . 440 per month . But , in this case, though 14 persons mentioned in the reference haveworked for long number of years, they have not paid arrears and the Respondent Bank has not given any valid reason for rejecting their claim. It is further contended on behalf of the Petitioner that in the case of one Mrs.Chindamma , part time employee, the Respondent/ Bank has paid enhanced wages for the entire period of service till the date of her absorptit as per settlements and circulars and from the documents produced from the Responden Management, it is clear that Smt. Chinnamma has been paid as per settlement for the perind from 1-11-92 10 30-06-98 But, the Respondent/Management has adopted a hostile discrimination in respect of the presenti 14 part time employees which is nothing but a clear unfair labour practice and victimisation .

[भाग 1]--खार 3 (ii) ]

4185 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

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 the25th April ,2007.)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the Petitioner : WW1 Sri K. Venkatesan 11. Again , learned counsel for the Respondent argued that though the Respondent/Bank has not produced a copy of appointment order of Sint Chinnamma, they have produced the muster roll far the period from 1-8.9410 28-2-95 which is marked as EX.M31 in this case . Fromthis , it is clear that Smt. Chinnamma has received wages as part time employee from the year 1994. Under such circums- tances, it cannot be said that she was not a regular part me employee during that period.

For the Respondent : MW1SriK.V.S. Subramanian

Documents Marked:-

For the I Party/Petitioner :-

Ex. No. Date Description

W1 N

W2 25-03-96

Xerox copy of the list of 14 employees Xerox copyof the letter from 1 Partyto national commission

W3 06-06-96 Xerox copy of the minutes of joint discussion before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

W4 24-09-96 Xerox copy of the letter from SC/ST employees

W5 29-07-97 Xerox copy of the letter from 1. Party to Zonal Manager

W6 10-11-97 Xerox copy of the Mos between IBA and representatives of workmen unions

W7 25-04-98 Xerox copy of the letter from NBO, СВІ 10 personnel Department , Chennai

W8 03-07-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Regional Office of Respondent to Choolai branch to pay arrears of wages to Chinnamma

W9 18-09-98 Xerox copy of the regional office circular to all branches of Chennai region

W10 27-10-98 Xerox copy of the letter from Regina Ranito Senior Manager of Respondent

W11 02-12-98 Xerox copy of the letter of NBO 10 regional office

W12 04-05-99 Xerox copy ofthe letter of NBO, СВІ to Personnel Deptt . RO

W13 28-07-99

12. But, though it is alleged that she was a regular art time employee, no clear document has been produced by the Respondent/Management to show that she is different from the above 14 persons in this dispute . The Plitioner has produced EX.WI which shows the list of employees and it is also not disputed that they are working under the Respondent/Management for number of years and they have been regularised in the years 1996 to 1998. Since it is not clearly established by the Respondeat/ Management under whatircumstances Smt . Chinnamızna who was also a part time employee had paid arrears of enhanced wages even prior to 1996, I am of the opinion that the contention of the Petitioner union is a valid one . In the settlement , it is clearly stated that from the period 1-11-92 to31-10-94, the part time employees are entitledto enhanced wages if they worked more than three hours@ Rs.130/ per month and if they worked more than three hours but less than six hours , they are entitled to Rs.375/- per month and from 1-11-94 if they worked more than three hours they are entitled @ Rs.150/- per month and if they worked more than three hours but less than six hours, they are entitled@ Rs.440 per month. Under such circumstances , I find sitice the persons mentioned in the reference had worked for many number of years even prior to 1-11-96, they are entitled to get arrears of enhanced wages from the date of Dheir absorption . Though it is alleged that the 14 persons worked on , as casuals during that period and they are not entitled to arrears of enhanced wages , the Respondent/Bank has not produced any document to show that the workmen coacerned were engagged only for intermittent period and in leave vacancies . Under such circumstances , I am of the opinion that since the 14 persons haveworked continuously in the branches of Respondent/ Bank, I find they are entitled to arrears of enhanced wages as claimed by the Petitioner union . Therefore , I find this point in favour of the Petitioner union .

Xerox copy of the letter ofNBO, CBI to Personnel Depit . RO

Point No. 2 :-

W14 11/13-8-99 Xerox copy ofthe central Office circular toregional offices

W15 27-03-00

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

Xerox copy ofthe MoS between IBA and workmen unions

W16 22/23-5-2000 Xerox copy of the minutes of joint discussion

W17 19-12-00

13. In view of my foregoing findings that the claim of the Petitioner union for payment of arrears with attendant benefits for the 14 safai karmacharies concerned in this dispute as per settlement dated 28-11-1997 is legal and justified , I find the concerned employees are entitled to get the arrears of enhanced wages as prayed for . No Costs.

Xerox copy of the letter from regional office to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) PART I-SEC. 3(ii ) ] 4186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

W18 12-03-01

M14 07-09-96 Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofKondamınl

M15 17-01-98

Xerox copy of the letter from I pulty to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofKondammal

21-08-01

W19

M16 07-05-96

Xerox copy of the letter from I L'arty to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofMariamma

03-06-02

W20

22-01-99

M17

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order of Marianunu

Xerox copy of the letter from ! Party to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

07-02: 00

M18

W21

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofRaniammal

31-07-05 to 1-08-96

Xerox copy of the debit vouchers of Prabavathy

M19 07-09-96.

25-09-98 & Xerox copy of the minutes of joint

W22

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofSuguna

26-09-98

M20 28-12-98

discussion between Respondent and Union

Xerox copy of the Appointmem Order of Suguna

21-06-02

W/23

M21 07-06-96

Xerox copy of the regional office letter to Chooai branch

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofRajeswari

03-09-02

W24

M22 07-02-00

Xerox copy of the letter from Choulai branch to Regional Office .

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofR.Rajeswari

FortheII Party/Management:

M23 07-09-96

Ex. No. Date Description

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofNagammal

M1 17-01-98

07-09-96

M24

Xerox copy of the Appointments Ordet ofPrabhavathi

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofAlametu

M2 08-01-99

07-02-00

M25

Xerox copy ofthe Regional Manager letter to personnel department

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofAlanichu

Xerox copy of the letter fr תנ

22-10-98

07-09-96

M26

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order of Ms. Adilakshmi

Nungambakkam branch To Personnci deptt regarding transfer of Prabhavathy

31-03-99

M27

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofAdhilakshmi

M4 Feb.04

26-07-96

M28

Xerox copy of the leterr from Regional Office to Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central)

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order of Kanchana

M5 05-11-99

07-09-06

M29

Хетоx copy of the letter from Smi . Regina Rani to Regional Office .

Xerox copy ofthe memo issuedto Ms. Kanchana by Regional office M6 07-02-00

17-01-98

M30

Xerox copy of the Appointraent Order ofRegina Rani

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order of Kanchana

M7 21-07-03

Original muster roll

M31 01-008-94 to

28-02-95

Xerox copy of the letter from Regiona ! Regional labour Office Commissioner (Central )

M32 1991-95

M8 05-01-04

Muster roll of satisfactyory cell , Choolai branch.

Xerox copy of the letter from Regional Office to Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2007

M9 07-09-96 Xerox copy ofthe Appointment Order ofRajendran

07-02-00

M10

Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofRajendran

11-04-05

M11

Xerox copy of the letter from Melmaruvathur branch w PRS Deptt. R.O.

07-09-96

M12

का, आ. 1882. 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/ अप न्यायालय , बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Xerox copy of the Appointmem Order of Kanthammal

31-03-99

M13

[सं. एल-12012/113/97- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी Xerox copy of the Appointment Order ofKanthammal 4187 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

NewDelhi , the 4 June, 2007

S.O. 1882.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/98) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour CourtBangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in selation to the management of Syndicate bank and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 1-6-2007.

[No. L-12012/113 /97-IR(B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

awithdrawal slip bearing No. 293054 on SB account No.21341 of Shri K.P. Sham Shetty by making entry in the withdrawal slip Issue register in your own handwriting. You also signed in the said register in Kannada which was purported to he the signature of Shri K.P. Sham Shetty . Further you also signed the master sheet in the relevant page of the SB ledger in the above fashion . After this , on 24-5-1980 , you wrote a sum of Rs.30,000/- on the said withdrawal slip, signed thewithdrawal slip in the fashion mentioned above and debited the same to the concerned account . When the same was passed for payment, you received the proceeds ofRs.30,000/-on account ofthe withdrawal slip in question .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR, COURT BANGALORE

Dated: 14th May, 2007

PRESENT: SHRI A. R. SIDDIQUI , PresidingOfficer

C. R. No. 14/1998

!Party

IIParty

TheGeneral Secretary, TheGeneralManager (P),

When the fact was brought to your notice by the investigating officer , you admitted having fraudulently removed the withdrawal slip in question and received moneys there under by forging the signature of the depositor in Kannada on the withdrawal slip and also on the master sheet without the knowledge of the account holder. In support of such admission you have submitted 2 letters of admission dated 18.7.1980 . You have also reimbursed the amount ofRs.30,000/- .

Syndicate Bank Employees SyndicateBank, HeadOffice, Manipal-576119

Union, Central Office , Kalyan Bhawan , 1st Floor, 69 Amenian Street , Madras 600001

Byyour above acts you grossly misused your official position and derived unlawful pecuniary advantage to yourself at the cost of the Bank by committing a serious misconduct of misappropriating monies from the account of a customer of the bank.

AWARD

We therefore, charge you with the gross misconduct ofdoing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank vide Clause No. 19.5(j ) of the Bipartite Settlement.

TheCentral Government, by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. 12012/113 /97-1R (B -II) Ddated 23rd February 1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Pending finalisation of the enquiry into the said serious allegations , you are hereby suspended from the service of the bank with immediate effect until further orders videClauseNo.19.12(b) of the Bipartite Settlement . During the period of suspension you will be paid subsistence allowance on the following scales as per clause 557 of the SastryAward.

"Whether the action ofthe management ofSyndicate Bank in imposing the penalty of dismissal on Shri M. M. Pai is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe said workman is entitled?"

1. Forthe first3 months one third of the pay and allowance which you would have got but for suspension; and

2 During the course of the trial this tribunal received a corrigendum dated 26-2-1999 from the Govt. of India in the followingwords:

2 Thereafter where the enquiry is departmental by the Bank, half of the pay and allowance for the succeeding months until the enquiry is over .

" In the Order No.L- 12012/ 113/97 - IR (B - II ), dated 23-02-1998 referring the disposal between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman Shri M. M. Pai to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore , the word "Dismissal " appearing in the Schedule may be substituted by "termination from service".

3. The management issued charge sheet dated 30-7-1980 to the first party workman reading as under:

ChargeSheet

"It is alleged against you as under:

You are hereby required to furnish us your postal address forthwith for the purpose of future communication with you . You should not enter the branch premises during the period of your suspension except for the purpose of operating your own account . Further, for that purpose you should obtain specific permission of the Manger by sending to him a note with the watchman or attender of the branch. Such banking operations will be allowed only in the Manager's cabin . If it is found that you are misusing the above facility in any way, your account is liable to be closed and the balance sent to you by pay order.

That on 22-5-1980 lle you were working asClerk at our Chickmagalur branch , you had fraudulently obtained

シ 4188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 / ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ) Besides, you are required to submit your explanations in defence within 7 days on receipt of this charge sheet ."

10-4-1995 and taking into consideration the submission made by the first . party, passed an order dated 20-5-1995 terminating the services of the first party with immediate effect by paying 3 months of pay and allowances in lieu of notice period . The period spent by the first party on suspension was treated as "on Suspension for all purposes " with a direction that he will not earn any increment or salary during the suspension period . It would appear that once again the first party preferred an appeal dated 6-7-1995 and the appellate authority after having given him opportunity ofhearing, up held the order of the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 10-10-1995. Thereupon , the first party raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer concerned, resulting, into the present reference.

5. The first party by way of his claim statement represented through the General Secretary , Syndicate Bank Employees Union, while, narrating the facts of the case from the date he received the charge sheet till the date he was removed from services by aforesaid order of termination confirmedby the Appellate Authority, at Page 6 of the Claim Statement under the heading " Grounds " urged as unders :

Grounds

( a) That the first party did not commit the alleged misconduct . He is innocent. Charges were foisted on him in order to save the skin of the officers who have passed the cheque in question for payment .

(b) The enquiry findings are null and void since the enquiry officer has held the first party employee guilty on account of the confession letters issued by hint and having reimbursed Rs.30, the monies involved in the fraudulent withdrawal in question.

(c) The order of the disciplinary authority is null and void since the first party employee has been absolved from all the charges by the Hon'ble Principal Session Judge Court at Mysore vide their orders dated 5-6-1992. The first party employee has been acquitted by the Hon'ble Court under section 35 ( 1 ) Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC read with Section 5( 1 )( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947. The sessions court also held that the confessions statements given by the first party employee has no value .

(d) The witnesses examined by the Hon'ble Session Courtwere not examined at the time of departmental enquiry which has gone against the interest of the first party employee and hence the entire enquiry proceedings may please he treated as null and void.

(e) Findings of the enquiry officer and proceedings of the disciplinary authority holding the first party ermployce guilty of the charges are not supported by the witnesses who have been examined by the Hon'ble Sessions Count Mysore who acquitted the first party employee .

4. The first party submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 18-8-1980 admitting the charges of misconduct levelled against him in the charge sheet stating further that he has reimbursed the entire amount with interest immediately as a gesture of goodwill . In the meanwhile as couldbe read from the records , CBI , Bangalore vide their letter dated 12-9-1980 informed the management that they have registered a case against the first party and laken up for investigation . A charge sheet came to be filed against the first party by the CBI, Bangalore for the offences punishment under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC read with Section 501 ) ( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1949. The management therefore , kept the Domestic Enquiry Proceedings in abeyance awaiting the judgment ofSession Court . Mysore before which CBI filed a charge sheet . The Session Court . Mysore vide its judgment dated 5-6-1992 acquilted the first party for the aforesaid offences. The management , then , conducted the enquiry proceedings against the first party appointing the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 5-1-1993. The first party was notified with the date of enquiry weedings , attended the enquiry proceedings and participated the same taking the assistance of one Shri Umesh Naik, Dy. General Secretary , SBEU , in conducting his defence. The management adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of the charges of misconduct levelled against the first party and it is on the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings the enquiry officer submitted his findings holding the first party guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against him in the charge sheet vide his enquiry report dated 18-11-1993. This enquiry report copywas supplied to the first party vide order dated 29-11-1993 secking his submission , thereon . After the receipt of the explanation offered by the first party nou being found satisfactory, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 8-2-1994 to the first patty proposing the punishment of dismissal secking the explanation in the matter. It would appear that the first party attended the personal hearing held on 2-4-1994 and the Disciplinary Authority after having taken into consideration the submission made by the first party with the assistance of his DR came to the conclusion that there were no extenuating groundsto take a lenient view or to reduce the purishment , already, proposed and therefore . the disciplinary authority confirmed the punishment of dismissal against the first party vide order dated 29-4-1994. Itappears that the first party preferred an appeal against the aforesaid punishment order on 11-6-1994 and the Appellate Authority after having set aside the above said dismissal orderby its order dated 22-10-1994 remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh orders after roconsidering the matter . Thereupon , once again the first party was given opportunity of personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority fixing the case on 4189 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

(1) The mandatory rules of the Bipartite Settlement as regard conduct of disciplinary action and principle of natural justice had been grossly violated by conducting the departmental enquiry proceedings after the court has acquitted the first party employee is against the principles of naturaljustice.

(g) The findings of the enquiry officer in perverse ashe has not applied his mind properly to the facts and circumstances of the case and has relied upon the confession statements givenby the employee and the reimbursement of Rs.30,000 macie by him .

The first party requested this tribunal to pass an award setting aside the termination order and reinstating him in service with all consequential benefits .

company shall employ or continue the employment ofany person, who is or at any time has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude . Moreover, since the charges levelled against the first party have been proved in the enquiry and the termination order has been passed interms ofBipartite Settlement, the first party now cannot beallowedto contend that charges of misconduct levelled against him have not been proved on the ground that the management did not examine all the witnesses produced during the course of criminal trial or that the confession statement given by him being rejected by the SessionCourt should not have been found basis by the enquiry officer in taking the charges of misconduct proved against the first party. Therefore , the management, ultimately, requested this tribunal to reject the reference.

7. It is seen from the records that keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties with regard to the validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings this tribunal on 24-3-1999 framed the following Preliminary Issue:

"Whether the Second party proves that the DE conducted against the first party was in accordance with settled principles of law, BPS & Principles of Natural Justice."?

8. During the course of trial of the said issue, the management examined the enquiry officer as MWI and got marked 10 documents at Ex.M1 to M10 including the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report . He was cross- examined on behalf of the first party but the first party did not adduce any evidence by way of rebuttal. My , learned Predecessor after having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties by his order dated 17-4-2001 passed an order on the above said issue to the effect that the enquiry conducted against the first partyby the Second Partyis fair, valid and legal . By his award dated 25-4-2001, he dismissed the reference . It is aggrieved by this award, the first party approached the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 25125/2001 and his Lordship of our Hon'ble High Courtby order dated 6-4-2006 set aside the award passed by this tribunal leaving undisturbed the order passed by this tribunal holding the enquiry to be fair and proper . The matter was remanded to this tribunal to be disposed of keeping in view the material onrecord .

9. After the remand, Shri MD appeared for the first party for the first time and Shri PSS continued to represent the secondparty/Management . Both the learned counsels have been heard on the merits of the case and the matter is posted this day for award.

6 The management resisted the claim of the first party by way of Counter Statement and among other grounds contended that the proceedings of enquiry taken against the first party were in accordance with the principles of natural justice , findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges were very much supported by sufficient and legal evidence and that the order of termination of services of the first party passed by the DisciplinaryAuthority was legal and justified and therefore, the claim put forth by the first party was not tenable. The management also contended that the Disciplinary Authority after having gone through the entire enquiry records and being satisfied with the fairness of the enquiry , rightly, came to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct levelled against the first party were proved and therefore, the resultant order passed against the first party terminating his services was very much inaccordance with the principles of natural justice and in terms of bipartite settlement . With regard to the contention of the first party that the first party has been acquitted by the Session Court , Mysore by the aforesaid judgement dated 5-6-1992, the management contended that he has been acquitted by the said court by giving him benefit of doubt and the acquittal of the first party in the criminal proceedings did not come in the way of the management taking disciplinary action against him as per the terms of the Bipartite: Settlement and therefore, the management was justified in holding the enquiry proceedings as per clause 19.30 of Bipartite Settlement read with Paras 19.11 and 19.12. The management further contended that as against the said acquittal order passed by the Session Court , the State of Karnataka preferred a criminal appeal No. 8/93 in the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka while setting aside the aforesaid judgement of the Session Court convicted the first party for the aforesaid Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 5( 1) (el ) read with5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing the first party to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 montlas vide order dated 19-10-1995. The management then contended that in the light of the provisions of Section 10(1 )(b )(i ) of the Banking Regulation Act 1949, no banking

10. Learned counsel Shri N. Venkatesh for Shri PSS argued that the findings of the enquiry officer are well supported by sufficient and legal evidence produced by the management as well as the various confession statements and the letters given by the first party , much less, his explanation to the charge sheet and therefore , by 4190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 / ASADHA 9,1929

[PART II Sec. 3 (ii) ] no stretch of imagination it can be said that findings suffered fromperversity.

passed. No such procedure was followed by the authority competent and the first party has been made escape goat to save the skins of the officers concerned . He also contended that material witnesses namely , the cashierwho paid the amount against the above said withdrawal slip and the Special Assistant who supervised the transactions onthe daywere not examined during the course of enquiry, though they were the witnesses during the course of criminal trial . Therefore, learned counsel submitted that charges ofmisconduct against the first party as such have not been proved during the course of enquiry and in the result, the findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty ofthe charges mainly acting upon the aforesaid confession statements, reply to the charge sheet and other letters suffered from perversity.

12.After having gone through the records , I do not find much substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. The facts undisputed in this case are that after the charge sheet was issued to the first party in the month of July 1980 and the first party submitted his explanation dated 18-8-1980 . Enquiry proceedings as such were kept in abcyance by the management as the CBI had already seized the matter and charge sheet came to be filed before the Session Court, Mysore against the first party for the very same misconduct and offences committed by the first party as leveled in the charge sheet . As noted above, after the first party came to be acquitted by the Session Court , judgment dated 5-6-1992 the management took up the disciplinary proceedings against the first party as provided under Clause 19.30 of BPS read with provisions of paras 19.11 & 19.12 of the BPS . It is now clear from the records that after the first party was acquitted by the Session Court , the State of Karnataka challenged the said acquittal order before the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Appeal No.8/93 and the Hon'ble High Court by judgement dated 19-10-1995 while setting aside the acquittal order passed against the first party convicted him for the aforesaid charges sentencing him for simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and it is also now admitted on behalf of the first party that he has already undergone the sentence of 3months period as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court .As seen above , in the meanwhile the management conducted enquiry proceedings against the first party and ultimately on the findings given by the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges , in the first instance , he was punished with apenalty of dismissal and thereupon he was awarded punishment of lermination of his services . The impugned punishment order came to be upheld by the Appellate Authority, ultimately, by order dated 28-7-1995 . Therefore , as the records speak as on 28-7-1995 the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid criminal appeal were pending disposal and it is only in the month ofOctober 1995 the Hon'ble High Court passed the order setting aside the Session Court Order acquitting the first party and then convicted him in the manner , aforesaid . Now therefore , the 11. Learned counsel Shri MD in his arguments vehemently contended that irrespective of the judgement oftheHigh Court convicting the first party for the aforesaid charges of misconduct , the management was required to prove the chalges of misconduct against the first party independently.He contended that since the management proceeded with the DE against the first party despite his acquittal by the Session Court, it now cannot take advantage ofthe judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in convicting the first party. Learned counsel submitted that as per the change sheet , the management first prove that the first party forged the signature of the account holder, Shri Sham Shetty on the withdrawal slip and then with the help of the said withdrawal slip received the payment of Rs.30,000 in the name of said account holder forging the signature in Kannada language in withdrawal slip and in the withdrawal slip register. Learned counsel submitted that though the first party filled in the pay slip and debited the amount of Rs . 30,000 in the ledger concerned, it cannot beheld that he forged the signature of said account holder and committed fraud upon the account holder as well as bank in receiving the amount under the said withdrawal slip. Learned counsel submitted that the various confession statements and letters relied upon by the management should not have been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer, they being obtained from the first party under duress , coercion and promise of taking lenient view against him . He also contended that the fact that the first party reimbursed the amount in question again cannot be a ground sufficiem to jump to the conclusion that he really misappropriated the said amount by playing fraud or by doing forgery. He contended that the management was supposed to establish the charges of misconduct against the first party by independent cogent and reliable evidence which has not been done during the course of enquiry. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the Investigation Officer obtained the three so called confession statements from the first party, two on the very same date and the other on the next day must give rise to the suspicion that they were obtained by under duress, coercion andfalse promises etc. He contended that as per the case of the management, he gave the first confession statement on 17-7-1980 in the bank itself and whereas the second confession statement on the very same date was obtained from the first party taking him to Tiptur us the wayto Bangalore and that goes to show that these confession statements were written by the first party under the dictates of the Investigation Officer under Juress , coercion and false promises . Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case the amount of Rs . 30,000 involved isof high value and it was incumbent upon the authority passing the payment order 1 have looked into the specimen signature of the account holder before the same was 4191 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

[भाग ॥ खण्ड ( ⅱ) ]

learned counsel for the first party wants to contend that the order of the Hon'ble High Court reversing the judgement of Session Court and convicting the first party though for the very same charges of misconduct, cannot be taken help of by the management in supporting the inspugned punishment order. His main contention was that charges of misconduct must have been proved by the management during the course of enquiry held against the first party and since according to him they are not proved by way of sufficient and legal evidence, the impugned punishment order is liable to be set aside awarding the reliefofreinstatement , back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Whereas, as noted above, the learned counsel for the management supported thefindings ofthe enquiry officer and took the court though the various letters/confession statements and the reply given by the first party to the charge sheet issued to him at the earliest point of time . His next contention was that keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Rules , 1949 the first party cannot be allowed to continue service by way of reinstatement he being involved and convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

such a direct evidence, it cannot be said that the above acts of the first party have not been proved by the management in the oral and documentary evidence produced in the enquiry . The first charge that the first party filled in the withdrawal slip by himself and made a debit entry in the ledger of the bank towards the SB account of the above said account holder has not been disputed by the first party though he disputed the fact that he made an entry in the withdrawal slip issue register or that he forged the signature of the account holder in the sald register. The circumstantial evidence produced during the course of enquiry suggesting that the first party himself filled in the withdrawal stip, made debit entry in the Ledger for the payment madetowards the withdrawal slip and that it is he who had taken the withdrawal slip along with the withdrawal slip issue register to the then Branch Manager and got the payment order from him have been very much proved during the course of enquiry by way of oral and documentary evidence produced by the management . The fact that the account holder never signed in Kannada Language andthat he had signed the account opening form in English language and that his specimen signatures are in English language is not disputed,and cannot be disputed. The fact that said account holder who examined in the enquiry as MW1 did not receive the amount under the withdrawal slip and that he made complaint with the bank authorities for wrong debit entries with respect to this amount in the bank account has been very much brought out in his evidence and has not been shaken in his cross examination on behalf of the defence . The then Sub Manager at Chickmangalur Branch, Mr Prabhu examined as MW2 in the enquiry admitted the fact that withdrawal slip atEx. MEx 3 was passed for payment by him and further statedthat there is entry in the withdrawal slip issue register at Ex.MEx 4 on 22-5-1980 for having issued the withdrawal slip to the customer , Sham Shetty bearing his purported signature in Kannada . He also stated that the master sheet atEx.MS and the Ledger sheet of his SB account at Ex. MEx 5(a) bears a debit entry with reference to the withdrawal slip on 24-5-1980 for Rs.30,000. He also gave evidence to the effect that the first party had given application to the branch manager for having invested Rs.4000 in SSD Account. He also referred to SSD Account opening form at Ex.M9 preferred by the first party to the manager of Syndicate Chickmangalur Branch extension counter. He then referred to the letters at Ex . MEx 10 & 11 alleged to have been written by the first party addressing to Secretariat and the President of India respectively. The next witness examined for the management was Mr. U.Ubedulla as MW3, the then sub manager and was holding the charge of Branch Manger as on 24-5-1980. He gave his statement with regard tothe confession letter given by the first party at Ex.MEx12 on 17-7-1980 . He stated that the said letter of confession was given in his presence and the presence of other staff " and Investigation Officer, Mr. Adiga . Mr. Adiga was also examined as MW4 and has given his detailed statement as 13. Therefore, in the light of the findings recorded by this tribunal to the effect that enquiry held against the firstparty is fair and proper , we are requiredto examine the contentions raised by the first partyto the effect whether findings suffered from perversity. From the perusal of the enquiry findings it is revealed that in order to substantiate the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party, the management in all examined six witnesses and got marked 17 documents . The first party by way of rebuttal examined himself and produced 9 documents in support of his defence. The enquiry officer brought on record the statements of the aforesaid six witnesses in their examination chiefaswellas in their cross-examination with reference to the documents marked on behalf of the management . Under the heading " Evaluation of Evidence" assigned his reasonings in coming to the conclusion that the first party was guilty of the charges of misconduct leveled against him. Therefore, in the first instance it can neverbe said that it was a case of"No evidence " or that the inquiry officer did not appreciate the evidence produced before him properly and in its proper perspective so as to term his findings perverse and arbitrary. The contention of the learned counsel for the first party that charges as alleged in the charge sheet have remained to be proved by direct and competent evidence, in my opinion, are not tenable keeping in view the oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of enquiry. Ofcourse, there is no direct evidence that the first party removed the withdrawal slip from the custody ofthe other official of the beak and forged the signature of the account holder in Kannada Language and that it is he who made the entry in the withdrawal slip issue register but in the absence of

2811 G1/2007-20 [PART -SF . 3( ⅱ)| THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

4192

coercion by anybody and that the explanation given by the first party in that regard was not acceptable . Therefore , the enquiry officer rightly relied upon the above said confession statement and the letters given by the first party not only admitting the misconduct but also the fact that the first party reimbursed the amount misappropriated by him. The enquiry officer , irrespective , of the above said letters and the fact of the reimbursemem of the amount misappropriated and the contentions taken by the first party in that regard , has given his valid and cogent reasonings on pages 15 to 17 of the enquiry report . Having regard to the reasoningns assigned by the enquiry officer , it cannot be said that he did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and that the conclusion arrived at by him on the basis of the evidence brought on record in anyway suffered from factual or legal defects . Therefore, it can be safely held that the findings of the enquiry officer are based upon sufficient and legal evidence and suffered from no perversity.

14. Assuming for a moment and going a step further whether the findings of the enquiry officer holding the first party workman guilty of the charges suffered from any perversity or not whether this court can record its own findings contraryto the findings of the enquiry officer in the face ofthe judgement of the Hon'ble High Court inthe aforesaid criminal appeal convicting the first party on the very same charges of misconduct which were the basis of the charge sheet issued against him . I am afraid it can be done. The management could not rely upon or acted upon the aforesaid judgement of the high court as undisputedly the judgement came to be delivered in the month ofOctober 1995 and whereas, the enquiry proceedings with the final orders of the appellate authority came to an end in the month of May 1995 itself. A perusal of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble High Court would make in abundantly clear that in each and every allegation of the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party have been dealt with threadbare with exhaustive discussion , in coming to the conclusion that those charges have been proved against the first party beyond any reasonable doubt. In the face of the findings recorded by the Hon'ble High Court in the said criminal appeal resulting into the conviction ofthe first party and in view of the fact that the first party suffered sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment in pursuance to the said judgement, irrespective of the findings of the enquiry officer in holding the first party workman guilty of the charges , there cалпо be any other finding to be recorded by this tribunal to the effect that charges of misconduct against the first party have remained to be proved . The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the criminal appcal has become final and as noted above , the first also has undergone the sentence imposed upon him. In the face of the said judgment , I do not think there is any escape route available to the first party. Therefore , now it is too much for the first party tw towhat all transpired during the course of his investigation . These were the four witnesses competent to speak to the charges ofmisconduct leveled against the first party with referenceto the documents, Their testimony as argued for the management has not been very much shaken during the course of examination on behalf of the defence . That apart, as has come in the enquiry findings, the first party admitted the charges of misconduct leveled against him at the earliest point of time by giving his reply to the charge sheet dated 18-8-1980 marked before this tribunal at Ex .M2. The fact that he gave the confession letter during the course of investigation on 17-7-1980 in the cabin of the branch manager addressed to the Investigation Officer , Mr. Adiga in the presence of Mr. U.Ubedulla and other staff not been disputed by the first party . His contention that it was the letter obtained from him under duress, coercion or false promises of taking lenient view and that it was obtained from him in the presence of officers of the management including some Police Officers does not get support from any material on record. This contention of the first party also gets belied for the simple reason that this is the letter under his own handwriting . However , under thisletter of ponfession he had thrown the blame on some stranger for having brought to him the withdrawal slip on 22-5-1980 and he handed over ledger to the said stranger who signed it in Kannada and went away. In that letter he also stated that the stranger again on 24-5-1980 presemed the withdravial slip at the counter and that withdrawal slip came to him got debited in the ledger account which he was handling for interest product calculations and he made the entry. This letter was marked in the enquiry at Ex.MEx- 12 and has been referred and discussed by the enquiry officer. Once again the first party has given a letter at Ex.MEx - 13 on 18-7-80 under his own handwriting stating his earlier statement that some stranger had brought withdrawal slipto him was wrong and that it is he himself forged the signature and committed the fraud. On 18-7-80 the first party addressed a letter to the General Manager of the bank once again admitting the misconduct committed byhim and also he has given the details about the utilisation ofmisappropriated amount which fact and informations were only in the knowledge of the first party himself. He wrote letters at Ex.MEx 11 to the then President of India and letter at Ex.MEx 17 to the Prime Minister of India both on 17-7-1981 about a year after he gave his earlier confession statements, seeking mercy from them. His contention that those letters were obtained under duress, coercionand certain assurances, has been rightly rejected bythe enquiry officer on the ground that it was not substantiated by any evidence, He rightly observed that if really those confession statements were obtained from him under dures , then , certainly he must have made a complaint with the Police. He rightly observed that the reply given by him to the charge sheet on 18-8-1980 at Ex.MEx 2 admitting the misconduct and the fact of reimbursement of the entire amount made by him can never be under the threat or 4193

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

[भाग [ ] -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

AND

contend otherwise to say that he did not commit, any misconduct and that the findings of the enquiry officer suffered from perversity.

Shri Sunil Ramchandra Chokhale, Kashinath Tapikar Chawl Kalas , Alandi Road , Pune-15

.......Second Party

CORÁM: MRS. S.S. SAWANT

APPEARANCES : Shri Pradhan, Advocate for

FirstParty

Shri N.A. Kilkarni, Advocate

for SecondParty

AWARD

(DATE: 11-04-2007)

15. Now, coming to the quanturn of the punishment . As could be read from the enquiry records and as noted above, the punishment of dismissal awarded against the first party in the first instance has already been replaced by punishment of terminating his services. Therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, there cannot be any punishment lesser than the punishment of termination to be awarded to the first party. In the result , and the foregoing reasons, there is no hesitation in the mind of this tribunal to come to the conclusion that impugned punishment order passed against the first partyterminating his services was legal and justified. Hence the following award:

AWARD

1.This reference is referred to this Court by the Desk Officer , Central Government of India under Clause (d) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. (10) of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 for adjudication over the following demand;

The reference is rejected . No costs.

(Distated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 14th May, 2007 ).

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 जून , 2007

"Whether the action of the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Pune, in terminating the services of Sh. Sunil Ramchandra Chokhale as full- time Sweeper w.e.f. 4-4-93 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the disputant entitled and from which date?"

का. आ. 1883,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय भरकार एल.आई.सी. ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , पूणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 759/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. Second party Sunil Ramchandra Chokhale appeared and filed Statement of Claim at Ext 10 Second party submitted that he was working with the first party as a full Time Sweeper w.e.f. 7-7-91. Second party further submitted that he has rendered continuous service w.e.f. 7-7-91 till 44-93. He has rendered continuous service for imore than 240 days with the first party.

[सं. एल-17012/38/96--आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 4th June, 2007

3. He further submitted that he has raised the reference before the appropriate government about his illegal termination . The said reference was rejected by the appropriate government vide order dtd . 5-9-97. Then second party filed W.P.before Hon'ble High Court . Hon'ble High Courtdirected the Central Government to refer the matter toLabour Court for adjudication . Thereafter , appropriate government sent reference for adjudication.

S. O. 1883. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 759/99) of the Labour Court, Pune as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute , between the employees in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 4-6-2007.

[No. L- 17012/38/96- IR (B - IT)] RAJINDER KUMMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE MRS. S. S. SAWANT, PRESIDING OFFICER FIRST LABOUR COURT, PUNE REFERENCE(LDA) NO. 759 OF 1999

BETWEEN

4.Second party further submitted that the services of second party were terminated orally on 4-4-93 . Al the time of termination, no notice was given not the payment in lieu of notice was given. Therefore termination of the service ofthe second party is illegal . First party has not complied the provisions of Sec. 25(F) & (G) of iD Act . No seniority list was ever displayed prior to the terminationof the second party. It is further submitted that junior workers of the second party namely Chavan, Jadhav, Kamble etc. were retained in the employment . Therefore termination of the second party is illegal . Second party further submitted that after the termination of his services, he tried to get alternate job , but he did not get any otlier job . He is unemploy since his termination .

TheDivisional Manager, LICofIndia,

Shivaji Nagar, Pипе-5

5. It is further submitted that the termination is vold abinitio and required to be quashed and set aside.

.......First Party

[PART 1 ]-SPC 3 (it) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

4194

6. Second party prayed that first party be directed to reinstate second party on his original post with continuity of service and full back wages .

second party wrote a letter on 23-2-94 that since he had worked for more than 240 days, he was required to be absorbed on full time basis . He did not report for work ar Pimpari inspite ofreminder on 11-2-94.

14. It is further submitted that second party worked on temporary basis for 70 days ( daily for 2 hours ) during the period from 23-3-91 to 6-7-91, 149 days as full time sweeper during the period from 8-7-91 10 31-12-91 , 280 days as full time sweeper during the period from 1-1-92 to 31-12-92, 72. days as full time sweeper during the period from 1-1-93 to 23-3-93.

7.Fisst partyappeared and contested the reference byfilingWritten Statement at Exh. 17. First party submitted that it is a corporation established under Sec . 3 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the affairs of the first party are conducted as per the conditions of Life Insurance Corporation Act . It is further submittedthat the Corporation has in exercise of its powers under Sec. 49 (2) of the Act made regulations known as Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) regulations , 1960 providing for terms and conditions of service of its employees. ThisAct was amended in the year 1981. As per the amendment the powers of corporation to make regulations under Sec . 49 providing for the terms and conditions of the services of its employees came to be abrogated. The Central Government was empowered to make rules under Sec. 48 to provide for the terms and conditions for the services of the corporation.

15. It is further submitted that as second party refused to report to work at Pimpari Branch Office he should bedeemed to have voluntarily left the services . It is denied that the first party has illegally terminated the services of the second party on 4-4-93 . It. is also denied that the termination of the services of the second party was the case of retrenchment under Sec. 2 (00 ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 requiring compliance ofSec . 25 (F) & (G ) of ID Act.

8. It is further submitted that the Staff regulations and other provisions relating to the other terms and conditions of the employees shall be deemed the rules made by the Central Government.

FINDINGS

16. It is further submitted that Rule 81 (Bombay Rules) has no application as the appropriate government is the Central Government . It is submitted that second party was employed on temporary basis. He has no post which he had held at any time of his employment. It is denied that second party is entitled for any relief as claimed. It is prayed that reference be rejected . ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the

management of Life

9. Itas further submitted that as for the provisions of Sec. 48(2)( cc) of the Act have effect , notwithstanding anything contained in amongst other the industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is further provided that as per the Staff Regulations 8 ( 1 ) that no person appointed on temporary basis shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service of the corporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post.

10. It is further subinitted that the appointment of a person on regular basis is made in accordance with the recruitment rules made from time to time which are statutory.

Insurance Corporation of Inclia, Zonal Office , Pune in terminating the services of Sh. Sunil Ramchandra Chokhala as full time Sweeper w.e.f.

4-4-93 is legal and justified?

..... In the

affirmative

2 Ifnot to what relief the disputant entitled and from which date?

11. First party further submitted that the corporation generally engages some persons on part time basis where duration of work in a day does not exceed four hours is a day. Sweepers are the persons who generally falls in this category. They are engaged on part time basis . The branch offices are situated in rented premises .

.... In the negative

3. What order?

.......As per

finalorder .

REASONS

12. It is further submitted that second party had applied for employment as a sweeper on daily wages on 16-1-91. Second party was empaneled for appointment on temporary basis against leave vacancies . He was periodically appointed as a sweeper on daily wages either as a part time sweeper or on full time basis depending upon the needs of the day , between 23-3-91 to 23-3-93 in CityBranch No. 952 at Punc .

17. In the present reference second party has filled his examination in chief on affidavit at Exh . 34. First party has filed examination in chief on affidavits of witness Vijaykumar Tasgaonkar at Exh . 45 and witness Smt . Anuradha Lale at Exh. 46.

18. Issue No. ITO 3. It is the contemion of second party that he was illegally terminated from the services by 13. It is further submitted that in the year 1994 the Pimpari Branch Office was permitted to appoint regulat part time sweeper for four hours in a day Second party sent aletter du 19-1-94 about the said appointment. However, 4195

भारत का राजपत्र : खूप 30, 2007/आवाद 9, 1929

[ भाग 11-अण्ड 3(ii) ]

first party. First party has specifically denied this contention of the second party . Both the parties led evidence to provetheir contentions.

However, second partywrote a letter on 23-2-94 that since he hadworked for more than 240 days , he was required to be absorbed on full time basis. He did not report forwork at Primpari in spite of reminder on 11-2-94.

24. It is further deposed that as second party refused to report to work at Pimpari Branch Office be should be deemed to have voluntarily left the services. It is denied that the first party has illegally terminated the services of the second party on4-4-93.

19. Second party has filed examination in chief on affidavit at Exh . 34. Second party deposed in examination in chief that he was working with the first party as a full time Sweeper w.e.f. 7-7-91. Second party further deposed that he has rendered contimious service w.e.f. 7-7-91 till 4-4-93 . He has rendered continuous service for more than 240dayswith the first party.

25. Witness Tasgaonkar further deposed that first partyhas a Staff Regulation Policy. The service conditions and recruitment and promotion policy are mentioned in the sand rules, Those rules are binding on all the employees of the first party. He further deposed that first party has not terminated the services of the second party. So the question ofpaying notice-pay and retrenchment compensation does not arise.

20. He further deposed that he has raised the reference before the appropriate government about his illegal termination. The said reference wasrejected by the appropriate government vide order dtd. 5-9-97 . Then second party filed W.P. in Hon'ble High Court. Hon'ble High Court directed the Central Governmentto refer the mattes to Labour Court for adjudication . Thereafter , appropriate government their reference for adjudication .

21. Second party deposed that the services of the secondparty were terminated oraly on 4-4-93. At the time oftermination no notice was given nor the payment in lieu ofnotice was given . Therefore termination of the service of the second party is illegal. First party has not complied the provisions of Sec . 25 (F) & (G) of ID Act. No seniority listwas ever displayed prior to the termination of the secondparty . It is further deposed that junior workers of the second party namely Chavan Jadhav Kamble etc. were retained in the employment. Therefore, terzaination of the second party is illegal . Second party denied that he had voluntarily abandoned the employment. Second party further deposed that since the first party has terminated hisserviceswithout holding an enquiry without complying with the provisions ofSec . 25 (F) of ID Act, his termination is illegal and required to be quashed and set aside . Secondparty prayed that first party be directed to reinstate him on his original post with continuity of service and full backwages.

26. Smt. Amsradha Lale , second witness for the first partyhas filed examination in chief on affidavit at Exh. 46. Smt. Lale deposed that she is working as a Divisional Manager (Office Services). She further deposed that in the year 1992-93 she was working as Administrative Officerat Pune Divisional Office. The job of this department is to provide all types of services to all branches and other departments. The Personnel & J. R. Department looks after recruitment ofClass - III & Class - IV employees. Thereafter , the list of sweepers to be recruited is sent to O. S. Department. She further deposed that there are two categories ofsweepers in L.1.Cfirst category is permanent sweeper and second category is temporary /badli sweepers . Second party was initially working as temporary/badli sweeper. She knew the second party as she used to allot the duty to the second party. Initially, second party was not pay-roll as he was badli worker. She further deposed that on 19-1-94 first party gave him appointment letter as part time sweeper and directed to join at Pimpari Branch Second party received the appointment did. 19-1-94, however,he did not join his duties at Pimpati Branch Second party made representation that he should be given appointment as full time sweeper .

27. She further deposed that first party has not terminated the services of the second party. She further deposed that as second party did not join the services as per the letter dtd. 19-1-94, so second party is not entitled to get any benefits.

28. Thus, both the parties led evidence to prove their contentions.

22.Witness Shri Tasgaonkar for first party has filed his examination in chief on affidavit at Exh. 45 Witness Shri Tasgaonkar deposed in his examination in chief that he is working with the first party at Shivajinagar Office as Manager (Legal). He has gone through the entire filles and documents of the second party. He is conversant with the facts of the present case . He further deposed that second. partyworkman had applied on 16-1-91 for the employшем as a sweeper on daily wages. This witness further deposed that second party was periodically appointed as a sweeper on dailywages either as a part time sweeper or on full time basis depending upon the needs of the day, between 23-3-91 to23-3-93 in city Branch No. 952 a: Pune.

29. According to the evidence of the second party, he was continuously in the employment of the first party from 7-7-91 till 4-4-93 as a sweeper and he had rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in a year . Second partyalso relied on the inspection report about theworking days of the second party at Exh. 35. First party witness Shri . Tasgaonkar admitted in cross - examination that second 23. He further deposed that in the year 1994 the Pimpari Branch Office was permitted to appoint regular part time sweeper for four hours in a day . Second party sent a letter dt . 19-1-94 about the said appointment.

[ PART 11-SHC. 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

4196

1. 1997 (4) LLN 150 Mahmadsha Ganishah Patel andMastanbaug Consumers ' Co-operative Wholesale and Retail Stores Ltd. and another. In this authority , Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that....

partywas working at City Branch during the period 23-3-91 to 23-3-93 . Witness Tasgaonkar also admitted that the information given in the inspection report at hxh . 35 about working days of second party is correct.

30. So, firstly, it is established by the second party that he worked with the first party from 23-3-91 το 2.3-3-93 andhe worked for more than 240 days in a year .

31.However, the inspection report at Exh . 35 do not mention about whether second party worked as a part time sweeper of full time sweeper during that period.

"even in case of abandonment of service , employer has to give notice to employee calling upon him to resume his duty- if he fails to do so an enquiry has to be held then pass appropriate order of termination had to be passed . Abandonment of service is a matter of intention . Such intention in the absence of supportable evidence cannot be attributed to employee.

2. 1996 ( 1 ) CLR 172 Gangaram K. Medakar Vs. Zanith Safe Mfg. Co. & Ors . In this authority Hon'ble BombayHigh Court held that.......

in case of voluntary abandonment of service , it is matter of intention . It is a matter in case of inference being drawn on given sel of facts . The employer unilaterally cannot saythat the workman is not interested in employment and it is for this reason that a domestic enquiry is required to be held. "

3. 1996 (1) CLR 439 Dharmaraj Vithoba Natekar Vs. Unique Industries & Ors. In this authority Hon'ble BombayHigh Court held that.....

32. In cross -examination, the second patty denied that he was appointed as a part time sweeper . However, he admitted in cross examination that after the Assistant Commissioner refused to refer his dispute, he had filed W. P. No 1592/99 before the Hon'ble High Court Second party admitted that he has not produced the documents in this reference which were produced along with the W.P. Second party further admitted that he had mentioned in the annexure to his W.P. , that he worked as pantime sweeper from 12-3-91 to 7-7-91. Second party also admited that he worked as a badli sweeper from the perind from 8-7-913-4-93. He denied that he was transferred by first party on 5-4-93 . Second party admitted that on 23-5-93 he had submitted an application to the first party that he may begiven appointment permanently.

"in this writ petition , Hon'ble High Court did not accept that case of abandonment and observed that though the circumstances do indicate that the petitioner was careless with regard to his service but they do not make out a case of voluntary abandonment of service. The Hon'ble High Court therefore directed reinstatement. " 33. These admissions given by the second party in cross-examination shows that initially second party was appointed as a part time sweeper . It is also established that second partyworked as badli sweeper during the period 8-7-91 (ll 3-4-93 . So , it is clear that second party was not appointed as a regular full time sweeper by the first party.

4. 1996 (72) FLR 518 M/ s. Jai Maakali Aluminium Metal Works. Agra and Tilak Raj and others. In this authority Hon'ble Allahabad High Court heldthat........

"When employee remained absent on account of injury suffered while on duty and he was on medical Icave. It is not case of abandonment of employment. Reinstatement with continuity of service was directed."

5. 1993 ( III ) CLR $ 18 International Airport Authority of India Vs. Viru Muthu Sukhilingam and Another. In this authority Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that....

"At the highest only negligence could be inferred for not reporting for duty upto 31-12-83 but it could notbe said that workman was guilty ofabandonment of service. " 34. It is the contention of first party that they have not terminated the services of the second party but second party himself had abandoned the services of the first party. On this point witness Shri Tasgaonkar denied in cross examination that second party was terminated from services on 4-4-93 . Witness Tasgaonkar further stated that they have not sent any letter to the second party during the period from4-4-93 to 18-1-94 because his services were not required. Another witness Smt . Anuradha I ale for the first party also stated in cross-examination the first party did not sent any letter to the second party to join his duties during the period from 4-4-93 to 18-1-94. She further stated that first party has not given any show cause notice or charge sheet for his absence.

6.1993- ( II) -LLN 346 M. Sankaranarayanan and ( 1 ) First Additional Labour Court ( 2 ) Vijaya Suresh Combines,Madras. In this authority Hon'ble Madras High Court heldthat....

"The findings of Labour Court as to abandonment of service was rendered on sufficient ground and hence cannot be disturbed . The parameters to constitute abandonment were explained .

35. So, it is clear from the evidence of both the witnesses of the first party that first party had not sent any letter of noticeto the second party during the period from 44-93 18-1-94 Ld. Advocate for the second party argued that even in the case of abandonment of the service. employer had to give notice to the employce . Lil . Advocate forthe second party relied on following authorities on this point.

[भाग 1] -खण्ड 3(ii) ]

7.1996 LAB LC. 1319 B.G. Saraswat Vs. Engineers India Ltd. In this authority inference of abandonment of service was drawn from prologed unathorised absence of an employee . Employee took plea that he remained absent due to prolonged illness and never abandoned the service. Neither any enquiry was held nor any opportunity was afforded. It was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that order of terminating services is violative of the principles of natural justice.

36. I have gone through all above mentioned authorities relied by the Ld. Advocate for second party. In the present case second party was not regular permanent employee of first party. The facts of present case are quite different than the authorities cited supra . Hence , the ratio laid down in the above mentioned authorities are not applicable to the present case .

37. Ld . Advocate for first party argued that even though second party has completed 240 days of continuous service he is not entitled for the reinstatement or appointment on similar post as he was not regular employee of first party. Ld , Advocate for first party relied on following authorities.

1.Legal Digest October, 2006-307 Reserve Bank of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma & Anr. In this authority Hon'ble Supreme Court held that.........

"When it is not proved that terminated daily wage worker was working on regular basis, he is not entitled for reinstatementor appointment to similar post or back wages on the principle of no work no pay."

2.Legal Digest October, 2003-296 Ramkrishana Kamat &Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka. In this authority Hon'ble Supereme Court held that....

"The claim for regularisation not based on any law nor any rules so as to govensverms their service conditions . Mere fact that they continued in service for number of years would not entitled them for regularization, " 3. Legal Digest April, 2005-94 Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Bhola Singh. In this authority Hon'ble SupremeCourtheld that.......

"When workman is appointed in terms ofscheme of daily wages , he does not derive any legal right to be regularized.

It is further observed that.....

"Completion of 240 days of continuous servicemay not itself be a ground for regularization , particularly when the workman had not been appointed in accordance with the extent rules ."

4.Legal Digest January, 2004-46 Staite ofUP Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra & Ors . In this authority Hon'ble Allahabad Courtheld that......

"The dailywagers have no right to post and have no protection ofArticle 311 of Constitution of India-Non-

4197

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

renewal of contractual employment and dispensing of engagement at any stage without any reason in terms of appointment does not amount to retrenchment under Sec. 2(00) of Industrial Disputes Act. "

5.Legal Digest April, 2001-264 Karnataka State RoadTransport corporation andAnr. Vs. B, B. Tabusi & Ors. In this authority Hon'ble Karnataka Court heki that......

"A casual labour and any person as such in government department, in any statutory organaization or any movement agency, despite the fact that they complete 240 days of work, they cannot claim any right of regularization. The provisions of Sec . 11 (A), of I. D. Act cannot be abused or misused to circumvent legal provision relatingto selection and abandonment ."

38. I have gone through all the above mentioned authories relied on by the Ld . Advocate for first party. In the present case, second party worked as a temporary/ badli worker of first party. Nodoubt, second party had worked for 240 days continuously with the first party. However, as perthe ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above mentioned authorities, it is clear that second party cannot claim any right ofragularization even though hehas completed 240 days continuous service .

39. Ld. Advocate for first party has also produced services regulations of first party L.I.C. (India) . In respect oftemporary staff, it is providedby Rule-8 that a Managing . Director,Exective Director ( Personnel ), a Zonal Manager ofDivisionalManager may employ staff in Classes - III & IV on temporary basis subject to such general or special directions as may be issuedby the Chairman fromtime 10 time. It is further provided by Sub-Rule 2 that no person appointed under Sub-Regulation - 1 shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the service of corporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post.

40. So, it clear that by regulation of LIC, India that temporary employee is not entitled to absorption in the service of corporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post. In the present case it is admitted fact that second party was temporary employee of first party. So, as per the regulation of LIC, India , which is binding on its employees, second party is not entitled for absorption in the employment of first party.

41. On this point Ld . Advocate for second party argued that Industrial Disputes Act holds where the dispute arose and the LIC Act guides as other matters are concerned. LD . Advocate for the second party relied on the following authorities on this point .

1. Labour Law Journal Vol.1-1981-1 Life Insurance Corps. Of India and D.J. Bahadur and others Between Chandrasekhar Bose and others and Union of India and others. In this authority Hon'ble Supreme Court Lald down that......

[PART 11-SBC. 3( i)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

4198

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-07 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Industrial Disputes Act holds where the dispute arose and the LIC Act guides as other matters are concerned."

[सं. एल -12012/ 125/2005- आई आर (बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 42. I have gone through this authority the facts of thisauthority are quite different, hence ratio laid down in this authority is not applicable to this case.

New Delhi , the 4th June, 2007

S. O. 1884.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 18/2006) 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 оп1-6-2007.

No. L- 12012/125/2005-IR(B-II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer 43. Another material point to be taken into consideration is that first party has issued the appointment tothe second party by letter dtd. 19-1-94 and second party was appointed as a part time sweeper at Pimpari Branch. However second party did not join his duty and wrote a letter to first party that he should be given appointment on full time basis. Second party has clearly admitted in his cross examination that he was given appointment letter as apart time sweeper and he did not join Pimpari Branch as per letter did. 19-1-94 Second party also admitted that he sent letter to LIC on 23-2-94 that he may be given full time job.

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 25th April , 2007 44. These admissions given by the second party are very material . It clearly establishes that second party was offered appointment of part time sweeper, but he refused to join his duties. It shows that second party was not interested in the job with the first party.

PRESENT K.Jayaraman,

PresidingOfficer

Industrial Dispute No. 18/2006

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section (1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947), between the Management of Indian Bank and their workmen)

BETWEEN

Sri K.Arılarasu

1 Party/Petitioner 45. 10 view of above discussion , it is clear that second party was in the employment of the first party as a temporary employee . So, even though he has completed 240 days continuous service , he is not entitled for reinstatement . It is also to be noted that there is no specific evidence about oral termination ofservice of second party. So also, second party refused to join the duty as per the appointment letter did. 19-1-94 issued by first party . Hence, I come to the conclusion that second party failed to prove thathe is illegally terminated from the services by the first party.Hence the action of first party is legal and justified. I answer Issue. No. 1 in the affirmative .

AND

TheDeputy General Manager , II Party/Management Indian Bank, Circle Office,

Dharmapuri .

46.As second party failed to prove that he is illegally terminated from services , he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed. Hence, I answer Issue No. 2 in the negative and proceedto pass following Order .

APPEARANCE

ORDER

For the Petitioner

1. The reference is hereby rejected.

: M/ s . K. M. Ramesh , Advocates

2. No order as to costs.

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

Place : Pune

Date: 11-4-2007 Mrs. S. S. SAWANT, Presiding Officer

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2007

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide OrderNo. L- 12012/125/2005- IR(B- II) dated 24-2-2006 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows :-

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits for the कर, आ. 1884, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ अम न्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2006 ) 4199 भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

[भाग II- खा०द ( ⅱ) ]

alleged misconduct said to have been committed by Shri K. Arularasu is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?"

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I.D. No. 18/2006 and notices were issued to both the parties and they have entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

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

compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. The appeal filed bythe Petitioner was also dismissed. The action ofthe Respondent/ Management in imposing upon him the compulsory retirement is illegal , unjustified and it is also a case of victimisation and unfair labour practice . The Petitioner has been made as a scapegoat for no fault ofhis . The Petitioner has not committed any misconduct warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. No due certificates were not issued by the Petitioner. The complaint made by Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram is false,baseless and unfounded. The Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence givenby thewitnesses and therefore , the finding is perverse and bad in law and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are not based on any evidence available on record and he has arrived at the conclusion on assumption, presumption , surmises and conjectures and they are not sustainable either in law or on facts. The Respondent/Management did not issue second show cause notice before imposing the punishment ofcompulsory retirement against the Petitioner which is in violation ofBipartite Settlement and also against theprinciples ofnatural justice and theAppellateAuthority haddisposed of the appeal without applying its mind on anygrounds. This Tribunal has got ample powers to come to an independent conclusion under section 11A of the LD. Act . Hence , for all these reasons, the Petitioner prays this Tribunal to pass an award directing the Respondent/ Bank to reinstate him into service with continuity of service; backwages and other consequential benefits.

4.The Respondent management in its Counter Statement contended that the Petitioner was proceeded with by way of disciplinary action for certain acts of misconduct and awarded with the punishment of compulsoryretirement . While he was working as cashier in , Buddireddipati branch on 25-4-2002 he received a cash remittance made by Mr. Mani a representative of Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram with S. B. Account No.6865 and released the counter foil duly signed by him. As per the details , the denomination of cash received by him was of Rs . 2135, but in the challan remitted amount remitted was written as Rs. 935 and therefore, there should have been an excess amount of Rs. 1200 in cash balance as at theclose of24-5-2002.As per the established practice, any excess amount should have been reported to the Branch Manager. However, the Petitioner did not do so. When the Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram approached the Petitioner to rectify the mistake , initially he resisted but later on , he agreed to make good a sum of Rs . 1000 only through mediator and subsequently, he paid that amount to the account of Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram . Secondly, one Sri S. Kumar who had availed a loan from Buddireddipatti branch and even when the loan was overdue and outstanding the Petitioner arranged for the issue of no- due certificate to Sri S. Kumar to enable him to avail loan from State Bank of India , Kadathur . Similarly , one The Petitioner namely Mr. K.Anularasu: joined the services of Respondent/Bank as clerk/shroff and worked inBuddireddipatti branch in Dharmapuri District. While so, he was issued with three show cause notices dated 21-6-2002. The first show cause notice alleged that the Petitioner while working as agricultural assistant in Buddiredklipatti branch had issued a no - due certificate to Sri K. Theerthagiri, S/o. Sri Kolandai to enable him to avail loan from Harur Co -operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. with forged signature of Branch Manager of Buddireddipatti branch for pecuniary gains. Similarly, the second show cause notice alleged that the Petitionerwhile working as agricultural assistant had issued no-due certificate to Sri S. Kumar, S/o . Subramani, Kandagoundanur to enable him to avail loan from. State Bank of India, Kadathur with forged signature of Branch Manager ofBuddireddipatti branch and affixed branch seal for pecuniary gains. In the third show cause notice, it is alleged that while the Petitioner was working as cashier in Buddireddipatti branch on 24-5-2002 received a cash remittance made by Smt. Mani, representative of M/s. Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram for the credit of M/s. Seinbaruthi Mahalir Mandram S.B. Account No.6865 and released the counter foil also duly signed by him. However, as por details of denomination of cash received by him, the remittance was Rs. 2135, But while arriving at thetotal ithad been made as Rs .935 and as a consequence of the above , there should be excess cash of Rs. 1200 which the Petitioner neither returned excess cash to the remitter nor reported the excess cash for proper accounting by the branch management . While the representative of Sembaruthi Mahalit Mandram enquired about the shortage of cash of Rs . 1200 , the Petitioner telephoned to one Sri Dharmalingam, noon meal organizer and informed him that an excess cash amount of Rs. 1000 was with him, On enquiry by the vigilance officer , the Petitioner by his letter dated6-6-2002 that he altered 100 rupee denomination as 100X2-200 from the originally written denomination as 100X14-1400 and taken the difference amount ofRs. 1200. But in the explanation, he denied the allegations in show cause notice and therefore, an enquiry was conducted in which ten witnesses were examined on the side of the management and the Enquiry Officer has held that the charge framed against the Petitioner has been proved and the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of

2811 G1/2007-21 4200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 30 , 2007 ASADILA 9. 1925

[PART 11--SFC.3 ( i ) | Mr. Theerthagiri , whose wife had an outstanding loan at Buddireddipatti branch was able to gel a no - due certificate through the Petitioner to enable him to obtain loan from Harur Co-operatrive Agricuture and Rural Development Bank Ltd.In both the cases, the Petitioner forged the signature of Branch Manager and misused the seal of the bank, when the said banks verified the matter with the RespondentBank, it has , cometo light that no such no duc certificate was issued by them . Since the petitioner has deniedthe charges framed against him , an enquiry was conducted and 10 witnesses were examined to support the charge.The Enquiry Officer gave a report hokling that the charges against the Petitioner were proved on 15-9-2003 and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuatini benefits . Therefore, the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is fully valid in law and the same should not be interfered with for all or any of the reasons urged by the Petitinner The Petitioner has failed to account for excess cash received from the customer to the bank. Whenever excess cash is found, it is kept in sundry deposit account of the branch and thus, be has failed to discharge his duties diligently and he has no authority to keep excess cash with him. It is false to allege that the vigilance department fireed the Petitioner to make a statement admitting the goit . The Petitioner had a definite role to play in the three transactions covered by the charge sheets and no due cerificatus , to Sri S. Kumar and K. Theerthagiri could not have heelt issued but for the involvement and interference by the. Petitioner because issuance of no - due certificate to the 'borrower is not a private transaction . Thus , the l'etitioner has acted 'dishonestly and indulged in manipulation of records to enrich himself. The findings of the Inquiry Olicer are based on material evidence supported by adequate reasoning and hence , they are fully justified . The Disciplinary Authority issued the 2nd show cause notice proposing the punishment offering a personal heating vide orderdated 3-5-2004 . The Petitioner fully understood the proposed punishment and made his representation Therefore,the provisions ofBipartite Settlement were fully complied with and the Appellate Authority considered all points raised by the petitioner in detail and has given reasons for not accepting the same. Hence , for ali these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claith is be dismissed with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are---

(i) "Whether the a action of the Respondent. Management in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits on the Petitioner is legat and justified?"

(1) "To what relief the Petitioner is entitled

Point No. 1 :

6. The allegations against the Petitioner are ihul

while the Petitioner was working as clerk/ shroff in Buddireddipatti branch of the Respondent/Bank in Dharınapuri district disciplinary proceedings were taken against him for three charges of which the first charge is that while he was working as agricultural assistant in that branch , he had issued no due certificate to Sri K. Theerthagiri to cenable him to avail loan from Harur Co operative & Rural Development Bank Ltd. , with the forged signature of the Branch Manager of Buiddireddipani branch for pecuniary gains. The second charge is that while he was working as agricultural assistant , he issued no duc certificate to Sri S. Kumar lo enable him to avail loan from State Bank of India, Kadathur branch with the forged signature of Branch Manager of Buddireddipatti branch and affixed the above seal for pecuniary gains. The third charge is that while he was working as cashier in Buddireddipatti branch on 24-05-2002 received a cash remittance made by Mis . Mani , representative of M's . Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram with S. B. Account No. 666.5 and released couterfoil duly signed by him . However , as per the details of denomination of cash received by him the remittance was Rs. 2135 bait while arriving at the total it had been made Rs . 935 and as a result , there should have been excess cash of Rs . 1200 , which he Petitioner neither returned w remitter as excess cash nor reported excess cash for proper accoum by branch management . Furthermore, on 30-05-2002 , when the representative of Mahalir Mandram had enquired about the shortage of cash of Rs . 1200 , the Petitioner telephoned to Mi. Dharmalingam, Noon- meal organizer and informed him that the excess cash amount of Rs . 1000 was with him . He has also admitted this in his letter caled 6-6-2002 addressed toi Vigilance Officer, Cirete Office , Salem and further admitted that he had altered 10X ) cutere denominations as ( 100 ) x 2 = 2 from the originally written denounationas 100x 14 = 14( 0 ) and taken the difference armooni of Rs . 1200. Though these charges were framed against him and domestic enquiry was held against him . the Enquiry Officer bas not conducted the enquiry in a proper way and the Vigilance Officer forced the Petitioner to give a statement admitting his guilt and threatened hion with dire consequence of police action and obtained the admission letter. Further , though the Respondent Management has examined ten witnesses. none of them has proved the charge framed against the Petitioner and therefore , the findings given by the Enquiry Officer that Charges framed against the Petitioner were proved is without any substance . It was argued on behali of the Peticionet that the action of the Responden! Management in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement is illegal and unjustified and it is also a case of victimisation and unfair labour practice . 11 is further arguud that the Petr.foner has been made as scapegoat for nu fault ofhis . Therefore , on behal ! of the Petitioner, it is contended that the action initiated against him is illegal and unwarranted and the revizimer has not committed any misconduct warranting initiation of disciplinas proceedings 4201 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ) ]

against him . It is also further contended that the so called complaint made by Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram is false , baseless and unfounded, No doubt, excess amount of Rs. 1000 was found by the Petitioner on 24-5-2002 and on finding that there was excess cash, he immediately informed Mr. Dharmalingam , Noon - meal Organizer to convey the same to Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram to collect the excess cash of Rs . 1000 , therefore , he has no intention of misappropriation or temporary misapropriation of the amount and he has no intention or motive to make unlawful gain for himself from the transaction . When the witnesses examined by the Respondent/ Management have clearly stated that no due certificate cannot be issued by the Fetitioner and the concerned person has paid the money toone Mr. Yuvaraj and obtained the no - due certificate , the finding given by the Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner alone is responsible for the issue of no-due certificate is per se illegal and perverse and contrary to evidence on record . There is no direct or indirect evidence is the enquiry to prove the charge framed against the Petitioner. Under such circumstances , the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is illegal . It is also argued on behalf of the Fretitiorior that the Appellate Authority of the Respondent/ Management had not disposed of the appeal in accordance with the Provisions of Bipartite Settlement and it suffers from vice ofnon-application of mind and therefore , an award may be passed in favour of the Petitioner by setting aside the orders passedby Respondent/Management .

position as agricultural assistant and knowing the status ofborrowers / loan accounts , the Petitioner has acted dishonestly and indulged in manipulation of records to enrich himself. Though one Mr. Yuvaraj has not been examined in this case , it is established by an evidence that he is a relative to the Petitioner . Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that non-examination of Mr. Yuvaraj is fatal 10 the charge framed against the Petitioner . In this case, in the departmental enquiry , the dishonestly of the Petitioner has been established and therefore , his subsequent confession or his having made good the money would not mitigate against the finding of the guilt . The findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on material evidence supported by adequate reasoning and they are fully justified. No doubt, there is no direct evidence with regard to preparation of no due certificate by the Petitioner, on the other hand , the circumstantial evidence clinchingly proves that it is only the Peititioner who has behaved with regard to issuance of non -due certificate, therefore, the findings given by the Enquiry Officer are justified and the imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority is fair and reasonable . Learned counsel for the Respondent also argued that since the Respondent is involved in banking business, absolute devotion , diligence, integrity and honesty need to be preserved by the every bank employee failing which public/account holders would loose confidence in the Respondent/Management. In this case, since the Petitioner has committed financial irregularities thore cannot be a punishment other than dismissal to instill the confidence of public in the Respondent/Bank and the Respondent Bank has settled the terminal benefits due to thePetitionet . The Petitioner placed the Respondent/Bank in embarrassment and he has committed misconduct lo damage the image of the Respondent/Bank in rural arca. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is fully justified.

8. But, then again the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case the allegation against the Petitioner is charge of misappropriation . Therefore, the burden of proof lies upon the Respondent/Management . Since this charge is a serious charge , the burden to establish the same is on the person who alleging the same namely the Respondent/ Management . He argued that in this case, the serious charge has not been established with any satisfactory evidence and they relied on a vague inference tobe drawn from the evidences ofwitnesses and therefore, it cannot be said that the charges framed against the Petitioner are proved. He relied on the rulings reported in 1984 11 LLJ 841 ROCHO ( P.B.) Vs. UNION OF INDIA& ORS. wherein the Kerala High Court has held that "with regard to standard of proof required in departmental disciplinary proceedings , there is a scope of judicial review of the decision of competent authority in disciplinary proceedings ". In that case , the charge framed against the Petitioner is theft arid since the theft is a serious charge, 7. But , as against this , learned counsel for the Respondent argued that though it is alteged on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has informed Sembaruthi Mahalin Mandram with regardto excess cash, as a clerk cum cashier he has to discharge his duties as per rules and regulations and to the untmost satisfaction of the superiors with honesty/ integrity as he is dealing with public money. In this case, the Petitioner has failed to account for the excess cash received from a customer namely Sembaruthi Mahalir Mandram of the bark . It is known to him that whenever excess cash is found, it is being kept in Sundry deposit account of the branch . Thus , he has failed to discharge his duties diligently and he has no authority to keep excess cash with him . It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that the allegation of the Petitioner that the vigilance department forced the Petitioner to make a statement admitting his guilt is false. On the other hand , from the records, it is clear that he has not informed the bank authorities with regard to the excess cash received byhim as perrules and regulations . With regard to issuance of no- due certificate , the Petitioner had a definite role to play in the three transactions and the said certificate 10 Sri S. Kumar and K. Theerthagiri could not have been issued but for the involvement and interference by the Petitioner because issuance of no - due certificate to the borrower is not a private transaction and only by missing his official 4202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

ההי

due certificate given to the concerned persons and under such circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contentionof the Petitioner that the charges framed against him are not proved in the enquiry.

the High Court has held " it is true that the standard of proof of criminal offence in civil or departmental proceedings is that of balance of probabilities and not prool beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal proceedings". There is no need to import into civil proceedings "the formulaused for the guidance of Juries in criminal cases . " The standard ofproof varies in either proceeding according tothe gravity of the charge . What is the appropriate degree of probability that is required in a given case depends on what is at stake . This principle holds good with equal force in disciplinary proceedings where although the rules of evidence and procedure of a civil court are not strictly applicable in cases involving serious charges with consequences as grave as dismissal , the standard of fairness and reasonableness as interpreted and adopted by the civit court will applyto meet the ends ofjustice. Relying on this decision, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case, the charge of misappropriation which is a serious chargehas not been proved with any satisfactory evidence and there is no intention to misappropriate the amount of the account holder and he has informed the excess cashto the concerned party even on the date of remittance and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the charge of misappropriation has been proved with satisfactory evidence.

10. Again, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings reported in 1987 Writ L.R. 18 Vincent . DVs. The Director of Government Examinations , where in the division Benches of the Madras High Court has held that "in any departmental proceedings, where a charge is made against a teacher that he has produced a bogus certificate meaning thereby he has fabricated the marks which he has obtainedto show that he has passed the examination , it is in effect a criminal charge of fabrication of a document and forgery. Though in a departmental proceeding strict standard of proof necessary in a criminal prosecution cannot be insisted upon at the same time, it would be wholly impropertohold a person guilty of such a charge except of sufficient and reliable material to prove that the marks actually obtained were different from those shown in the marks list . " Relying on this decision, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case , though the Respondent Bank alleged that the Petitioner has forged the signature of the Branch Manager of Buddireddipatri branch, the said allegation was not established before the enquiry with any satisfactory evidence , under such circumstances, it cannot he said that he is responsible for the issuance of no -due certificate issued to Mr. Kumar and Mr. Theerthagiri and hence, it cannot be said that the charges framed against the Petitioner were proved in the domestic enquiry.

11. Flere again , though I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner , I am not inclined to accept the contention because it is well established by the Respondent/Management that the Petitioner had definite role to play in the transactions covered by charge sheets especially when he had admitted the excess cash of Rs . 1000/-, when it is for Rs . 1200/ -, therefore, it cannotbe said that the charges were unreal and imaginary. Under such circumstances, I find this point against the Petitioner.

PointNo. 2:

The next point to be decided is to what relief the concerned employee is entitled ?

12. In view of my foregoing findings that the action of the Respondent /Management in imposing the compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits on the Petitioner for the alleged misconduct is legal and justified, 1 find the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him . No Costs .

13. 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 25th April , 2007)

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer No doubt, I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, but on perusing the entire records, I jam of the opinion that there is no point in this argument because the Petitioner who worked as clerk/shroff for number of years must know that he has received the excess ampunt during the remittance and he must inform the same to the higher officers of the branch immediately. But, in this case, though the Petitioner has received the excess anjount , he has not informed the same to the concerned authorities immediately. On the other hand , he has dealt with the amount and he has also contacted the party and he was bargaining with the party . Under such circumstances, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has no intention to misappropriate the amount. Further, in this case , though he has received excess amount of Rs. 1200/- at the first instance he has stated that hehas received only excess amount of Rs. 1000/- and he has also argued with the party that he has not received more thanRs .1000/- . Under such circumstances , it clearly established the malafide on his part , therefore i am not inclined to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the Pentioner . With regard to other charges , no doubt , there is no direct evidence to prove that the Petitioner has prepared the no-due certificate issued to Mr. Kumar and Mr. Theethagiri. On the other hand, from the evidence and fromthe records, it is established in the enquiry that without the connivance or without the help of the Petitioner, no one can prepare no due certificate . No doubt , the forged part ofthe signature has not been proved, but, I find force in the allegation that he is responsible for issuance of nu- [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Witnesses Examined :

None

On either side :

Documents Marked :

Forthe I Party/Petitioner:

Ex. No. Date Description

W1 21-06-02 Xerox copy of the show cause merno issued to Petitioner

W2 21-06-02 Xerox copy of the show cause memo issued to Petitioner

W3 21-06-02 Xerox copyofthe show cause memo issued to Petitioner

W4 10-07-02 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitionerto Respondent WS

10-07-02 Xeroxcopy of the reply of Petitioner to show cause memo

W6 10-07-02 Xerox copy of the replyof Petitioner to show cause memo

W7 15-07-02 Xerox copy of the reply of Petitioner to show cause memo

15-07-02 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner regarding Perusal of documents وW

25-07-02 Zerox copy of the reply given by Petitioner to memo

W11) 29-07-02 Zerox copy of the Reply given by Petitioner to memo

W11 30-07-02 Xerox copy of the reply of Petitioner tomemo

W12 02-08-02 Xerox copy of the charge memo & suspension order Issued to Petitioner W13 N

Xerox copy of the delence summing up submitted toEnquiry Officer W14 Nil

Xerox copy of the findings of the EnquiryOfficer

W15 Nil

Zerox copy of the comments of Petitioner over findings of Enquiry Officer

W16 03-05-04 Xerox copy of the order of Respondent proposing the Punishment of dismissal from service W17 26-05-04 Zerox copy of the reply of Petitioner regarding proposed Funishment W18 01-07-04 Zerox copy of the final order of punishment passed against Petitioner W19 13-08-04 Хегох copy of the appeal preferred byPetitioner

W20 15-02-05 Хетox copy of the order ofAppellate Authority

4203

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

W21 17-02-05 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent enclosing order of GeneralManager

W22 16-05-05 Xerox copy of the petition filed by Petitioner before Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Chennai W23 22-07-05 Хетox copy of the reply filed by Respondent before Assistant Labour Commissioner( Central),

Forthe Party/Management:

Ex. No. Date Description

M1 21-01-03 Xerox copy of the proceedings of domestic enquiry

M2 27-07-03 Xerox copy of the Presenting Officer's summing up Statementto EnquiryOfficer

M3 24-05-02 Xerox copy of the remittance challan by Sembathruthi Mahalie Mandram M4 N

Xerox copy of the S. B. challan remitted by Petitioner

Xerox copy of the Pass book ofA/ c . No.6865

M6 Ni

Xerox copy of the S.B. A/c. No. 6865 ledger sheet

Xerox copyof the resolution No. 19 ofSembathruthi Mabalir Mandram M8 NI

Xerox copy of the covering letter of Branch Manager Regarding complaint from Sembathruthi Mahalir Mandram

04-05-02

Xerox copy of the covering letter of Branch Manager Regarding no-due certificate

M10 17-05-02 Xerox copy of the covering letter of Branch Manager Regarding no-due certificate

M11 15-06-02 Xerox copy of the investigation report M12 17-06-02 Хегоx copy of the investigationreport M13 17-06-02 Xerox copy of the investigation report M14 26-05-04 Хегоox copy of the proceedings of personal hearing before Disciplinary Authority

M15 16-08-04 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by Petitioner

M16 04-12-04 Хегоx copy of the notice of Personal hearing

M17 23-12-04 Хетоx copy of the proceedings of personal hearing before Appellate Authority.

4204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADILA 9 , 192

नईदिल्ली, 5 जून , 2007

का. आ. 1885. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन एअर लाइंस लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनक कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या कंप. एन टी बी-1 /97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20013 /1 /2007 - आईआर ( भी 1)

स्नेह लत्ता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th June. 2007

S.O. 1885. In pursuance of Section the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. Nir . curmp. NTB-1/97) of the National Industrial Tribunal LabourCourt , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managemcar of Indian Air Lines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-6-2007.

[No. L- 20013/ 1/2017-12-1) )

SNEH LATA JAWAS . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL .

TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI PRESENT

JusticeGhanshyam Dass, Presiding Office Complaint No. NTB - 1 of1997

(Arising out of Ref. No. NTB - 1 of 1990 ) Parties:

Shri R.V. Savant

: Complainant

V/s.

Indian Airlines Iud . , Mumbai : Opp. Party

Appearances:

: Ms. Kunda Samant Auty For the complainanı

: Mr. Dixit, Counsel

For theOpp. Party

Mrs. Chhaya . Adv.

Ms. P. Janvekar , Adv.

: Maharashtra

State

Mumbai , dated this 18th day of May. 206

AWARD

1. This is a complaint under Section 33 Athe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( for short the Act filed by Mr. R.V. Sawant ( the workman for short ) against the indiare Airlines (the Company for short ) through its Regional Directors.

PART 11 - Ser. 3( i ) ) :::

2. The workman was employed as Master Technician with the Company since 14-2-1979 . He was required to work upon the Electrical Equipments of Planes and check them under the supervision and control of a Electrical Engineer . He was arrested on 9-9-1996 iscing a suspect of being involved in snugglingot gold bars worth Rs . 33.00.000 along with one fellow employer Mr. Kadam which led to his deemed suspension and to the termination of services by means of a resolution passed by the Board of Directors in its 23rd Meoung held on 25-5-1996 which resulted in communication of the ketter forder dtd. 3-1-1996 to the effect that the Board of Directors of the Company decided to terminate his services with momediate effect. The relevan portion of the memorandum of which the resolution was passed is as under :

Indian Airlines 1 ad . 23rd September 1996 23rdMeeting

MEMORANDUM (ItemNo. C- ?

"A report was received from the WesternnRegion . Indian Airlines that on the night of the Sth/9th of September . 1996. Shri R. V. Savwant . Master Technician ( 1mp . No. 322458 ) and Shri C.S. Kadam. Enginecoing Helper ( Emp. No. 3346691 Western Region were sercepted by the Air Inielligence Unit of the Customs Department , Mumbai , in connection with removal of contraband goli . Fatty five gold bars of 10 Inlas cach were recovered from arcerat VT -ELW (AR300 ) and were found in the possession of Shri C.S. Kadarı, Both. Shri R.V. Sawant and shri ( S. Kadam have admitted ba removal of these good jrom dis hatrack on sent No. 318 of aircraft VTFI.W whichhad operated 100 591 /A (Hyderabad /Sharjah Muntai and I0 631 632 ( Mum ไหล ท่ Karachi Mumbai ) on the. Pihel September. 1996 , Photocups of the letter No. SD IN A 116: 96 APD dated the Iith September . 1906 cerved from the Assistam Commissioner of ( ustoms ( AP ) An Intelligence Unit . Mumbai is attached at Annex- 1 " These and other cases of concealment of contraband on board the aircrati have been reported in a large number of newspapers , causing irreparable damage to the reputation of Indian Airlines Copies of saraples of some press clippings are attached at Annex - III . These acts are illegal , as well as anti national More importantly they also pose a threat to security of aircraft and passengers . Kemoval of panels , putting iterns in certain portions of the anere ! which are not meant for storage of goods etc .. would in alt probability, jeopardize the safety of the aircraft , and the lives of passengers. Such persons are clearly a security ask .

By virtue of bergruplon ces of Indian Airlines and their nature of job, such persons have access to aircraft and also undernake Night cuties . They have misused the trust imposeć . in thern by their illegal action and have made the property and systent of functioning of the Company 4205 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(0) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/ आषाद 9 , 1929

Vulnerable to misuse and external threats. The Company ave therefore lost confidence in these persons .

It is therefore, proposed to dispense with the services of Shri . C.S. Kadam, Engineering Helper , his accomplice Shri . R. V. Sawant , Master Technician , Western Region and Shri . 1. Nazeem Peer , Flight Puser , Southern Region , in terms of Service Regulation 13 (a) ( i) which is reproducedbelow:

Service Regulation 13:

3. After contest by the Company and hearing of parties, the then Presiding Officer of the Tribunal vide judgement and orderdt. 20-5-2003 allowed the complaint andheld that termination of services of the workman was bad in law for non -filing of an application by the Company under Section 33( 2)(b ) of the Act and hence , the workman was to be deemed to be in service . The aforesaid judgement was challenged before the Honourable High Court of Bombay in writ petition No. 1214 of 2004 by the Company, which has been allowed vide judgement di. 27/9/2006. The matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for decision on the issue as to whether the misconduct was the foundation of the action after taking evidence ofthe parties.

(a) The services of an employee may be terminated without assigning any reasons to him/her and without any prior notice but only on the followinggrounds not amounting to misconduct under the Standing Orders, namely:

4.After remand, the workman filed his own affidavit dtd. 05-2-2007 in lieu of his examination in chief. He has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the Company.His cross- examination is reproduced below:

(b) if he/she is in the opinion of the Corporation (the Board of Directors of Indian Airlines) incompetent and unsuitable for continued employment with the Corporation and such in competence and unsuitability is such as to make his/her continuances in employment detrimental to the interests of the Corporation .

If his/her continuation in employmem constitutes, in the opinion of the Corporation (the Board of Directors of Indian Airlines), a grave security risk making his /her continuance in service detrimental to the interests of the Corporation.

"No approval application was field by the Indian Airlines . IwasEngg.Helper appointed on 4-2-1979.1 became Trainee Technician on 16-1-1985. I was given training for one year. Ibecame Aircraft Technician on 16-1-1986 after completing training. I was placed on probation for a period of six months. It was extended twice for three months each. I do not think I comnitted any act of misconduct . I was not given any show cause notice . I was not given any charge sheet . On 3-10-1996 my services were terminated . Termination was assessed simpliciter on the basis of the resolution did. 3-10-1996 passed by the Board ofDirectors of the Company .Termination was for security reasons and loss of confidence . It is not a misconduct in Standing Orders. I was looking after the electric work of the Aircraft beingAircraft technician and has access to the Aircraft. After the arrest I was under deemed suspension . I was getting free air passages and medical treatment as per the Regulations of the Co."

5. The Company did not lead any oral evidence.

Il in the opinion of the Corporation (the Board of Directors of Indian Airlines) there is such a jus.ifiable lack of confidence which having regard to the nature of duties performed, would make it necessary in the interest of the Corporation , to immediately terminate his/her services.

Subinitted for approval."

Thereafter, the following resolution was passed:

IndianAirlines Limited

6 I have heard the learned cousel for the parties and gone through the record. I have also gone through the written submissions made by the parties and the citations referred therein .

Extracts from the Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the Board of Directors of Indian Airlines Limited held on 25th September, 1996.

e No. 20 - C Termination of service- Employees involved in Smuggling Activities:

7. The only question which needs to be decided at thisjuncture by this Tribunal in view of the order of remand passedby theHonourable High Court of Bombay in writ petition (supra) is as to whether the foundation of the action ofthe Company in terminating the services of the workman was misconduct .

8. The relevant paras of the judgment of the Honourable High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid writ petition are quoted below for the sake of convenience and brevity.

The Board considered the Memorandum giving particulars of incidents in which the 3 employees were involved and was unanimously of the opinion that continued employment of these persons would be highly detrimental to the interests of the Company and the safety of the public raveling in its aircraft.

"14. In so far as the present case is concerned, it would appear from the application filed by the Respondent workman that while the workman contested the applicability ofRegulation 13 on the ground that the Regulations had Itwas further resolved to terminate their services simpliciter and orders be issued accordingly.

4206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADIA 9 , 1929

[ PART 1 ]--SFC, 3 ( ii ) ]

action of termination in the present case was malafide .An allegation of mallides has to be substantiated on the basis of clear and cogent evidence . In the present case, the workman did not adduce any evidence at all and therefore there was no question of malafides being established.

ceased to remain in force after the repealing Act , there is no challenge to the validity of Regulation 13. In the circumstances , it would not be appropriate or proper for this Court to enquire into the constitutional validity of Regulation 13. There is no constitutional challenge before the Court and none has been urged in the submissions .

16. The Tribunal has in the concluding part of its judgement held that the termination of the services of the workman was in essence a termination for misconduct . Once the termination is held as a punishment for misconduct, theprovisions of Section 33( 2) ( b) were held to be attracted under which an approval application was required to be filed before the National Industrial Tribunal where a reference was pending at the material time . The question as to whether the power under Regulation 13 has been appropriately exercised must precede the termination whether Section 33( 2 )(b) is attracted . If the termination is hold not to be for an act of misconduct , but a discharge simpliciter otherwise than for misconduct , the provisions ofSection 33 ( 2) ( b) would ex facie not be attracted . At the hearing of the present proceedings , Counsel appearing for the Respondetit workman, however , submitted that in such an eventuality it would be appropriate if the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for the purposes of enabling the workman to lead evidence on the basis of which the issue as to whether misconduct was the foundation of the action can be decided."

9.After keeping in mind the aforesaid observations it is clear that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal for setting aside the action of the Company and concluding that misconduct was the essence for termination did not find favour with the Honourable High Court. However, the matter is rema.nded back for giving an opportunity to the workman to lead evidence and decide as to whether the misconduct was the foundation of the action . From the evidence , ledby the workman in this regard , I am unableto conclude that the workman has been successful in showing that the misconduct is the foundation for termination. Elis cross-examination makes it clear that it was not a misconduct on his part as specifically admitted by him.

9A. The validity of the Regulation 13 is not in challenge . Its virus is not in challenge as held by the HonourableHigh Court of Bombay nor it could be now at this stage. The Regulation 13 has not been found to be ultra vires so far .

15. The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction on a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Section33A enables an employee who is aggrieved by the contravention of the provisions of Section 33 by the employer, 100make a complaint in writing inter alia to the Labour Count or Tribunal . The Court or Tribunal upon receipt of the complaint is required to adjudicate upon the complaint"as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it" in secordance with the provisions of the Act and to submit an award to the appropriate government . No evidencewas led before the Industrial Tribunal on the part ofthe workman and the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the complaint purely on the basis of the documents which were on the record . There is merit in the grievance of the Petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal has overlooked that the jurisdiction which it was exercising was conditioned bythe requirement that the Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to it in accordance with the provisions of the Act . The case of the workman, assuming Regulation 13 applied, was that the employerwas intact, in the guise of discharging his services byan order of termination simpliciter actually punishing him for an act of misconduct. Such a case could mu be adjudicated upon purely upon the basis of an ipsi dixit and inthe absence of evidence before the Tribunal which is a fact finding body . The reasons which have weighed with the Tribunalan holding that none of the conditions under Regulation 17 were made out are equally specious . The Tribunal holds that the security of the aircraft and of the passengers would not be affected merely because contraband gold was smuggled . This line of reasoningal with respect wholly erroneous . Nothing can be as destructive of the safety and security of the aircraft and of the safety of the passengers as wanton acts involving the smuggling of contraband impinges upon the integrity of the aircraft. The safety of a sanitised area is serious compromised . The Tribunal was of the view that once the employee was placed under suspension he would not be in a position to access the aircraft in which case it was not necessary to exercise the power under Regulation 13. This lineof reasoning is entirely erroneous because the question that fell for consideration before the Tribunal was whether having regard to the nature of the incident that had taken place, the conditions precedent for the exercise of the power under Regulation 13 had been established . The fact that the employer was temporarily disabled from performing regular duties by suspension from service cannot har the Corporation from taking recourse to the provisions of Regulaton 11. The Tribunal has proceeded to hold that the

10. The learned counsel for the workman laid emphasis heavily on the case of Praba D. Kanan decided before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal of2006 arising out of SLP ( C) No. 22189 of 2005 and SLP(C) No. 6997 of 2006 whereing the Honourable Supreme Court concluded that " We have, therefore , no other option but to hold that regulation 13 would not apply to the case of Respondent (Praba Kannan) . However , despite the same , we are of the opinion that the interest of justice wouldbe served if the nature of relief to respondent granted by the High Court is upheld. We therefore , hold that although 4207

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9. 1929

[भाग 1 ] -- खण्ड 3(i) )

Regulation 13 is not unconstitutional but the same is not applicable to the case of Respondent. The workman was compensated by way of grant of back waged for 8 years.

11. I feel that no help is there to the workman by the aforesaid judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in view of remand order passed by the Honourable High Court of Bombay, quoted above . The Tribunal is required to decide only as to whether the misconduct was the foundation of the action Keeping in mind the detailed observations made by the Honourble High Court of Bombay in the writ petition (quoted above ), and the conscious consideration of the evidence on reccord , I conclude that misconduct was not the foundation of the action .

12. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली , 6 जून, 2007

का. आ 1886.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/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1, नई दिल्ली के पंबाट (मंदर्भ संख्या 61/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/117/95- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6 the June, 2007

S.O. 1886. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 61/96) Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. 11, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofTelecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2007.

[No. L-40012/117/95- IR(DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH RAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. L, NEW DELHI

LD. No. 61/96

In the matter ofdispute between:

Shri Munish Kumar , `

Son of Shri Ganga Prasad, VillageMaheshpur Thakuran,

Post-Chobani,

P.S. Subhash Nagar,

: Workman

Distt.Bareilly, U.P.

2811 (31/2007-22

Versus

TeleDistrict Engineer,

С. Т. О.Соmроund ,

: Management Bareilly,-243122

Appearances:

Workman in person with his A. R Shri B. K. Pd. Shri V. S. R. Krishna Advocate A. R. for mgt.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-40012/ 117/95 - IR (DU) dated 30-5-96 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of D/oTelecommunication Bareilly in terroinating the ServicesofShri Munish Kuriar is just and Legal ? If not, towhat relief the workman is entitled to? " 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the workman Shri Munish Kumar claims that he has worked with the respondent Telecom Department, he worked for 60 days in the year 1985 w.e.L. 1-10-85 10 10-11-85 and thereafterhe worked during the year 1988 to 1990 and thereafter he was re- engaged having been selected by the selection committee of the respondent and his name was sponsored by Employment Exchange and he worked regularlyuptoAugust, 1993. He thus claims that he worked regularly for two years from 1991 to 1993 under the Assistant Engineer Phones, Choplala , Bareilly where he was asked to sign on the attendance register w.c.f. 1-8-93 and thereafter he completed more than one year of continuouswork without any break till December , 1994. He was asked to furnish details on 28-10-94 and 15-11-94 by respondent regarding his employment with the respondent but inresponse to this he informed the concerned officials that he was not in possession of relevant Information and the same couldbe verified from the department concerned, thereafter he was prevented from signing attendance register w.e.f. 5-12-94 and on furnishing the requisite information his services were terminated verbally and illegally w.e.f. 1-5-94 by verbal orderwithout notice .

3.He impugned the action of his termination as illegal and being contrary to the provisions of 1. D. Act. He made representation dated 3-12-9410 A.L.C. ( C) Ministry of Labour and thereafter on 18-1-95 he made another representation for holding conciliation proceedings which ended in failure as per report dated 28-7-95,Workman claims that he is entitled to conferment of temporary status as he worked for more than 240 days continuously and his termination amounts to retrenchment being in violation of section 25-F of the 1. D. Act.

4.The workman claims conferment of temporary status as he has worked for more than 240 days continuously alongwith reinstatement with all consequent benefits.

4208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

5. The claim has been contested by filing written statement raising preliminary objections ( 1 ) that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as respondent being a Ministry of Union of India CAT has jurisdiction and not this court.

6. On merits the claim of the petètioncı is denied stating that there has been ban on recruitment /engagement ofworkman in the department after 30-3-85 .The workman wasnot engaged during the year 1988 to 1990. The workman Munish Kumar never worked prior to 30-5-85 or 1-8-93. He motivated some departmental official by undue gratification or pressure or otherwise and got him engaged in the department by adopting foul and false practice (resources) and as suchhe was asked vide letter dated 28-10-94 and 15-11-94to fumish details of work done prior to 30-3-85 but he did not furnish any reply asked for. Regarding wages complainant was asked to place attendance sheet alongwith work diary duly verified by the official under whom he worked for payment of wages. The M.O. No.10346 daled 8-7-95 of Rs . 2480/- towards payment of wages was sent 10 the applicant but the same was not accepted by the applicant. It is denied that there is violation of provisions ofsection25 F of the 1. D. Act or that workman is entitledto such reliefor any other relief.

7. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the controverted facts of the written statement were denied and those of claim statement were reiterated tobe correct.

8. Qutofpleadings the following questions arise for determination :

t. Whether the respondent is an Industry 2 Whether the workman is entitled to the status of confirmation of temporary status as claimed? If so its effect

3. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement

4. Relicf

9. Management examined Shri H.C. Arora MWI but hewas not made available for further or complete cross examination by the workman and his deposition cannot he read into evidence . The management then examined Shri B. S. Bhandari A.G.M. Admn . as MW 1 to support its case and the workman examined himself as WW I to support his claim.

10. have heard Shri B.K.Pd A/R for the applicant workman and Shri V.S.R. Krishna Advocate A/ R for the management al length and perused the record meticulously.

The findings on the above questions are as follows:

1. The question No.1 whether the respondent Telecom Department is an or not is no longer res - integra. The respondent Telecom Department has been held to be an Industry by the Supreme Court în its decision captioned

[PART 11- Sec. 3(ⅱ ) ] asGeneral Manager Telecom Vs. S.S. Rao & Ors reported in (1998) 1 SL. Ty , following the law laid down by 7 judges bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage BoardVs. A.Rajappa reported in ( 1978)2 S.C.C 213 , Hence respondent is held to be an Industry .

2. Now I take up questions No. 2 and 3 for determination. It is an admitted fact that the there is no dispute that the workman worked for 31 days during the period w.e.l. 1-10-85 to 31-10-85 with the respondent , 30 days w.e.f. 1-11-85 to 30-11-85 as per document Ex. WW 1/2,73 days as per document Ex . WW 1/3 , from 17-12-89 го 31-12-89, 15 days, 1-1-900 to 31-1-90 31 days, 1-2-90 to 16-2-90 16 days and 1-3-90 to 19-3-90 19 days as per document Ex. WWI/ 4, from 4-6-91 to 30-6-91 27 days , 1-7-91 to 8-7-91 8 days vide Ex. WWI/6, 1-5-91 to 31-5-91 31 days, 31-7-91 10 31-8-91 32 days, 1-9-91 ιο 8-9-91, 24-9-91 to 30-9-91 15 days , 1-10-91 to 31-10-91 31 days . 6-2-92 to 29-2-92, 24 days vide Ex . WWI /7 , from 1-3-92 to 27-3-92,27 days vide Ex . WW/ 8, from 9-5-92 to 31-5-9223 days vide Ex .WW1 /9 and from 1-8-93 to 31-8-93 , 31 Jays . 1-9-93 10 30-9-93 30 days . 1-10-93 to 31-10-93 31 days . 1-11-93 10 30-11-93 30 days, 1-12-93 10 31-12-93 31 days . 1-1-94 1031-1-94 31 days . 1-2-94 to 28-2-94, 28 days, 1-3-94 to 31-3-94 31 days . 1-4-94 b 30-4-94 30 days 1-5-9410 31-5-9431 clays, 1-6-94 11.30-6-94 30 days, and 1-7-94 1 () - 7-9410 days Total 344 days from August 93 to July , 94 vide Ex.WWI/MI Certificate issued by the department i.e. he has worked for more than one year. It is also an admitted fact that the workman worked as casual worker during the aforesaid periods . There is not an fíota of evidence that his services were terminated after giving one month notice or after payment of one month salary in lieu of notice as per provisionsof section 25 Fof the L.D. Act. Thus the services of the workman were leterminated in violation of the provisions of section 25 F of the I.D. Act. Hence his termination from services without following the provisions of section 25 F is illegal .

11. The workman has also claimed that he is also entitled to temporary status as he has worked for more than one year during the aforesaid period. The stand of the respondent is that the workman has obtained the work by adopting illegal and uncalled for tactics but MW 1 has not so stated though shown his ignorance that the workman hasworked as mentioned above . From the statement of the workman and documents Ex . WW 1 /M 1 issued by the department certifying that the workman has worked in the department as temporary worker in CDOT Exchange , Champula for 344 days as detailed therein goes to prove that the workman has worked for 344 days i.e. for more than one year during the period 1-8-93 to 10-7-94. During the course of arguments a photo copy of the scheme el confirmation has been shown and the same is marked X for convenience sake and reproduced as under:

"Casual Labourers ( grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme.

4209 [ भाग 1Ⅱ - खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

1. This scheme shall be called " casual Labourers (Grant ofTemporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989 ".

1. This scheme will come in force with effect from 1-10-89 onwards,

(fil) Conferment of Temporary status on a casual. labourer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement willbe on daily rates of pay on a need basis. He maybe deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circles on the basis ofavailability ofwork

2 This scheme is applicable to the casual labourers employed by the Department of Telecommunications.

3. The provisions in the scheme would be as under:

(iv) such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not, however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Gr.D.Posts.

10.

Fromthe perusal of the above scheme it is apparent

of (A) Vacancies in the Group D cadres in various offices of the Departinent Telecommunications would be exclusively filled by regularization of casual labourers and no outsiders would be appointed to the cadre except in the case of appointments on compassionate grounds, till the absorption of alt existing casual labourers fulfilling the eligibility conditions including the educational qualifications prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules . However , regular GroupD staff rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against existing/ future vacancies. In the case of illiterate casual labourers, the regularization will be considered only against these posts in respect of which illiteracy will not be an impediment in the performance ofduties . They wouldbe allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they had worked continuously as Casual labourer for the purposes of the age limits prescribed for appointment to the Group D cadre, ifrequired, outside recruitment for filling up the vacancies in GRD will be permitted only under the condition when eligible casual labourers are not available.

(B) Till regular Gr.D Vacancies are available to absorb all the casual labourers to whom this scheme is applicable , the casual labourers wouldbe conferred a Temporary Status, as per the details given below.

5.Temporary Status:

(i) Temporary Status wouldbe conferred on all the casual labourers currently employed and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days (206days in the case of offices observing five day week) . Such casual labourers will be designated as temporary Mazdoor.

that the scheme was made applicable from 1-10-89 for filling up the vacancies in Group D cadre in various offices of department of telecommunication for regularisation of casual workers and till the regular Group D vacancies are available to absorb all casual workers to whom the scheme was applicable and according to that scheme the casual labourers would be confirmed as temporary as detailed therein the Scheme and thus temporary status wouldbe confirmed on all casual workers currently employed and who have rendered continuous service for at least one year out of which they must have been engaged on work for 240 days (206)days. In case of offices observing 5 days week such casual worker will be designated as temрогагу mazdoor. From the above provisions of the scheme it is apparent that this scheme was intended to fill up the vacancies in D Group cadre in Telephone department by regularization of all casual workers and all casual workers according to that scheme would be confirmed tepiporary employees ie . to say that the workers who were employed during the period 1-10-89 onwards such temporary status can also be conferred to a workman who has worked for 240 days.In the instant case workman has been working before 1985 for few days who has only worked for one year during the year 1-8-93 to 10-7-94 and he has never worked or completed one year before 1-10-89 . Therefore , confirming temporary status to the workman does not arise. There is no materialto show that the vacancies against which he worked was the regular and permanent one. Therefore , the benefit ofconfirming of temporary status on the workman whohas worked for one year during the years 1993-1994 is not available to the workman in the absence that vacancy against which the workman worked is still in existence or is of permanent nature.

(4) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/ availability of regular Gr.D. posts.

In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the service of the workman has been dispensed with 4210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART 11-SEC. 3(ii )]

referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

inviolation of the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act as he has not been given notice or notice pay . Hence he is entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits . However, he is not entitled to the temporary slatus as discussed above. The reference is answered accordingly. Filebe consignedto record room.

SANT SINGH BAL, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager , BSNI, Meerut in terminating the services of Mohd . Shahnawaj S/ o Shri Shakeel Hassarı w.e.f.29-5-85 is just and legal ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled? "

Dated:17-5-07.

नई दिल्ली , 6 जून , 2007

The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In theclaim statement it has been stated that he was engaged as casual latiour on 1-9-1982. He has worked as casual labour up to 28-9-1985. The nature of the work done by the workman was permanent .

That the services of the workman were terminated on 29-09-1985 as his services were no longer required whereas the work was still existing.

का.आ. 1887.-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, अनुबंधा में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1] , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/84/2003- आई.आर. ( डी. यू.) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

That the workman has been removed without payment ofretrenchment compensation and he has worked for more than 240 days in every year during the period of his employment . He has not been paid retrenchment compensation in view of Section 25 F of the IDAct.

New Delhi , the 6the June , 2007

That after termination of the services of the workman Shri Vijay Kumar, Suresh Chand, Shish Pal Singh Yadav have been engaged from 1-1-1997. These workmen have been engaged in violation of Section 25 G & H of the I D Act, 1947.

S.O. 1887. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 48/2005) Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2007.

[No. L-40012/84/2003 - IK(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The Management has filed written brief. In the written brief it has been stated that the claim application filed is misconceived and not maintainable under law . It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court a copy ofwhich was served on the respondents. The respondents duly drafted a reply to the writ petition and the reply thereof may be treated as apart and parcel of this reply. True copy of the writ petition as also reply of the respondent is annexed and marked as Annexure R- 1 to this statement .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT - IL, NEW DELHI

It is submitted that the present claim is therefore barred under the doctrine of res judicata or res subjuídce and hence is liable to be dismissed .

LD . No.48/2005

PresidingOfficer : R. N. RAI

In thematterof: Mohd. Shahnawaj , S/o Shri Shakeel Hassan , R/oVillage& Post - Incholi , Distt.Meerut(U.P.)

That the claimant has suppressed the material fact that he had already earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court in regardto the present cause of action and to this extent he had tried to mislead this learned Tribunal. It is a settled law that a person who does not approach the competent courts with clean hands is entitled to no relief.

Versus

That the present claim application is barred by limitation . Admittedly the cause of action pertains to the period 1985 or so and the present application filed in the year2005/2006 is patently barred by limitation.

TheChief General Manager, Bharat SancharNigam Ltd., SancharVibhag, Distt. -Meerut (U.P. ).

AWARD

That apart the present case is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Versus Uma Devi and hence in view of the settled position the present claim application is liable to be dismissed.

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-40012/84/ 2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt.. 06-06-2005 has [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( i) )

4211

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

That the averments of the petitioner as regards his claim are totally denied. It is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

This referencehas been filed in2005 after 20 years of the alleged termination of the services of the workman , It was the duty of the workman to establish that he worked for240 days atleast in any of the years of his employment, He has not filed any documents to substantiate his claim statement. There is inordinate delay in raising the dispute.

That the applicant has not put in the requisite period of service to be entitled to any relief. As a matter of fact the applicant was working as a casual labourer on need basis and was paid accordingly on daily wages. The applicant onhis own appears to have choosen to not report for work and bence the question of his continuance does not rise. No rights have accrued to the applicant on this behalf.

It was submitted from the side of the management that there is no explanation of delay . Not to speak of plausible or satisfactory explanation . There is no explanation at all what prevented the workman to approach this forum after a long period of 20 years . It is settled law that stale claim made after an inordinate and unexplained period could not be entertained .

Since the applicant on his own has stopped coming to work the question of applicability ofsection 25 F in such cases does not arise. The applicant being a casual labour working on need basis is not entitled to the protection of Section 25F of ID Act, 1947,

My attention was drawn to 2005 (5) SCC page 91 paras 12 and 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that longdelay impedes the maintenance of the records . Belated claim should not be considered.

11has beenheld in (2001) 6 SCC 222 as under:

The issue of violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India does not arise in the case of the applicant since he is not similarty placed like others. The applicant cannot compare himself to others who have been either regularized or granted other reliefs for reasons peculiar to those cases . It is submitted that at this later stage the respondents are not in a position to collect all documents except as stated in the counter reply annexed with the application.

That the allegation of the petitioner/claimant that he had worked in the office of the respondents till 1985 is totally false and misleading.

"Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate government to exercise its powers under section 10 of theAct. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters whichhad since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service."

That apart the present reference is highly belated and to this extent the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the instant case reference has been made after a delay of long 20 years, Limitation Act is not applicable in ID cases but stale cases should not be considered. Delay in the instant case is inordinate and relief can be rejected on the ground of delay alone.

'The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.

The management did not turn up after filing reply. The case proceeded ex-parte as none was present on several dates to cross examine the workman,

The reference is delayed and it is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court cited above . The workman has not proved that he has worked fror 240 days. by cogent documentary evidence . Mere assertions of the affidavit are not sufficient to prove 240 days work as has beenheldbythe Hon'ble Apex Court.

Heard argument from the side of the workman.

Even in ex -parte cases it is the duty of the workman to prove the contents of his claim statementby cagent documentary evidence . The workman has failed to do so. He is not entitled to get any relief.

The reference is replied thus:-

Theworkman has submitted written brief also. It was submitted that the services of the workman were terminated 29-05-1985מ without payment of any retrenchment compensation.He has worked for 240 days in 1983, 1984& 1985.He has not been paid retrenchment coenpensation w/s 25 F of the ID Act, so termination of his services is invalid.

The workman has not annexed with the record any document to establish the fact that he has worked for 240 days in any year of his employment except his affidavit.

The action of the management of Chief General Manager , BSNL, Meerut in terminating the services ofMohd. Shahnawaj S/ o Shri Shakeel Hassan w.e.f. 29-5-85 is just and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer

Date:31-5-2007.

The case of the workman is that his services came to an end in October , 1985 and he moved an application for re-engagement on 20-9-1999 for the first time. He appmached the management after a gap of 14-15years.

4212

[PART II-Str . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9. 1924

3. The Executive Engineer.

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

PWD, Division -IV ( DA) . Hauz Khas . Police Colony. NewDelhi-16 .

AWARD

का.आ. 1888.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/206/ 2004 [ IR ( CM- II) J , Central Goverment di . 4-8-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :

[से. एल-42012/206/2004- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 6th June, 2007

"Whether the demand of CFWD Karamchari Union for compassionate appoinment of Smt . Rajwati dependent ofLate Shri inder Pal in the organization ofCPWD is legal and justified ? If yes, to what benefit she is entitled."

S.O. 1888. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 75/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of C.P.W.D.. Electrical Coordination Circle C.P.W.D. and their workmen . which was deceived by the Central Government on 6-6-2007.

[No. L-42012/206/2004 - IR ( CM- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The legal heir of the deceased workman late Shi Inder Pal has filed statement of claim. It has been stated therein that the husband of the claimant late Shri Inder Pal . Beldarwas employed with the Public Department , Executive Engineer , PWD VL, Sub -division - IV, NCT, Delhi Govt . New Delhi . Manageinent No. 3 in Division No. 4 while on duty on 16-8-2002 he was asked to sweep the sewer though it was not part of his duty He died while doing so. leaving behind his wife applicant/ claimant. The death certificate of Shri Inder Pal is annexed herewith as Annexure "A " , the said accident took place during the course of employment .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, NEW DELHI

L. D. No. 75/2005

PRESENT:

Shri R. N. Rai , PresidingOfficer

Stat. Nitika Bhola-Ist Party

Smt. Bindiya Savara- 2nd Party

That the claimant applied for appointment on compassionate ground for the job held by her husband or for any other suitable job (vide application dated 17-10-2002 ) as the deceased was the sole bread carner of the family and the whole family was dependent on the salary of the deceased . The family is not having any other source of income nor having any other moveable or ismmovable property. The claimant applied for appointment andalso complied with all the formalities .

In the matter of:

Smt . Rajwati (Legal heir ofdeceased employee Sh, Inder Pal, Beldar) , W/o Late Shri Inder Pal , Through CPWD Karamchari Union , Plot No 1, Aram Bagh , Paharganj, New Delhi-55.

Versus

That it is learnt that the application of the claimant has been forwarded by the Public Works Department Circle No. 2 (GOD) Superintending Engineer , New Delhi to the Management No. 2 vide letter dated 29-11-2002 . The claimant waited for the outcome of the said application hoping to overcome the hardships of the family. The financial condition of the family deteriorated from time to time and ultimately has worsened The claimant requested repeatedly to the above management but to no result .

1. Director General ofWorks , CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

That scheme is directed to enable the deceased family to resettle immediately on the death of the Government employee and to overcome the financial difficulties faced by the family.

2. The Superintending Engineer, Electrical Co-ordination Circle, CPVD,

EastBlock , R. K. Puram, New Delhi .

That the applicant ( wife of the deceased employer ) has a valid case for consideration to be appointed on compassionate ground .

[ भाग II-खंड (ii) ]

4213

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

That after being satisfied the conciliation officer referred the dispute to the Hon'ble Court for proper adjudication of the dispute . The appropriate Ministry of Labour referred the dispute.

but due to existing waiting list, the appointment to the claimant could not be offered. It is reiterated again as and when the vacancy will be available, appointment can be madeto the claimant as per ber turn .

Themanagement has filed written statement . H has been stated therein that the present suit is bad for misjoinder and non -joinder of necessary parties hence the present suit is liable to be disntissed oun rightly.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In her rejoinder she has reiterated the averments of her claim statement andhas denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most ofthe paras ofthe claim statement,

That there exists no cause of action against the answering defendants hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference was received on 4-8-2005 with the direction to give award within a period of3 months . Registered notice has been served by registered post to both the parties . The Ministry of Labour, Government of India also sent the reference to the management by registered post in the month ofAugust, 2005. The management is not turning up despite several dates given, The matter is pending almost for more than 1½ years . On 8-5-2007 the case proceeded ex-parte and on 23-5-2007 it was reserved for award.

It is correct that the husband of claimant late Shri Inder Pal , Beldar was employee with the PWD under Sub - tivision -VI , Govt. of NCT of Delhi . However, it is submitted that Shri Inder Pal was on duty on 16-8-2002but the contention of claimant is wrong and denied that hewas asked to sweep the sewer as per inquiry conducted by Inquiry Officer, Shri Saraswat , Assistant Engineer -V. It has been proved that Shri Inder Pal , Beldar was trying tokeep the manhole cover on the manhole, he lost his balance and slipped into the manhole having a depth of 16' -0" and he cried for help then Shri Raja Ram , Beldar tried hisbest to bring him out but he also slipped in the marthole and due to toxic gases and suffocation both the beldars lost their lives accidently on government work.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that her husband Sh. Inder Pal while discharging his duties slipped into manhole having depth of 16ft. and due to toxic gases etc. Shri Raja Ram, Belder and Shiri Inder Pal lost their lives unfortunately in the interest of the government . This fact is proved by the report of the Assistant Engineer dated 28-7-2002 .

That it is correct that the claimant applied for appointment on compassionate ground.

Theworkman is a widow of Late Shri Inder Pal, Beldar. She was interviewed by the management on 24-10-2005 and she has received 97 marks for Beldar. The list contains the names of 8 workinen and she has been found most suitable candidate for compassionate appointinent.

The case of the management is that the vacancies fallingunder compassionate quota have already been filed and there is ceiling of 5 % for giving-compassionate appointment.

It is submitted that the application of the claimant has been forwarded to Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle No. 3 (GOD ) for consideration of compassionate appointment . The application of the claimant further forwarded to the ChiefEngineer, Zone- IV (NICT), New Delhi for further necessary action. The Chief Engineer, PWD, Zone- IV has constituted the committee under his Chairmanship and considered the request for the applicant for compassionate ground and sent the recommendations of the committee to the S. E. (Elect. ) (Co-ord. ) , CPWD , R. K. Puram, New Delhi for further necessary action on 24-10-2005 (copy annexed) . Despite all efforts the appointment to the claimant could not be coffered as there is wailing in the Beldar category since 1994 under 5 % quota. The applicant has been suitably informed on 16-11-2005 that as and when vacancy will be available the applicant shall be considered for appointment.

The guidelines for 5% ceiling to compassionate appointment are not reasonable . There may be occasions when a number ofworkmen while engaged on government dutymay fall victim to some natural calamity and lose their lives while discharging government duty. In case the guidelines for 5% ceiling is adhered to , none of the dependents of the workmen may get compassionate appointment . Compassionate appoint is given in a particular set of circumstances , so that the dependents of the deceasedworkmen may maintain themselves. In case there is such guidelines under which compassionate appointment are given after a period of 5 to 10 years, the purpose of compassionate appointment will be frustrated.

It is submitted that the compassionate appointment scheme was introduced by the DOPT, Govt. of India in 1998 and guidelines issued from time to time ( copy enclosed) . The case of the claimant shall be dealt as per guidelines issued under the above scheme .

The case of the management is that the waiting list of 1994 of compassionate appointment is still existing. In the circumstances the widow of the deceased workman will not get compassionate appointment during her service That it is explored all the possibilities to offer compassionate appointment to the applicant under the scheme introduced by DOPT, Govt . of India under 5% quota, 4214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

age period . The scheme will become meaningless to this widow. In special circumstances taking a lenient view the case of a large number of dependents of the deceased workmen waiting for compassionate appointment . the guidelines of 5 % ceiling maybe lifted to give adequate reliefto the needy dependents . There should not be a ceiling for compassionate appointment as it is given 10 needy dependents and not to all as a general rule . The government maytake liberal view and provide employment to all the dependents of the deceased workmen who are awaiting compassionate appointment since 1994.

In case, a major number of workmen fall victim of some natural calamity while discharging government function, the compassionate appointment of the independents cannot be postponed indefinitely due to the fact that the vacancies falling vacant under 5 % ceiling have already been filled up . However, in 7(c) there is provision for giving compassionate appointment on casual/daily wage/ ad hog/ contract basis against ceiling of 5 %. The management should have given the workman compassionate appointment at the place of casual/daily wage/ad hod / contract basis . She is the most needy woman and compassionate appointment cannot be refused to her on the ground of 5 % ceiling. She should have been given appointment on ad hoc basis and regular appointment may be given to her when she becomes eligible under 5% ceiling. The management should give her compassionate appointment on casual /daily wage/ ad hoc /contract basis within two months from the publication of the award .

The reference is replied thus:

The demand of CPWD Karamchari Union for compassionate appointment of Sunt . Rajwati dependent of Late Shri Inder Pal in the organization of CPWD is legal andjustified. The management should give compassionate appointnient to Smt Rajwati , W/ o Late Shri Inder Pal. Beldar on casual /daily wage/ad hoc/ contract basis within two months from the date of publication of the award.

The award is given accordingly.

R. N. RAL, Presiding Officer Date:30-5-1007 .

नईदिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

का.. 1889.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी. डब्ल्यू,डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के योच. अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो किन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । सं. एल-42012/145/2003- आई आर ( सी एम-11 ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्कअधिकारी

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ) ) New Delhi, the 6th June, 2007

5.O. 1889.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 130/ 2004) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal-cum- LabourCourt No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2007.

[No. L-42012/145/2003 -IR(CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI I. D. No. 130/2004

PRESENT:

Shri R. N. Rai , PresidingOfficer

Smt. Nitika Bhola-1st Party

Sh . V. K. Saini-2nd Party

In the matterof:

Shri Gayadeen and Ors.

C/o The President ,

All India CPWD Karamchari Union , PlotNo. I. Udaseen Mandir, AramBagh, Paharganj , New Delhi - 110055

Versus

1. TheExecutive Engincer, Electrical Division-12 , Baba Kharag Singh Marg,

Kitab Mahal , New Delhi

2. M/s. Apro-tech System ( P ) Limited, 13, Vaishali, Pilampura , NewDelhi

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its Letter No. L-42012/ 145/2003 [ IR ( CM- II ) ] , Central Government dt. 9-8-2004 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the contract between the management of CPWD and their contractor is sham ? If so , the demand of theAll India CPWD (MRM ) Karamchari Sanghathan for regularisation of S/ Shri Gayadeen . Gajender Kumar. Ram Chander and Raj Kumar , contract labourers engaged for operation and maintenance of generators sets, is legal and jusu- fied? Ifyes , to what relief the workmen are entitled and from what date ?" 4215 [ भाग 11--खंड ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

bythemanagement. The contractor employs his workmen for doing the particular job and payment is made by the contractor to its workmen . Accordingly the payment towards the specific job entrusted to the contractor was madeto the contractor who had employed the workmen for the same and paid the wages as agreed between the workmen and the contractor.

The union on behalf of the workman has filed statement of claim. It has been stated therein that the workman No. I was initially inducted on 21-11-1996 and theworkman No. 2 was inducted in May, 1998 as Generator Operators through the private Contractor-Management No. 2 for discharging the job of operation and maintenance ofGenerator set, for the Principal Employer , Management No. 1. It is stated that ever since their appcintment they Ihave been discharging theirjobs diligently and sincerely for the management of CPWD having been posted at Kalibari Apartments under the Executive Engineer, Electrical i.e.Management No. 2.

That this Hon'ble Tribunal does not havejurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties i.e. the workmen and the replying respondents for want of employer -employee relationship between the workmen and the management/ respondents . In addition the reference is alsowrong.

That there has not been any policy ofthe department toregularizethe workmen of the contractor and in abserice ofthe policy or the scheme for regulation/reinstatement of such contract workers in the department , the workmen cannot claim reinstatement or regularization with the management

That the nature of job discharged by both the workmen are perennial and permanent in nature and the jobs satisfy all the ingredients contained in Section 10 of the CLRA Act , 1970 work suiting abolition of contract labour in the said job. It is stated that the contract awarded byCPWD in favour of contractor for carrying out perennial nature ofjob is bad in law and the contract itselfis vague which ought to be lifted in Industrial adjudication.

That the workmen are placed under the direct control and supervision of principal employer and the contract lhas no role to play in day to day affairs of working ofthe workmen. It is stated that the nature ofjob performedby the workmen are similar to the workmen posted on regular basis and theywork as if under the principal employer.

That it is further stated that the claimants before this Hon'ble Tribunal do not have requisite qualification and experience under the recruitment rules pertaining to the post . In addition , there is a ban on recruitment imposedby the department since 1985. The recruitment to the post can onlybe made against the notified statutory rules and not otherwise.

That each of the workmen has completed 240 days in cach yearofworking requiring the establishment ofprincipal employer to regularize them in the principal employer.

That last the workers raised their dispute before the ALCwhich in terms referred to the appropriate government which in terms referred the same for adjudication to this Hon'ble Court .

The tennination even otherwise in the height of high- handedness, mala fide , unfair labour practice and victimization and also illegal and unjustified .

That the workers are entitled to the regularization/ absorption of the above said workmen in the establislunent ofCPWD since their respective dates of initial appointment througli contractor with consequential benefits in the matter ofpay/emoluments and other benefits .

The management has filed written statement. It has been stated therein that the chrim before the Hon'ble Tribunal is directed on the basis of misconception of law by the workmen and also on misleading facts .

That it is further submitted that the workmen for which the respective contractor has been awarded is a specialized work and the CPWD get the specialized work done on contract basis through call of tenders in accordance with the procedures laid down in the CPWD manual . The claimants before this Hon'ble Tribunal as stated hereinabove are workers of the respective contractor and they have worked with them accordingly in connection with thetendered work awarded to the individual contractor. The contractor is accountable to the job in terms of the tender agreement . It is further stated that it is within the domain of the management to get its job executed through the concerned agency and in view of the facts and its requirement and the workmen/claimants cannot claim regularization and/or continuation with the replying management merely because they have worked with the contractor for certain period in absence of any statutory ruleor scheme of the government. It is submitted that as stated hereinabove , there is no such statutory rule or scheme which entitled the claimants/ workmen regularization with the replying respondents.

It is submitted that the averments made in the corresponding para of the claim are misconceived and misleading . It is wrong to say that the claimant ShriGayadeen and Gajender Kumar had been working with the management at Kali Bari Apartment through the respondent No. 2 i.e. M/ s . Apro-tech System (P) Limited since 21-11-1996 and May, 1998 respectively. It is submitted That it is stated that this claim is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Tribunal inasmuch as there has not been employer- employee relationship between the workinen and the management of CPWD . The workmen have been the employees of the concerned contractor and. they were working under the direct control and supervision of the contractor. The replying responderit at no point of time employed the workmen nor were they paid the wages

2811 G1 /2007-23 PART II- SH ül 4216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30,2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

despite several dates given. The matter is pending almost for more than 2 years . On 17-5-2007 the case proceeded ex parte and on 23-5-2007 it was reserved for award.

that the respondent No. 2 was awarded the tender for the first time on 21-11-1997. It is wrong to say that the replying respondent ever engaged the workmen as Generator Operator of they have been discharging their job for the management of CPWD. It is also wrong to say that ever since their engagement with the respondent No. 2 the workmen have been posted at Kali Bari Apartments. It is submitted that the various works pertaining to fire fighting service have been granted to the various firms by calling tender.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that workman No. I was initially inducted on 21-11-1996 and the workman No. 2 was initially inducted in May, 1998 as Generator Operator through Pvt. Contractor, management No.2 for discharging the job of operation and maintenance ofGenerator Sct for the Principal Employer, management No. 1.

11 was further submitted that they have been dischargingtheir duties sincerely and diligently. There is no mention regarding the working period of workmen No. 3 and4.

It is wrong to say that the nature of job discharged by the workmen are perennial and permanent nature and they satisfy the ingredients contained in the CLRA ACI , 1970.It is further se rang to say that the contract awardedto the various firms for evention of the job under reference is bad in law or the same are vague. It is submitted that as per the Act it is the appropriate government which can direct abolition of contract labour and not the claimant or even thisHon'ble Tribunal as authoritatively held by the various courts.

The workmen have filed Log Books which bear the name ofGayadeen all along and at some places the name of the other 2 worknien . These are photocopies of Fire Log Book. These: photocopies have not been signed by any official ofmanagement No. 1. There is no seal and signature of management No. 1 on the Log Book . Simply names of theworkmen and the duty hours have been mentioned It is wrong to say that the claimants have completed 240 days in each year of working. It is also wrong to say that the replying respondents are under legal or statutory dutyto regularize the claimants . As stated hereinabove. there is no policy or statutory rule requiring the replying respondent to regularize such workers ofthe contractors

Admittedly the workmen are the contractors workers They have to establish that they worked under the control and supervision of the management No. 1. The duties assigned to them liave not been given by the management as the photocopies lack seal and signature of any of the official ofmanagement No. 1.

11 is wrongto say that the replying respondents have terminated the services of the claimants / workmon. Situce they have not been engaged by the replying respondent there is no question of their termination by replying respondent. Likewise it is patently wrong to say that there has been any high handedness , mala fide or unfair labour practice of victimization of the claimants by the replying respondents. It is also wrong and therefore denied that the action ofthe replying respondent is illegal or unjustified .

It is patenty wrong that the claimants are entitled for regularization and/ or absorption with the establishment of the replying respondent. It is submitted that the claimantu workmen has got no legal right or statutory right seeking regularization or for continuation with the job of the replying respondem. They are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Theworkmen applicants have filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of their claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement .

Ithas been held in several cases that it is the duty of the contract workers to establish that they worked under the control and supervision of the management. The workmen have to prove that the payment was made to them by the managerment and their services were integrated with the management. This fact cannot be proved by filing simply affidavit . Even in ex parte cases the workmen have to prove by cogent documentary evidence that they have performed their duties under the control and supervision of the manageinent and their services were integrated with the management and the management paid to them . Therc is no such documentary evidence on record to indicate that there is contract of service between the workmen and the management. Provisions of Contract Act are attracted anly when it is proved that the workmen have been hired for the work ofthe management and they worked under the control and guidance of the management. This fact carmos be proved by photocopies of log books which are neither signed by any official of the management nor there is ans seal of the managernment . There is no attendance register also.

It has been held in Scale 2006 ( 1 ) Uma Devi's case that the feasibility for regularisation may be considered U the workmen have worked for more than 10 years . In the instant case one workman has worked for more than 10 years but he has not established that he worked under the guidance and control of the management . The averments It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference was received on 9-8-2004 with the direction 10 giveawardwithin a period of3 months . Registered nutice has been served by registered post to both the parties . TheMinistry of Labour, Government of India also som the reference to the managerment by registered post in the month ofAugust, 2004. The management is not turning up [ भाग-खंड ३( ii ) ]

4217 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9. 1929

ANNEXURE

of the claim statement are not proved . The workmen are not entitled to get any relief.

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL The reference is replied thus:

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, NEW DELHI

L D. No. 51/2005

PRESENT:

Shri R.N. Rai, Presiding Officer

Shri B, K, Prasad IstParty

None

2ndParty

The demand of the All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan for regularisation of S/ Shri Gayadeen,Gajender Kumar, Ram Chander anc! Raj Kumar, contract labourers engaged for operation and inaintenance ofgenerator sets, is neither legal nor justified. The workmen applicants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

In the matter of:

The award is given accordingly.

Date.29-5-2007

R. N. RAL, PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली , 6 जून, 2007

Shri Om Prakash and Others, C/ o General Secretary, CPWDGeneral Mazdoor Union, RoomNo. 95, Barrack No. 1/10 , Jamnagar House , Shahjahan Road, NewDelhi -110011

Versus

TheExecutiveEngineer (Electrical), ParliamentAir- Conditioning Division, RoomNo. 84,Vidyut Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001

AWARD

का.आ. 1890.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्लूडी. के प्रबंधतंग के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2. नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/173/2004- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/173/ 2004- IR (CM- II) Central Government dt . 29-6-2005has referred the following point for adjudication.

Thepoint runs as hereunder :

NewDelhi , the 6th June, 2007

"Whether the action of the management of CPWD in terminating the services of S/ Shri Om Prakash, A. С. Operator, Sunil Dutt, A. C. Operator and Shri Ganga Charan, Khalasi A. C. w.e.f. 11-7-2000 instead of regularizing their services is legal and justified ? If not, towhat rehef these workmen are entitled and from which date."

$.00 . 1890 , in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of PCAD, CPWD and their workmen, which was received by the Central Giovernment on 6-6-2007 .

[No. L-42012/173 /2004 -IR(CM-II) AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

The General Secretary of CPWD General Mazdoor Union onbehalf ofthe workmen has filed claim statement . In the claim statement the details ofthe workmen i.e. Name, Father's Name, Designation, Date ofEmployment , Dufy place etc. are as under:

Designation

DutyPlace

SL. Name No.

Father's Name

Date of Employment

Dateof Termination

17-4-1995 11-7-2000

1. Om Prakash

A.С.

Jag Mohan

Lal

Operator

L.G.Memorial, 1, Safdarjung Road 2. Sunil Dutt

Ram

12-6-1997 11-7-2000

Prasad

A. C. Operator

L.G.Memorial, 1, SafdarjungRoad

16-7-1999 11-7-2000

3. Ganga Charan

Kishan Chand

Khalasi A.C.

Initially posted at IG Memorial At the time of termination transferred to RML Hospital [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 4218

JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASIADHA 9, 1929

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:

SCC 668 has heavily come to the authorities who were engaged in employing the contract workers qua perennial nature of work with the following observations:

That the workmen connected with the dispute had performed their duties under the officials like Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineers working under the ExecutiveEngineer (Electrical ), ED -15 , CPWD , IP Bhawan, NewDelhi andExecutive Engineer, Electrical Division, RML Hospital , CPWD, New Delhi as the case may be and the contractors had only performed the duties of a cashier. The work on which workmen have been performing their duties are now under the Executive Engineer ( Electrical ) . Parliament Air-conditioning Division, NewDelln

That the workmen have completed 240 days of continuous service in each ofthe calendar year at the time oftermination, the management did not serve one ιτιατικής notice or nonce pay and compensation etc. and no enquiries were conducted.

"It is surprising that more than fifty years after independence the practice of employing labour through contractors by big companies including public sector companies is still being accepted as a normal feature as labour comployment. There is no security of service to the workmen and their wages are far below than that of the regular workmen of the company. The Supreme Court in its earlier decisions haddisapproved the system of direct contract and above holding it to be archaic primitive and ofbaneful nature. The system which is nothing but an improved version of bonded labour is sought to be abolished . The act is an important piece of social legislation for the welfare of labourers and has to be liberally construed ."

That in this case the contract was sham, camouflage. illegal as well as unjustified .

That CPWD daily rated workers in all categories have been getting their wages in minimun of time scale plus DA AD 4, HRA, CCA . IR except increment. Now these workers are also entitled to 1lic wages fixed in the minimum time scale from the date oftheir initial employment being unskilled, serni - skilled and highly skilled workmen . Copy of the order issued by the CPWD is annexed as Annexure- ] That the contractors neither have licence for engagement of contract labourers nor the management of CPWD being principal employer procured registration as required under the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 to engage contract labourers through contractor thereby violated the provisions of the said Act Therefore the workmen may be absorbed being direct employees of the management so as to render all benefits as that of regular employees of the management as law land down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, HSEB S. Suresh and others . In this case also there was no genuine contract. Hence the workmen on completion of2400 days are entitled to be absorbed with the management

That as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thematter of Surender Singh and others , the daily rated workers are also entitled to be regularized in the time scale after completion of 6 months of their continuous service.

That the workmen are direct employees of the managericht if the veil is liftedby this Hon'ble Tribunal will come to knowhow the Govertuttent is coninmitting unfair labour practice and run counter to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act , 1970. Therefore, they may be absorbed being direct employees ofthe management so as to render all benefits of regular employees by principal employer i.e. managementof CPWD) as law laiddown in Secretary, HSEB Vs. Suresh andOthers (1999) 3 SCCby Hon'ble Supreme Court is followed:

That all the worknien connected with the dispute are having the technical qualifications for regularizations of their service under the managcinent of CPWD and they have also sullicient experience for working in the different categories i.e. unskilled , semi -skilled, skilled and highly skilled with the management of CPWD.

That the duties performed by the workmen are of perennial in nature and the said jobs cannot be awarded on contract basis.

That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP No. 3619/2000 bad granted the interim order and directed the management not to terminate the services of the workman until further orders and however the management by passing the said order, terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 11th July, 2000 Against the said termination the workmen/petitioner also filed the contempt petition CCP No. 141/2001 while in the meantime the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India and others etc. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others reported in JT 2001 (7) SC 268 and held in para 24 that only Industrial Tribunal /Court willdecide the dispute related to the contract. labour in regard to the condition of service etc. After the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 361 /2000L while deciding the said writ That at the moment it may not be out of place to submit that the workmen were doing their dutics under the supervision of Junior Engineers and Asstt . Engineers of the management. So far as the so-calted contract was concerned he has nothing to do with the services rendered except to pay the meagre salary. This is modus operandi to pocket the money by the Governinent officials, through the contractors . The workmen who have requisite qualification for the post against which they have been employed, are forced to work more than normal hours but paid nothing . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in one case i, c . Shaukar Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 1990 ( Suppl . ) 4219 [ भाग ] ] -खंड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

labour in the office/establishment of CPWD w.e.f. the date of publication namely :-

(1) Air Conditioner Mechanic.

(1) Air Conditioner Khalasi/Helper.

(iii) Electrician.

(iv) Wireman.

(v) Khalasi (Electrical).

petition vide its order dated 31st October, 2001 , the workinen have given the liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with the observation and direction madeby theHon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Steel Authority of India and according to that case , the workinenwere allowed to raise dispute before this Hon'ble Authority about the regularization , non -payment of arrears ofwages and also against the illegal termination of the services of workmen by the management in spite of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The operative portion of the order is as under :

(vi) Carpenter.

(vii) Mason.

(vii) Fitter..

(ix) Plumber.

(x) Helper/Beldar.

(x0) Mechanic.

(xii) Sewerman.

(xii) Sweeper.

(xiv) Foreman.

"In view of the aforesaid position, the contentions raised in the present petition cannot be examined in this court , at this stage. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. The petitioners are, however, given the liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with the observations and directions made by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India ( supra) and in that case it shall be open to the petitioners to raise all the issues as are raised in the present petition. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner seek for a reference and such a reference is made to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , in that case the petitioners shall have the liberty to raise the issue about non -payment of arrears wages to the petitioners and also the issue with regard to alleged illegal termination of the service of the petitioners by the respondents in spite of the interim orders passed by this court ."

That after the said notification some of the workmen who are covered in employment as referred hereinabove were tobe in direct employment of the management of CPWD and their status is of adaily rated workers directly employedby the management. Copy ofthe order in respect of payment of wages as equal pay for equal work by the CPWD is already annexed as Annexure -I with this claim application.

Interms of theaforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition as also the contempt petition stand disposed of.

October 31 , 2001 .

Sd/-

That itis proved that the work on which the workmen hadbeen performing their duties cannot be handed over to the contractors , so they have to be treated in direct employment of CPWD and their status are of a daily rated worker directly employed by the management.

Dr. M. K. Sharma, J

Copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court is Mureed as Aплехите-ІІ .

That the management instead of treating the workmen as direct employees on regular basis , the management of CPWD terminated the services without following the provisions and without taking prior permission from the ALC( C) -cum-Conciliation Officer, as required under Section 33 of the ID Act and also violated the interim order of Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi.

That the workmen are unemployed since the date of termination of their services so they are entitledtobe reinstatedwith full back wages.

In view of the above the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly:

That the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of section 10 of the CLRA , Acl. 1970 ( 37 of 1970 ) , the Central Government in consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board.prohibited the employment of the contract labour in the process, operation of work specified in the schedule, in the office/establishment of CPWD, Ministry of Urban Development and Employment , New Delhi and the notification for prohibiting the employment ofKhalaşi etc. were notified by the Ministry ofLabour Notification dated 31-7-2002 in the Extraordinary Gazette of the Govt. of India in para Il section 3 and sub -section (2) . Copy of the said notification is annexed as Annexure- III .

(a) Award to reinstate S/Shri Om Prakash and Sunil Duttas A. C. Operator and Ganga Charan as Khalasi A. C. with effect from 11-7-2000 with full backwages , continuity of service along with all consequential benefits.

That as per notification dated 21-7-2002 of Ministry of Labour, New Delhi prohibits the employment of contract 4220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

(6) Award to regularize the service of the workinτί ShriOm Prakash and Sunil Dutt as A. C. Operator and Shri Ganga Charan , Khalasi A. C. ie tire scale attached to the categories and also gram equal pay to these workmen from the date of their initial employment .

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that notice to the management was sent by the Ministry of Labour..it 27-10-2005 . Notice to the parties was sent by registered post by this Tribunal fixing 27-10-2005 for appearanceof the parties. The workman appeared on 27-10-2005 and filed claim statement . The management was present on 27-10-2005 and copy of the claian was given Th management, was again present on 8-2-2016 The management was not present on 19-6-2006, 4-9-2006. 26-9-2006,18-10-2006 , 12-12-2006, 16-2-2007 and 26-4-2017 Theopportunity for filing affidavit was closed on 6-3-2017 Thecase proodeded ex parte . The workman filed affidavad .

Heard argument from the side ofthe workmat..

It was submitted that Shri Om Prakash wasengagui as A. C. Operator on 17-4-1995 and his services were terminated on 11-7-2000 . Shri Sunil Dutt was engaged on 12-4-1997 and his services were terminated on 11-7-2-0 ) Shri Ganga Charan was appointed on 16-7-1999 and his serviceswere terminated on 11-7-2000 . The workman has fileddocuments regarding their working period they have worked for 240 days in most of the years of her cmployment.

The workmen have not been given retrea compensation. The termination of their services without retrenchment compensation is invalid and in -operatis.c . There is no cessation of their services .

The workmen are technical hands. It cannot be said that they remained without any work all along . in the facts and circumstances of the case they are entitied to reinstatement alongwith 25 % back wages .

The reference is replied thus :

١٦ The action of the management of CFW terminating the services of S/Shri Om Prakash. A Operator, SunilDutt. A. C. Operatozand Shri Ganga Ch Khalasí , A C. w.e.f. 11-7-2000 instead of regulariz services is neither legal nor justified. The man should reinstate the above named workers wef 11-20 alongwith 25% back wages within two months font : date of publication of the award 1.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 31-5-2007

R. N. RAI , Presiding figer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1891.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 194 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

के प्रबंषतंत्र के सम्बः नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2. नई दिल्ली केः पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करतो है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -42012/ 171 /2004- आई आर ( सी एम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June, 2007

... 1891.- pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of CPWD. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2007 .

[No.1. -42012/ 171 /2004- JR ( CM - II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM LABOUR COURT- 11 , NEW DELHI

I. D. NO. 50/2005

PRESENT:

R N. Rai , Presiding Meer .

Sh B. K. Prasad

Ist Parny

None

2nd Party

Inthe matter of:

Shri Radhey Shyaru &, Is Others . C / o CPWD Mazdoor ac E-26 ( old Qtr. ). Raja Bezar Baba Kharag Singh Marg . New Delhi - 110001 ieras

The Director General ofWarks . Nirman BhawaLUR . New Delhi -110011

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its Letter No. L-42012 / 171/2004- ( IR ( CM - 11 ) Central Government di 29-6-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the demand of lic CPWD Mazdoor Union . New Delhi in regard to regularization of the services ofShri Radhey Shyamaund 18 others ( as per annexure ) is legal and justified If yes, to what relief these workmen are cmiled and from which date ?" [ भाग -खंड3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

4221 The workmen applicants have filed statement of clairn. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the full particulars of the workman Shri Radhey Syam and 18 others are indicated as per Annexure attached with the schedule by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India , Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi .

That S/Shri Radhey Shyam , Sompal Singh, Kandha Swamy, Smt . Ratna, Narender Kumar, Smt. Shivpal, Smt. Kalawati, Mohan Prasad, Galai Yadav, Ram Singh, Suresh Kumar, Yogesh Kumar, Radhey Shyam , Gurakh Nath and Shri Vijay Singh allBeldars have been granted temporary status w.e.f. 01-09-1993 and have been getting the wages intime scale attached with Group- D post but they are still in" Casual Worker" status and their services have not been regularized so far.

That the workmen connected with this dispute have beenperforming their duties continuously in different posts from the date oftheir initial employment are as under:

Post

SL No.

Name of the Workman

Father's Name

Dt. Employ of ment

Beldar 28-02-1986

That Shri Sesharo, Lab Asstt . , Naresh Kumar, Wireman and Suresh Kumar , Plumber have been getting wages in the minimum oftithe scale of a skilled workman with all allowances except increment but they are still treated as" daily rated" " casual worker " of the management.

Ramesh Chander

1. Radhey Shyamı

Beldar 04-01-1986

2. Sompal Singh

Bhagwan Singh

That the services of many of the junior persons have been regularized arbitrarily by the management whereas these workmen have been denied permanent and regular status .

Beldar 16-04-1991

Sallapan

3. Kandha Swarny

4. Smt . Tatna

Beldar 20-11-1990)

5. Sheshrao

1990

Nathiyi Lab. Asstt.

B. P. Mishra Beldar 04-01-1986

i. Narender Kumar

Beldar

Suraj Lal

7. Smt . Shivpal

13-11-1991

That as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surender Singh and Others Vs. Engineer in Chief, CPWD & Others dated 17-01-1986 all the daily rated workers are entitled to equal pay for equal work from the date of their initial employment and also entitled tobe regularized in services after completion of 6 months oftheir continuous service but these workmen have been getting equal pay for equal work from the date of their initial employment but the services of these workmen have notbeen regularized till date.

Beldar

8. Smt. Kalawati

04-04-1991

Bhopal Singh

Beldar 04-08-1988

9. Mohan Prasad

Bhola Prasad

That the workmen have been performing the duties of unskilled and skilled workman continuously as indicated in para - 3 hereinabove but their services were not regularized by the management till date.

Itu , Galaí Yadav

1986

Beldar

Bachhan Yadav

11. Ram Singlı

Beldar 02-12-1985

Nandan Singh

GulzariLal Beldar 08-12-1989

That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surender Singh and others has also directed the management and hoped that the Govt . will take appropriate action to regularize the services ofall those workmen who have been in continuous employment for more than six months.

12. Suresh Kumar

Wireman

24-06-1986

13 Naresh Kumar

Chandgi Ram

That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CPWD Karamchari Union Vs. Union of India and others on 25th March, 1992 have passed the following orders:

01-12-1985

14. Suresh Kumar

Shiv Nath Plumber Kataria

Beldar

Banwari Lal

16-08-2001

15. Yogesh Kumar

Beldar 01-09-1993

Bhagwati Prasad

16. Radhey Shyam

Beldar 01-09-1993

17. Gurakh Nath Hurangi

Ram Sahai Bektar 01-09-1993

18. Vijay Singh

"The Ld. Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf ofthe respondents states that the 91 workers except those who have already been regularized will be regularized within a period of four weeks subject to their eligibility, and their seniority will be fixed later on . The regularization will not confer any right to claim seniority from the date of entry. We are accepting the statement of the Ld Addl. Solicitor General and we close this petition . The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. " (PART 11- SEC. 3 (ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

4222

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference was received in the month of Junc . 2005 with the direction to give award within a period of 3 months. Registered notice has been served to both the parties . The Ministry of Labour. Government of India also sent the reference to the managementby registered post in the month of June , 2005. The management has failed to file reply despite several dates given . The matter is pending almost for 2 years . On 19-4-2007 the case proceeded ex parte and on 22-5-2007 it was reserved for award. The management received the registered notice atlcast in the month ofApril, 2006.

That in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Ministry of Urban Development has created 8982 posts in various categories of workcharge establishment and regular classified establishment for the purpose of regularisation ofdaily rated workers of CPWD vide its Letter No. 38/2/87 -Ec -X EW2 ( ii ) dated 1st September. 1992 and sathe is also circulated by the office of Director General (Works), CPWD vide its circular No. 38/2/ 87 - EcX dated 30-09-1992 to their subordinate officer but till date the services of these workmen connected with the dispute are not regularized though the regular posts are lying vacant . Copies of both the orders are annexed as Annexure A( Colly) .

The workmen applicants have filed affidavit .

Heard argument from the side of the workmen.

That the works of the management ate to maintain the buildings owned by the Central Government and is industrial establishment as defined in Clause (ii) ofSection 2ofPaynient of Wages Act, 1936, so Industrial Employmem (Standing orders ) Act . 1946 is applicable on the establishment of the management .

11 transpires from perusal ofthe claim statement that 19 workmen have been working from 1985-1993 till date . Out ofall these 19 workmen , 6 workmen have been working for almost 21 years . The remaining workmen have alsobeen working for more than 15 years .

That as per Model Standing Orders the workmen become permanent workmen after completion of 3 ιοπτης ofservice in the same or another occupation in the industrial establishtnept .

The workman Shri Naresh Chand Kushwaha have been regularized in the meantime w.e.f. 30-4-1993. So his case has not been considered. There remain 18 workmen who have been working for more than 14-15 years with the management.

That the management is also indulging in unfair Labour practices as defined in Item No. 10 in the Vth Schedule of ID Act, 1941 which is reproduced as under:

Myattention was drawn to Unua Devi's case ( 2006) + Scale as under :;

"10. To employ workmen as "Badlis" , casuals on temporaries and to continue them as such for years . with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges ofpermanent workmen. "

That the action of the management is neither legal nor justified as por the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Cout directions as referred bercinabove as well as Model StandingOrders under Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders) Act , 1948 and also unfair labour practices as envisages in Item No. 10 of Vih Schedule of ID Act , 1947 .

That the workmen connected with the dispute are entitled to be regularized from the date of their initial employment as indicated in para -3 hereinabove .

That S/Shri Radhey Shyam , Sompal Singh . Kandha Swamy, Smt. Ratna, Narender Kumar, Smt. Shivpal, Smt . Kalawati, Mohan Prasad, Galai Yadav, Ram Singh, Suresh Kumar, Yogesh Kumar, Radhey Shyam, Gurakh Nath and Shri Vijay Singh all Beldars are entitled to be regularized as unskilled worker in the pay scale ofGroup-D employees revised from time to time.

"One aspect needs to be clarified . There may be cases where irregular appointments ( not illegal appointments) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa (supra) , R. N. Nanjundappa ( supra) , and B. N. Nagarajan (supra ) . and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or morebut without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals . The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this court in the cases above referred to and in the light ofthis judgement . In the context, the Union of India, the StateGovernments and their instrumentalitics should take steps to regularize as a one tirne measure , the services of such irregularly appointed persons who have worked for ten ycars or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover oforders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or dailywagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date."

That S/Shri Sesharao, Lab. Assistant Naresh Chandra Kuswaha and Naresh Kumar, Wirentan aud Spresh Kumar, Plumber have been working as skilled workman and they are also entitled to be regularized in the same category from the date of their initial employment .

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

4223

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

The reference is replied thus:

Thedemand of the CPWD Mazdoor Union, NewDelhi in regard to regularization of the services of Shri Radhey Shyam and 18 others (as per annexure) is legal and justified. The 18 workmen whose names appear in the chart of the claim statement deserve regularisation atleast from completion of 10 years of their services . The management should regularize them within two months from the date of the publication of the award. A cost of Rs . 25,000 is imposed on the management for unnecessary dragging this case.

It is vivid from the observations of thejudgment of the Constitution Bench produced above that the management should consider the cases of the workmen who have performed work for more than 10 years without intervention ofthe Courts or of the Tribunals . The workmen have been continued in service for 14-15 years without orders of any Court. The posts are vacant. In the instant case the management should have considered the cases of theworkmen in the light of the Constitution Bench Judgment but no action has been taken by the management. The management has not complied with the direction of the Hon'blle Apex Court in CPWD Karamchari Union Vs. Union of India and others passed on 25th March , 1992.

Date:30-5-2007

The award is given accordingly. R.N. RAI, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

It was further submitted that the government cannot engage temporaries and badlies again and again and it amounts to unfair labour practice . In case temporaries and badlies are continued for years with the object of depriving thent of the status and privileges of a permanent employee , it amounts to unfair labour practice .

का.आ. 1892.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन रेयर अझै लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 227/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -29012/ 16/1997- आई आर ( एम) ] एन एस बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 6th June , 2007 It was further submitted that Section 25 T provides that the management should not indulge in unfair labour practice, Section 25 U provides that a person who commits any unfair labour practice will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to Rs . 1000 or with both. The intention of the legislature in enacting 25 T & 25 U is obvious . The legislature wanted that in case Casual and Badlis are engaged for a long period, it amounts to unfair labour practice. There is punitive clause for committing unfair labour practice.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that Vih Schedule of the ID Act specifies som : practices as unfair labour practice . The Vth Schedule clause 10 provides the criteria for ascertaining unfair labour practice . It is extractedas hereunder :-

S.O. 1892.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1.D. 227/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Cochin now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on6-6-2007,

[No. L- 29012/16/ 1997- IR. (M) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer "To employ workman as Badlis , Casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object ofdepriving them of the status and privilege ofa permanent workman . "

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT

Clause 10 ofthe Vth Schedule stipulates that in case the workmen are employed as Casuals, Badlis or Temporary and they are continued as such for years, it will amount to unfair labour practice. It establishes to the hilt that the respondent management has committed unfair labour practice . The workmen have been engaged for 14, 15, 16 years as casual and temporary.

Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer (Friday the 18th day ofMay, 2007/28th Vaisakha, 1929) I. D. 227/2006

(L.D. 19/97 of Labour Court, Emakulam)

Workman /Union : The Secretary IRE Staff& Workers Union Itwas submitted that Section 25 F, G, T, U and Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act have been deliberately violated. Thus , the management has committed unfair labour practice.

C/o Indian Rare Earths Ltd.

Udyogamandal

Ernakulam District In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble: Apex Court the workmen deserve regularization atleast after completion of 10 years of their services.

Adv. Shri K. S. Madhusoodanan 2811 GI/2007-24 [PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

4224

: The Chief General Manager

Management

Indian Rare Earths Ltd. ,

by one increment with cumulative effect. The finding and the punishment are challenged by the workman.

Udyogamandal

ErnakulamDistrict

Adv. M/ s . Menon & Pai

AWARD

3. According to the workman the Enquiry Officer has violated the principles of natural justice. He was not given copies ofdocuments relied on by the management sufficiently early: The Enquiry Officer failed to properly assess and appreciate the eviderice on record . Hence , accordingto him, the finding is perverse.

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 for adjudication. The reference is :

"Whether the action of the management of M/s Indian RareEarths Ltd. , Udyogamandal in withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect in respect ofShri Lalan Varghese is justified ? "

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

4. The management contends that one of the godowns was occupied by someone without permission of the company. Two employees of the company were working in the premises . They were bound to inform the company. The workman who was present at the time of surprise visit of the officers of the company was not able to offer satisfactory explanation regarding the occupation ofpremises by M/s Pradeep Agencies . Being an employee ofthe company sitting and working in the godown adjacent to the godown in question he was in the know of things andhe suppressed this information from the company. This is an act of dishonesty. The Enquiry Officer had followed the procedure for domestic enquiry and complied with principles of natural justice. The workman was given sufficient opportunity to cross - examine the management witnesses as well as adduce defence evidence . There was sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the workman. A copy of report was given to the workman and his explanation was sought for by the Diciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view while imposing pwristunent . No interference , either in findings or in punishment , is called for.

5. In the light of the above contentions the only point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether the workınan was aware of the unauthorized occupation of the Godown premises? "

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MWI and Ext . Ml. domestic enquiry file on the side of management .

6. The Point:

Shri Lalan Varghese , the workman was posted in Willingdon Island Godown as senior clerk on 5-6-1990 . His dutywas to attend to clerical work of shipping . He was allotted office room attached to Godown No. XXIV/ 1441 , Himself and. Godown Keeper, K.C. Joseph was using the office room ofgodown 1441. It is an admitted fact that the Manager (P & A ) and Assistant Manager ( IR ) had visited theGodown on 10-11-1994 at about 12.30 p.m. It is also not disputed that they had found that the office room attachod toGodown No. XXIV/ 1440 was occupied by M/s . Pradeep Agencies and some things were kept in the office room and it was kept locked. It is to be noted that the only person. thenpresent in the pronuses was the workman. The other employee, K. C. Joseph , was absent. So also watchman The huanagement company, Indian Rare Earths Limited is having 3 godowns in Willingdon Island bearing No. XXIV/1439, XXIV/ 1440 & XXIV/ 1441 . The godowns are situated side by side at a distance of50 fect each between godowns . The godowns face the West, Godown No. XXIV/ 1441 is at the Southern end having an office in its front. The next godown on the North is XXIV/ 1439. It has no office room. Godown No. XXIV/ 1440 is having an office room at its rear and the godown is situated at the Northern end. The gate of the premises is almost in front of Godown No. XXIV/ 441 . Two employees were posted in Willingdon Island. The workman, Shri Lalan Varghese was the senior clerk assigned with the duty of clerical work connected with shipping. The other employee is Shri K. C. Joseph whowas the godown keeper. His duty was to look after all the godowns and premises . Besides , the security of godowns and premises was entrusted to private security agency.There used to be two watchmen , one for day duty and other for night duty. On 10-11-1994, when the Manager (P & A) and Assistant Manager ( IR) visited the godowns they found the office room of godown No. XXIV/ 1440 occupied by someone and its door locked. On further probe they camesto understand that M/s . Pradeep Agencies had occupied the office room of Godown No. XXIV/ 1440 and some furniture and things were kept in the office room On that day the Godown Keeper was absent ( K. C. Joseph) . The private security watchman too was absem. The workman Shri Lalan Varghese alone was present . He was asked about the unauthorized occupation ofoffice room of Godown XXIV/ 1440. The workman was not able to give a satisfactory answer. Hence телmo was issued to him as wellas 10 K. C. Joseph and the workman was placed under suspension . A domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officerfound the workman guilty of not informing the company about the unauthorized occupation which was an act of dishonesty in connection with the business orproperty of the company falling within $ -34 (b ) of Certified Standing Orders of the Company. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of reduction of basic pay [ भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

4225

भारत की राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

from private security agency too was absem . At the time of hearing the validity of enquiry was not pursuedby the learned counsel for the workman. But he argued only on merits. According to him, the workmanwas not in charge of the godowns and he was not aware whether the other two godowns were given on rent to anyone. He was not duty-bound to inform the company about the occupation of any of the godowns by any third party. It was the look out of the godown keeper .

Though the enquiry file is produced none of the documents marked in the enquiry are seen produced, but only the deposition of witnesses, copy of charge sheet and some miscellaneous papers . However it was submitted bythe learned coumel for the management that since almost all the contentions of both parties are admitted and the issue is limited to the knowledge of the workraan about the unauthorized occupation , even without the production of documents the matter can be disposedof.

7 The charges levelled against the worloman are four in number:

( 1 ) When the officers of the company visited the Godowns inWillingdon Island on 10-11-1994 one of the godowns was seem occupied by some unauthorized person and the workman had knowledge about it, but he failed to inform thecompany.

(2) When the workman was asked about the Godown Keeper, Shri K. C. Joseph, the former lied to the officers of the company saying that Shri K. C. Joseph had just gone out of the office.

(3) The watchman was not available in the premises since 5-11-1994 continuously till the visit of the officers of the company on 10-11-1994. This fact was not also informedby theworkman to the company.

(4) An outsider was seen in the Godown premises who claimed to be a person entrusted with watchman's duty of the Godowns by the watchiman of the private security agency. But that person was a tea vendor and he was preparing tea in the premises of theGodowns and supplying it to customers outside the premises. This was also not informed by the workman to the company.

theabsence ofwatchman in the godown. It has to be done by the godown keeper. The tea vendor alleged to have beenpresentwhen the officers visited the premises andhe waspreparingtea in the premises is not a true story. Since therewasawater pipe in front of the godown the tea vendor had come there to wash his glasses and kettles and not for preparing ica. Thus the only aspect to be considered is whether the workman had knowledge about the unauthorized occupation of the premises by M/ s Pradeep Agencies and had he a duty to inform the company about it. It is the case ofthe workman that; he was absent on 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th November, 1994 from the office . 6th November was Sunday. On 8th and 10th he was present . This is not disputed by the management . The office room attachedtoGodown No. XXIV/ 1440 was occupiedbyM/s Pradeep Agencies on 5-11-1994 admitedly. Their occupation was upto 10-11-1994 when the officers ofthe company visited the premises . The officers after having convinced ofthe unauthorized occupation called the police and in their presence the office room was sealed. Thus 5 daysM/ s. Pradeep Agencies was occupying the premises. Admittedly, on the day they occupied the premises the workman was absent, but the Godown Keeper was present . The only possibility of knowing about the unauthorized occupation was only on 8th and 10th when the workman was present in the office. But it is relevant to note that unless some things were brought to the godown or taken out of the godown byM/ s . Pradeep Agencies on 8th and 10th there was no chance for the workman to notice about the unauthorized occupation. After all what was kept in the office room of the Godown No. XXIV/ 1440 by M/ s Pradeep Agencies were a weighing machine, some tea powder and some furniture and nothing else . There is no evidence to show that on 8th and 10th M/ s . Pradeep Agencies hadbeen to the premises or they had brought or returned anything from the premises in order to invite the attention of the workman. It has also not come out that the godown keeper, Shri K. C. Joseph had divulged to the workman about the occupation of the premises by M/ s . PradeepAgencies. Thus the workman had no chance of knowing about the unauthorized occupation without being informied either by the Godown Keeper or by the watchman . But the watchiman was absent since 5-11-1994. The duty of the workman was only to attend to the clerical work. He was not put in charge of the godowns or the premises even in the absence of the Godown Keeper. Therefore he was not duty -boundto look after godowns or enquire about the arrangements the company was making with regard to other godowns in the premises. It is relevant to note that the management admits that they used to lease out the other godowns on and off to different tenants . Ifthatbe so. it is all the fuore difficult for the workman to knowwhether But the Enquiry Officer found the workinan guilty of only the first charge . Regarding other charges the Enquiry Officer found that the godown keeper was present on 10-11-1994 when the officers visited again in the afternoon and what was told by the workman in the morningwas true . It was also found that it was not the duty or responsibility of the workman to inform the company about

there is a change of tenancy and whether the occupancy by a new tenant is authorized or unauthorized. It is the duty ofthe godown keeper to protect and preserve the godown premises. If the company permita any tenant to occupy the 4226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

concerned employee , the godown keeper. There is no violation of S -34(b) of Certified Standing Orders .

godowns the company informs the godown keeper and not the workhuan who is only a clerical staff. Unless there was a practice ofofficially informing the workman about the letting ofpremises to any third party. he was not bound to inquire about the arrangements made with regard 10 other godowns. Even if there is unauthorized occupation he would not know whether it is authorized or unauthorized without being informed either by the godown keeper or by the watchman . Having not assigned any duty with regard to other godowns he cannot be asked to explain about the occupation of other godowns by any one .

9. The Enquiry Officer after holding that "strictly speaking he is not bound to look after the affairs of the godowns of the company" and " even though Mr. Lalan Varghese is not the godown keeper we have to presume that he is in the know of things in the godown" came to a conclusion that the workman had knowledge and he had failed to inform the company and it amounted to infraction ofS -34 (b ) of Certified Standing Orders . There is no evidence on record to prove that there was any possibility for the workman to know about the unauthorized occupation. Therefore the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is perverse.He had neither knowledge nor duty to inform the company about the unauthorized occupation.It follows therefore that the punishment imposed also cannot be sustained .

10. In the result , an award is passed setting aside the findings and the punishment and holding that the action of the management in withholding one annual increment with. cumulative effect in respect of Shri Lalan Varghese is illegal and unjustified . He is entitled to back wages and service benefits . No cost . The award will take effect one month after its publication in the official Gazette .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 18th day of May, 2007.

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer APPENDIX Witness for the Workman/Union : Nil . Witness for the Management: MWI-Shri George Varghese- 7-5-2007. Exhibits for the Workman/Union : Nil. Exhibits for the Management : MI-EnqairyFile. नईदिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1893.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भिलाई स्टील प्लान्टके प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्टः औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी/ एल सी/ आर/39/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

8. The management is referring to S -34 (b ) of the Certified Standing Orders of the company which reads : "dishonesty In connection with the company's business or property . The question is-whether there is any dishonesty on the part of the workman ? I have already mentioned that he is not assigned the duty of looking after theaffairs of godowns , but only the shipping work in the office. Thereis another employee to look after the godowns. At any rate there is no dishonesty with regard to the business of the company. If so , the question is whether there is any dishonesty with regard to the property of the company? Since he is not the custodian or the protector of the Godowns and unless he connived with the Godown keeper in making arrangements for letting the Godown to third party it cannot be said that there is any dishonesty on the part of the workman with regard to the property of the company. Not only about the property in Willingdon Islandbut even with regard to other properties and assets of the company also , as an employee, he may come to know about underhand dealings which are prejudicial to the interest of the company. But merely because he is an employee he is not bound to inform the management about such dealings .Each one is assigned his duty and is bound to discharge that duty alone to the satisfaction of the employer . He is not supposed to poke his nose into the affairs of other employees or officers or matters. I do not think there is any dishonesty in connection with the property of the company by the workman. If so there is no legal obligation on his part to inform the company about theunauthorized occupation. If the management is referring to moral obligation then it has to be said that the moral obligation cannot cast legal liability. For breach of moral obligation no legal action can be taken by the employer. That apart, the evidence and circumstances go to show that there was no possibility for the workman to know about the unauthorized occupation. First of all the occupancy was only for 5 days and during the 5 days he was present only on 2 days. On the day of occupation he was absent . That being the circumstances the contention of the workaman that he had no knowledge about the unauthorized occupation of premises by M/s. Pradeep Agencies is more probable than the case ofthe management . Assuming that he was aware even then he was not bound to inform the company and it had to be done by the

[सं. एल-26012/ 15 /1991 - आई आर ( एम ) ] एन . एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी | भाग -खंड 3(ii ) ]

4227

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

New Delhi , the 6th June, 2007

committed gross misconduct in as much as he willfullyanddeliberately made alterations/tamperings and abetted in making such alterations/tamperings in the original copies of Production DATA -B for February 1986 to July 1986 and December 1986 after getting them signed by the mines Manager (Mahamaya) and before handling them over to E.D.P. thereby inflating the earnings of the gangs, resulting in excess payment to many DPR workmen of MahamayaMines ."

S.O. 1893. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/39/92 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 10 the management ofBhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2007,

[No.L-26012/15/ 1991 -IR (M) ]

N. S. BORA, DeskOfficer

In pursuance of the above charge , an Enquiry was held and the Enquiry officer vide his findings held as under:-

ANNEXURE

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

"Found guilty of committing an act of misconduct inasmuch as he abetted in making alterations/ tamperingsby the C.S.E.- 1 , in the Wage Payment Documents ofD.P.R. Mazdoors of Mahamaya Mines."

NO. CGIT/LC/R/39/92

Shri C. M. Singh, PresidingOfficer

The Secretary,

... Workman/Union

Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), P.O.Dallirajhara, Distt. Durg (MP)

Versus

The ManagingDirector, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai,Distt. Durg (MP)

..... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day ofMay, 20106

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministryof Labourvide itsNotification No. L- 26012/15/91 -IR. (Misc) dated 13-2-92 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Bhilai Steel Plant in relation to their Maharnaya Mines in terminating the services of Shri S. L. Sahu, P. No. 211057 , Weigh Bridge Clerk w.e. f. 14-2-90 is lawful andjustified ? ifnot to what relief the workaman is entitled to ?"

2. The case ofworkaman Union in brief is as follows . That workman Shri S. L. Sahu, P. No. 211057 was employed as Weigh Bridge Clerk in the Mahamaya Mines ofBilaspur. He has put in 13 years ofregular service and had maintained although a clean record of service when all of a sudden, he was charge-sheeted vide Memorandum No. MIM ( M)/Estt./ Disc/ 88/307 dated 26-3-1988 . The charge levelled against bim is as under:

In pursuant to the above findings , the services of the workman were terminated w.e.f. 14-2-90. That the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has a number of defects, irregularities and illegalities . The Enquiry Officer recorded his findings without properly appreciating the evidence on record . The charge levelled against workman Shri S. L. Sahu has been abetment of committing misconduct by another employee Shri L. LL. Balihare, Mining Mate (CSE-I ) . As a matter of fact, the enquiry was conducted against both workman Shri S. L. Sahu and Shri L. L. Balihare. The workman has denied the charge framed against him and pleaded innocence. As per EnquiryReport, Shri L. L. Balihare, Mining mate admitted his mistake and his misconduct, but at no place, it couldbe proved that the workman has also admitted the charges levelled against him. In the report of Enquiry Officer, it has beenheld that Shri L. L.. Balihare and workaman Shri S. L. Sahu through applications dated 16-2-87 to the Mines Manager prayed for exoneration bear the signatures of both Shri L. L. Balihare and workman Shri 5. L. Sahu.But the signature of Shri S. L. Sahu did not tally. It has boen averred that the above fact indicates that the workman did not admit the charges levelled against him. Besides the above , there were 3 persons namely Shri L. L. Balihare, MiningMate, workman Shri S. L. Salu, Weigh Bridge clerk and Shri S. D. Prasad, Recorder of Mahamaya Mines who had been dealing with wage bills of gangs , only two of them were charge-sheeted i.e. Shri L.L. Balihare and workman Shri S. L. Sahu . Shri S. D. Prasad happened to be a favourite of the officers so was left out and no charge- sheetwas issued to him. This discriminatory treatment had been meted out to the above two persons while dealing with this case .The Enquiry Officer has held that workman Shri Sahu is guilty of the misconduct of" abetment " only whereas in the Mines Standing Orders , nowhere it is

mentioned that the said act of abetment of the workman "That Shri S. L. Sahu, P.No. 211057 of Mahamaya Mines while functioning as Weigh Bridge Clerk during the period Feb. 1986 to December 1986 4228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

signature did not tally. As submitted earlier since Shri L. L. Balihare, Mining Mate and Shri S. L. Sahu Weigh Bridge Clerk denied 1.he statement of admissions praying for exoneration to the Mines Manager , the Disciplinary Authority ordered departinental enquiry againstboth of them. The Enquiry Officer gave the following findings against Shri L. L. Balihare , Mining Mate:-

"Found guilty of committing an act of misconduct in as much as he wilfully and deliberately made alteration /tampering in the Wage Payment Documents of DPR workers of Mahamaya Mines."

The Enquiry Officer held the following regarding workman Shri S. L. Sahu:

wasmajor or minor misconduct . Not only this , there is no substantial oricogent evidence adduced by the management which would warrant punishment of termination of services or for that reason any other punishment whatsoever . Despite the above facts, the management imposed the punishunent oftermination of service of the workman which iswholly unjustified , illegal and arbitrary. Therefore the order of termination deserves to be set - aside . The delinquentworkman submitted an appeal to the Managing Director, Bilaspur praying for withdrawal or order of termination and to re- instate him on his former post, but to no effect in as much as his request for reinstatement was not acceded to by the management . It is therefore prayed that order of management of termination of the workman be set aside with all conequential benefits etc.

"Found guilty of committing an act of misconduct in as much as he abetted in making alterations/ tamperings by the CSE- 1 in the wage payment documents forDPR mazdoors of Mahamaya Mines. "

It has been specifically denied on behalf of the management that Shri S. D. Prasad recorder of the Mines who also dealt with wage bills of gangs was not charge- sheeted being favourite of the officers . It has been specifically pleaded that a prima facie case was emerged only against Shri L. L. Balihare and the workman and hence the Departmental Enquiry against Shri S. D. Prasad , Recorder was not initiated. It has also been pleaded that according to clause 29 ( 1 ) ( XXI ) of Standing Orders for mines, abetment or attempt to commit any of the acts of misconduct is a major act of misconduct and thus the workman had committed major misconduct . Therefore the services of workman Shri S. L. Sabu has been terminated property and illegally after he was found guilty of committing major acts of misconduct . The Enquiry Officer considering the documents and evidence of witnesses producedbefore him had come to the conclusion and gave his findings in the Enquiry. Based on the findings of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly terminated the services of workman Shri Saliu as he was found guilty of major misconduct of abetting in making alterations/ tampering in the wage payment amount of departmental piece rated mazloor ofthe Mines. The workman is therefore not entitled to any relief whatsoever and the reference deserves to be dismissed with cost .

4. The order sheet dated 26-11-94 indicates that my learned predocessor in office upon the pleadings of the parties framed the following 5 issues :

(i) Whether the enquiry is just, proper and Icgal?

(ii) Whether the management is entitled 10 lead evidence before this tribunal ?

(iii) Whether the charges of misconduct are proved on the facts of the case ?

(iv) Whether the punishment awarded is proper and legal?

(v) Relief and costs ?

3. Theanangenient contested the reference and filed their written statement . Their case in brief is as follows . The workman was employed as Weigh Bridge Clerk with the management. He was charge- sheeted for committing grave and major misconduct of wilfully and deliberately making alterations/ tampering and abetted in making such alterations/ tempering in the original copies of production data-B for the period of February- 86 to July - 86 and December-86 after getting them signed by the Mines Manager and before handing them over to the finance Section, Rajbara for further processing to EDP, thereby inflating the earnings of the gangs resulting in excess payment to manyDPR workers of Mines . The Departmental Enquiry was conducted against Shri L. L. Balihare and workman Shi S. L. Sahu for similar charges of misconduct of deliberately making alteration/tempering in the Production Data Sheet before handing over to the EDP section for the purpose of payment to the Departmental PieceRated Workers . Excess payment has been made to DPR workers as a result of this. The charges were found proved against both Shri L. L. Balihare and workman Shri S. L. Sabtu in the enquiry conducted and consequently services of both of them have been terminated The Departmental Enquiry was conducted by the EnquiryOfficer adhering to the requirements ofprinciples of natural justice . It has been specifically denied by the management that tliere are number ofdefects, irregularities and illegalities in the enquiry proceedings rendering it illegal and in -operative and the servides of the workman has been terminated in an illegal , arbitrary, wrongful , unjustified and improper mantier. Shri L. L. Bathare and workman Shri S. L. Sahu both have admitted the misconduct in the beginning but workтал Shri S. L. Sahu subsequently denied stating that the statement of admission was signed by him when his senses were not in this control and hence the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and ultimately found them guilty. The Enquiry Officer in his report has held that Shri Sahu has stated before the Enquiry Officer to have signed the self admission while his senses were not under his control and this can be one of the reasons why his 4229 [ भाग -खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929.

FINDINGS

5. Issue Nos . 1 & 1 :

Theorder-sheet dated 7-4-95 reveals that my learned predecessor in office answered issue No. 1 infavour ofthe management meaning thereby it was held by him that the enquiry is just, proper and legal . The order -sheet ofthe aforesaiddate further reveals that my learned predecessor in office held that Issue No. 2 has become redundant . Thus the above is the adjudication made by my learned predecessor on Issues No. 1 & 2. The fintings on these issues shall form the part of award.

6. Issues No. 3 :

In view of findings on Issue No. 1 , that enquiry is just, proper& legal , the charges of misconcluct are proved on the facts of the case as the Enquiry Officer vide its findingheld as follows:-

its decision in various cases held that in cases of mis- appropriation there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal . That the amount of mis -appropriation may be small or large but it is an act of mis-appropriation that is relevant to award the punishment of dismissal . In this respect, he placed reliance on 1996- LAB - I.C- 1056 in the case ofMunicipal Committee , Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishnan Behari and others. I have very carefully gone through the law cited above. In the law cited above , the respondent wasa clerk in the municipal committee . He was allegedto have mis -aappropriated a sum ofRs . 1548.78p. by falsifying the accounts. He was prosecuted in a criminal case and convicted under Section-409 of the Indian Penal Code , in the appeal, the conviction is altered from Section 409 to Section468 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the above punishment, the Municipal Committee dismissed the respondent. Under the facts and circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows :-

"Found guilty of committing an act of misconduct in as much as he abetted in making alterations/ tamperings by the CSE- 1 in the wage payment documents forDPR mazdoors of Mahamaya Mines."

"There cannot be any other punishment than dismissal . Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncafled for and oppose to public interest. The amount mis-appropriated maybe small or large; it is the act of mis -appropriation that is relevant....

Issue No. 3 is therefore decided in the affirmative in favour ofthe management and against the workman/Union .

7. Issues No. 4& 5:

These issues are co- related to each other, therefore, both are being taken together for adjudication,

Having considered the law cited above and the facts and circumstances of this case , I am of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the workman of dismissal from service is not dis -proportionate to the act of misconduct coramitted by him and under the circumstances, the workman is not entitled to any relief. But so far as the costs of the reference is concerned , I take a lenient view thatthe parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.

9. In view of the above, the reference is answered in favour ofthe management and against the workman/Union and it is hereby held that the action ofthe management of Bhilai Steel Plant in relation to their Mahamaya Mines in terminating the services of Shri S. L. Sahu , P.No. 211057 , WeighBridge Clerk w.e.f. 14-2-90 is lawful andjustified and consequentlythe workman is not entitled to any relief. So faras the cost of reference is concerned, the parties shall bear their own costs. Issues No. 4 & 5 are decided accordingly in favour of the management and against the workman.

10. In viewof the above findings on issue No. 1 to 5, the reference is answered in favour of the management and against theworkman/ Union with the findings that the action ofthe management ofBhilai Steel Plant in relation to their MahamayaMines in terminating the services ofShri S. L. Sahu, P. No. 211057 , Weigh Bridge Clerk we.f. 14-2-90 is lawful andjustified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.

11. Copy ofthe award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour as per rules.

8. I have heard Shri C. R. Bakshi , President , Samyuktha Khadan Mazdoor Sangh for workman/Union and Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate for management . I have very carefully gone through the entire record of reference. It has been submitted on behalf of workman/Union that the action of the management is unjustified. and improper for the reasonthat the workman has been given punishment of removal from service which is disproportionate to the act of misconduct . Though in the written argument , law hasbeen cited on the above point but the workman /Union failed to supply the law cited therein and therefore this tribunal could not go through the law cited by the workman/ Union in their written argument. Against the above, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the act ofmisconduct committed by workman Shri Sahu is ofsuch a nature that it warrants for criminal prosecution in addition to departmental action . That the act of misconduct committedby the workman is of tampering with the records which amounts to fabrication of evidence to support wrongful payment of higher amount of money than that is legally payable. He further submitted that this kind of misconduct is ofgrave nature and involves moral turpitude. That there can be no more appropriate pumislament for such misconduct than atleast termination from: service . The Icarned counsel for the management also submitted that the above act of misconduct can also be said to be analogous to the misconduct of misappropriation of money where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again by

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer 4230

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1894.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भिलाई स्टील प्सान्टके प्रबंधितंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी /एल सी / आर/ 115/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29011/29/2002- आई आर ( एम) ] एन . एस . बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th June, 2007

S.O. 1894. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No , CGIT/ LC/R/ 115/ 2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between, the employers in relation to the Managerment of Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2007.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007 /ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] 2. The case of the Union, Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Nandini Mines of B.S.P. , Distt: Durg (CG) inbrief is as follows :-

[No.L-29011 /29/2002- IR (M) ]

N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT/LC/R/115/2002

Shri C. M. Singh, Presiding Officer.

The Secretary, Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , Nandini Mines of B.S.P. ,

"That Shri Shivsewak Ram , P.N. No. 74353 was promoted as Senior Technician ( Mechanical ) hereinafter called Sr. Tech (Mech ) w.e.f. 30-6-1995, Shri U. S. Dewangan , P.No. 230433 and other eleven employeeswere regularised as Sr. Tech . (Mech) after completing eigliteen months training of Sr. TOT . All these employees were regularised as Sr. Tech. (Mech) before 30-6-95 on different dates . Another employee Shri H. K. Lal, P. No. 212146 joined Nardini Mines as Sr. Tech. (Mech) on 2-2-1993 on transfer from Rajahara Mines on own request . Thus all these thirteen employees became senior to Shri Shivsewak Ram in Sr. Tech. (Mech) . As per present Line of Promotion ofMech . Maint, promotion from Sr. Tech. toMaster Technician hereinafter called Mast. Tech. are given strictly as per seniority because no trade test is required for promotion. Shri Shivsewak Ram promoted as Mast, Tech , w.e.f. 31-12-1998 vide order No. OMQ/NM/PF/99/783 dtd : 26-4-1999 by Dy. Manager (Pers ) , Nandini Mines, after approval of competent authority. Thus the management has committed a gross mistake by promoting the junior by superseding thirteen senior employees . They filed grievances to give them designition ofMast. Tech . w.e.f. 31-12-1998. The Assistant Manager (Pers) , Nandini Mines withdrew the promotion order of Sh. Shivsewak Ram without approval ofcompetent authoritywhich is null and void. It is requested that all these 13 employees be given promotion from the date, thejunior was promoted as Mast. Tech, with all benefits.

....Union/worknen

Distt Durg (Chhattisgarh)

Versus

TheGeneral Manager (Mines) , Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai (CG)

3. TheManagement in order to contest the reference filed their Written Statement. Their case in grief is as follows . The claim ofworkmen/Union may kindly be dismissedwith cost. It has been denied that the withdrawal order of promotion was null and void . It was actually a correction oferror. It has also been denied that the order ofpromotion was issued without approval of the competent authority. Thewithdrawal order wasjustified and legal . The workmen/ Unionhas no Locus Standi to ask for promotion .

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of May, 2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabourvide itsNotificationNo. L-29011/29/2002 - IR (M) dated 1-8-2002 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal

"Whether the action of the Management of Bhilai Steel Plant in withdrawing the promotion of Shri Shivsewak Ram , P.N No. 74353 vide its Order No. OMQ/NM/PF/ 2K/668 dated 23-2-2000 is legal andjustified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

4. During the proceeding of this reference on 9-5-2007 Shri C. R. Bakshi , president of the Union submitted that now no industrial dispute is left between the parties . He requested for passing no dispute award. Shri T. Das , Manager (Law) for the management did not oppose the aforesaid request made by Shri Bakshi.

5. It is very clear from the above that now no dispute is left between the parties , therefore it shall be just and reasonable to pass no dispute award. Consequently no dispute award is passed without any order to costs.

6. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour as per rules.

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खंड (i) ]

नईदिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1895.- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 143 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार छुट्टी गोल्फ माईन्स को, लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और ठमके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सी आर 42/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-43012/2/2001 कमाई आर ( एम) ] एन. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 6th June, 2007

S.O. 1895.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. C.R 42/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation to the management of Hutti Gold Mines Co. Lid, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on6-6-2007.

[No. L-43012/2 /2001 -IR(M) ) N.S. BORA, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated21stMay, 2007

PRESENT

Shri A.R. Siddiqui, PresidingOfficer C.R. NO . 42/2001

I PARTY

The AmbayyaEx. U.G.T. No. 2983 KotlaVillage, P.O. Kota Lingusure, Tq. Raichur, Raichur

IPARTY

TheGeneral Manager, Hutti GoldMines Co. Ltd, Hutti P.O. Raichur

AWARD

1. The CentalGovernment by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub -section 2A of the Section10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute 2811 Gi/2007-25

4231

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

videOrder No. L-43012/2/2001 -IR (M) dated 13thJune, 2001 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofM/ s.Gold Mines Co. Ltd. Hutti is justified in terminating the services ofthe workman Shri Ambayya we.f. 5-10-2000 ? If notto what relief the workman is entitled?"" 2. The case ofthe first party workman as made out atParas 4 to 13 of the claim Statement is as under:

"That the first party joined the services of the management on 1-4-1991 as a temporary underground General workman . Thereafter his services were confirmed on 31-3-1992 . He was discharging his duties sincerely, honestly and diligently without giving room for any omission or commission. In other words, his service in the second party company was an unblemished one .

Thai on 25-9-1996 while the first partywas working inthe underground, he met with an accident and as a result ofthe same, he slightly lost vision in his right eye. After the said accident, the first party was referred toRaichor for treatment and then he was referred to the Minto Hospital at Bangalore for Medical check up. After check up , the Doctor certified that the vision ofthe first party was all right and he can report for duty. On account of this accident and treatment, the first party was under Sick Leave for 5 months and the same was granted by the second partywith salary.

That the ChiefMedical Officer of the second party gave a Fitness Certificate to the first party and sent him for work. The Section Officer of the secondparty allotted workto the first party at Central Shaft material Shop as a Store Boy. The first party worked therein for oneyear.He was then transferred in Central Shaft asOffice Boy and there he worked for around 10 months .The first party was retransferred to the Mill underOffice order dated 30-5-2000 as a. Helper . The firstParty obeyed the order and immediately reported forwork at Mill Department as ordered . Just after 3 weeks again he was transferred back to underground department as a Machine Helper . Since then the first partyworked in the underground. Thusjust within a span of 3 years, the second party management transferred the first party 4 times and the first party obeyed the same and worked in different the same andworked in different places within any commission or omission, but putting up all the inconvenience and difficulties that occasioned to him due to frequent transfers .

That the matter stood thus , much to shock and surprise of the first party, the second party 4232

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

Western India Match Company Ltd. , Vs. 3rd Industrial Tribunal , West Bengal, reported in 1978( 1 ) LL.JP 206 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court have laid down the law as follows:

management terminated the services of the first party by its order dated 21-9-2000 on the ground that the firstparty is keeping indiindifferent health on and from 25-9-1996 on the plea of loss of vision in his right eye, dueto loss of right eye vision and also on the faise ground that because of his continued ill health, the first party was unable to perform normal work . However, the second party management offered a sum ofRs. 21,151,20 as a meager compensation which he did not accept .

"that since the comployees was all along on leave granted by the employer no question of incapacity orbeing incapacitated fron) properly discharging his duties and therefore, the question of capacity to discharge the duties does not call for consideration. The clause (in the contract of service ) relied upon comes intoplay only when an employee who has to discharge his duties fails to do so and the employer makes a judgement ofthe situation and comes to the conclusion that it is on account of an incapacity whichwill last longer than two months that the failure todischarge the duties will arise . As has been rightly heldby courts below. the clause could not have been invoked and the termination of service was bad in law"

That on account of the accident, he was sustained only apermanent partial disablement via. slight loss ofright eye vision. Even admittedly, as per Schedule 1(25) of the workmen's compensation Act, 1923, percentage of loss of earning capacity is only 40% and the second party has not paid proper and adequate compensation to the first party even after agreeing to do so under its letter dated 27-1-2001 addressed to the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central, Bellary) , in the course of the conciliation proceedings.

3. Therefore, in the light of the above , the first party workman requested this tribunal to set aside the termination order passed against him and reinstate him in service with back wages , continuity of service and other consequential benefits .

4. The management by it Counter Statement on the other hand contended as follows:

That the action of the second party in terminating the services of the first party under its order dated 21-10-2000 w.c.f. 5-10-2000 invoking Clause 16( 1 ) of the Company's Standing Orders is only illegal , misconceived, unjust, arbitrary and not sustainable eitherlin law or on facts .

That the first party Sri Ambayya was employed as a temporary worker on 1-4-1991 in the capacity of a Helper for underground general work .

That the management is not at all justified in terminating the services of the first party long after the accident and treatment ; certification of Fitness for employment in the company by the ChiefMedical Officer of the second party and after four years of the fust party's continued and satisfactory working inthe service of the management company.

That the second party is not at all justified in coming to the conclusion that the first party was under continued ill health and therefore, was not able to perform his normal work and therefore , he was to be terminated from the services of the company under . Clause 16(1) of the certified Standing Orders of the Company. This conclusion of the second party is not based on any martial evidence not after any enquiry conducted into the matter under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the company.

He was confirmed on 31-3-1992 , While he was working underground he met with a mining accident on 25-9-1996 . As a result of the accident , he lost vision in the right eye , which was assessed by the Chief Medical Officer of the Hutti Gold Mines Hospital and also Minto Hospital at Bangalore . Hence, he was paid compensation to the extent of 30% of his wages as required under the workmen's Compensation Act . However, on humanitarian grounds, he was given work on the surface as Store boy at the Central Shaft Material Stores . However, he was not able to carry out his work as Stores boy onaccount ofhis frequent ill health and the work in the stores was being affected. After about ten months , he was transferred to the mill office by an office order dated 30-5-2000 as a Helper. There also , on account of his ill health , he was not able to carry out his work and he was absenting frequently. Again , in order to give him an opportunity, he was transferred as Machine Helper related 10 underground department . Even here, on account of his ill health , the work was being affected.

Duringthe period of his ill health, he was being granted leave with salary. Finally he was again examined by That the action of the second party amounts to "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2 (00) of the ID Act and since the pre -conditions under Section 25F, 25G and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been complied with by the second party before terminating the services of the first party w.e.f. 5-10-2000, the action is void ab initio , that the action ofthe second party is opposed to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 4233 [भाग [[-खंड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

examine the first party who suffered from Mining Accident on25-6-1996. Не examined and treated the right eye ofthe first partywhich had suffered injury due to the accident. Then he spoke to the fact that the documents at Ex.M1 to M7pertainedto the said Accident, ExM8 is the termination onder and Ex.M9 is the Standing Orders of the management. The last sentence he stated that he issued the certificate at Ex.M7 in the format of Form ' O' certifying to the effect that the firstpartywas not medically fit to work as ' under ground employee'. Inhis cross examination it was elicited that the first party suffered the said eye injury at the time of the accidentwhile working as Underground Mine Employee. Itwas clicited that he has lost 30% of his earning capacity due to the said accident and he has given the certificate at Ex.M7 certifying that the first party is unfit to work as underground employee' .He stated that it is possible to the first pary to work as Surface labourer with his 70 pecent earningcapacity.

the ChiefMedical Officer of the Hutti Gold Mines Hospital andwas found unfit for work: on account of continuous absence which was affected the work , Under the circumstances , the management consideredthat no purpose would be served in giving him work even on the surface and on account of his ill health , his services were terminated as per clause 16( 1) of the company's standing orders, with effect from 5-10-2000 , He was declared unfit by the Medical Board on 1-7-2000 . He was also paid in consideration ofhis service an amount ofRs . 21,151.20 though it is not a case of retrechument, The orderof termination was passed on 21-9-2000; that the first party refused to receive the order of termination, Hence it was sent by RPAD. The first party had raised a dispute before theAssistant Labour Commissioner ( Central),Bellary. The management had explained the case ofthe first party andjustified the order of termination simplicitoc On failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to The Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore vide its orderdated 13-6-2001 under Section 10( 1 )( d) Sub- Bection 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes: Act, 1947 for adjudication.

9. The statement of MW2 is not very much relevant for the purpose as he has just spoken to the fact that the termination orders were sent to the first party by registered post and theywere returned back as " undelivered" . There was no cross examination to MW2 .

10.As far as the first party concerned, inhis affidavit hejust reiterated the various averments made in his Claim Statement, therefore, need not be repeated. In his cross examinationhe denied the suggestion that he did not attend the work of the Store Boy regularly and was remaining absent quite frequently and that he was not regulartothe dutywhenhe was posted to other departments . He denied the suggestion that being examined by the companydoctor hewas declared medically unfit to attend duty and that his termination wasjustified in the light ofmedical certificate.

5. While, giving reply to paras 9 to 11 of the claim Statement, the management denied the contention that the order oftermination passed by it under clause 16( 1 ) of the Standing Orders ofthe company is illegal and unjust. It contended that the management terminated his services both in accordance with the Certified Standing Orders of the Company and in accordance with Section 2(oo) of the ID Act , which specifically makes mention of the fact that termination of the services of the workman on the ground of continued ill health is precluded from the definition of the term " retrenchment" clause provided under Section25 F of the ID Act. The management also contended that there was no question of violation of Section 25 G & N of the ID Act as the first party was given opportunity of about 3 years period to render his services even after the mining accident. Therefore, the management requested this tribunal to reject the reference.

6. During the course of trial , the management examined MW1 , the then Ophthalmic Surgeon and got marked 9 documents in his examination chief and MW2 in his examination chief got marked some postal covers with AD slips said to have been sent to the first party along with the termination order marked at Ex. M10 series.

7. The first party by way of rebuttal, filed his affidavit evidence and in his exarmination chief gol : marked one document at Ex. W1 namely the certificate issued by the Minto Eye Hospital.

8. Statement ofMW1 in his examination chiefisto the effect thatwhile he was working with the Management Company as an Ophthalmic Surgeon had an occasion to

11. The facts undisputed are that the first party as a temporary 'underground general workman' joined the services ofthe management on 1-4-1991 and his services were confirmed on 31-3-1992. On 25-9-1996, while he was working in the underground , met with an accident loosing vision in his right eye to the extent of 30 per cent of his eaming capacity. He remained on sick leave for five months being paid leave salary for the said period. After the accident and availing ofsick leave for 5 months , when he joined the service, he was given work on the surface as a Store Boy at the Central Shaft Material Store and after about 10 months he was transferred to MillOffice by order dated30-5-2000 as a helper . He was again transferred as a Machine helper to the underground department . Now, therefore, it is the case of the management that subsequent to the accident, the first party having suffered loss of vision inhis eyesight was continuously suffering from ill health and was absenting from duty very frequently on account ofhis ill health and therefore , the management was justified in terminating his services as per Clause 16 (1 ) of the Company's Standing Orders wef 5-10-2000 .

4234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

12. Whereas, as seen above , the case of the first partyworkman is that though he suffered loss of vision in his right eye, it was only to the extent of 30 per cent of the carning capacity and as per the medical certificate of the management itself he was unfit to work as underground Labourer and not unfit to work on surface of the Mines . He contended that being able to work on surface , he infact worked forjabout a period of 3 years as admitted by the management itself out all of a sudden his services were terminated inviking the above said clause of the Company's Standing Orders which termination order is bad in law and opposed to the principles of natural justice. Now therefore, in the face of the aforesaid admitted position of facts . a question arises as to whether the management was justified in terminating the services of the first party as per clause 1611 ) of the Company's Standing Orders which runs as follows:

"For terminating the employmem of a permanent workman notice in writing shall be given çillier by the company or the workman. One month's notice in the case of supervisory , clerical and other administrative staff and two week's notice in the case of other workmen , or in licu of notice one month's pay of two weeks pay as the case may be shall be paid.

13. Learned counsels representing the parties have filed their written arguments . Learned counsel for the management justified the termination relying upon the oral testimony of MW1 and the documents at Ex M7 . the medical certificate issued by him, the termination order at Ex.M8 and the aforesaid standing orders at Ex,M9 , 14. Whereas ,learned counsel for the first party not seriously disputing the statement of MW1 rather relying upon his surement itself, the certificate issued by him and the aforesaid standing orders argued that it was not a case ofcontinued ill health and therefore management was not justified in invoking the above said clause in the standing orders in terminating his services particularis, without giving him any opportunity of hearing either by way of show cause notice , any memo or by way of conducting any regular enquiry. He contended that the defence ofthe management as could be made out from the counter statement as well as from the termination order what appears isthat the first party suffered from continued ill health and Thereby was remaining absent from duty very frequently resulting into his termination . Therefore, learned counsel contended that as far as the contention of the managerment that it was a case of continued ill health is not substantialed and as far as his absent from duties concerned. neither there is any material produced nor any action was taken against him for his unauthorized absence so as to terminate his services . Therefore, according to him it was a clear cut case of retrenchment as defined under Section 2 ( 00 ) of the ID Act and since it was not followed

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] bythe compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act , it was an illegal retrenchment to be quashed at the hands of this tribunal .

15. On going through the records I find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. In order to appreciate the respective contention of the parties let me bring on record the very termination order passed against the first party.

"You have been keeping indifferent health from 25-9-1996 due to loss of eye vision ( right) and this condition has incapacitated you for further work. Further, due to your continued ill health as stated above, you are unable to perform your normalwork. Therefore, we regret to inform you that your services are terminated w.e.f. 16-9-2000 under Company's Standing Order No. 16 (1 ) . Since your services are terminated on the ground of continued ill health, it is therefore, a termination under clause 16 ( 1 ) of the Companies Standing Orders and that this is not a case of retrenchment . However, in consideration of yourassociation with the company, the management, as a good will gesture , is pleased to pay compensation of Rs . 21 , 151.20 though not required to under law. You may contact the Dy. Financial Controller, of the company for your final settlement ofaccounts. Which will be done as per rules." 16. Therefore , as could be read from this order, the services of the first party have been terminated on the ground ofcontinued ill health under the above said clause 16(1 ) of the Standing Orders . Now, therefore , an heavy burden cast upon the management to substantiate its contention that the first party suffered from continued ill health. The only evidence produced by the management is the then Eye Specialist and his certificate at Ex.M7 to prove this said point . As seen above, MW1 in his examination chief itselfhas stated that as per the certificate at Ex.M7 in form "O" is to the effect that the first party was not medically fit to work as underground employee. In his cross- examination as seen above , he admitted that on account of the said toss ofvision the first party lost 30 per cent ofhis carning capacity and further stated that it was possible for the first party to work as Surface Labour with his 70 per cent earning capacity. Therefore, from the above said statement ofMW1 read with certificate at Ex.M7 the first partywas not medically unit to work as a surface labourer retaining his 70 per cent of earning capacity. He hadjust lost 30 per cent of his earning capacity and was not fit to work as underground employees. Therefore, in the face of theaforesaid oral testimony ofMW1 and the certificatehe passed at Ex.M7 , it cannot be said that the first party suffered from total loss of vision or total loss of earning capacity by sustaining eye injury during the course ofthe mining accident . The contention of the management that he was suffering from continued ill health gets support [भाग II-खंड (ii) ]

4235

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

from no material on record . Evidence of MWI and his provision ofpersonal hearing to the delinquent concerned, principles of natural justice warrant that such an opportunity again must be given to the delinquent before his services are to be terminated. The case on hand is a case ofpermanent employee and it is very strange to note that his services have been brought to an end summarily and in a very casual manner. Neither there was any enquiry conducted in respect of his continned ill health nor any enquiry was conducted against him for his absence from duty. It was not the case of any misconduct being committedby the first party so serious in nature to invite the order of termination. Moreover, undisputedly, there was no compliance of Section 25F ofthe ID Act , before the termination order. Therefore , action of the Management amounts to retrenchment under Section 2 (00) read with Section 25F of the ID Act. Therefore, viewed from any angle the order of termination passed by the management cannotbejustified and accordingly is liable tobe set aside as illegal and void ab initio.

17. In a normal course, when the termination order is held to be illegal, the resultant corollary would be the reinstatement of the workman, In the instant case undisputedly, the first party was taken as a general labourer to work as 'underground employees ' and it is under this capacity itself, his services were confirmed. Now, at the result of eye injury he suffered during the course of accident, he lost his vision to the extent of30 per cent of his earning capacity and it has been certified by medical examination that he is unfit to work as an underground mine employee. Therefore , it is in this view of the matter it will notbe proper for this tribunal to give the first party the relief of the reinstatement. As contended by the engagement on humanitarian ground, he was being offered job ofoffice boy, helper etc, on surface as was not fitto work as underground labourer . Therefore , in such circumstances it will not be justified to call upon the management to take the first party back in service. Therefore, keeping in view the length of service of about 9 to 10 years the first party rendered with the management, theperiod of about six years passed from the date ofthe present reference till this day and the fact that the first partyhadalready been paid a sum ofRs . 21,000 and old as agoodwill gesture by the management and not loosing sight ofthe fact that the first party was hardly aged about 40 years as on the date of his termination, it appears to me that ends ofjustice will be met if he is ordered to be paid a hump sum amount ofRs. 1,50,000 as compensation in lieu ofhis reinstatement and service benefits etc. towards the full and final settlement of his claim against the management. Hence the followingAward:

AWARD

The management is directed to pay a sum of Rs .1,50,000 (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to the first partyby way of compensation in lump sum certificate cannot be said to be the evidence sufficient for the said purpose. The contention of the management that the first party was declared medically unfit by medical board, has notbeen substantiated by any evidence. Though the medical certificate at Ex.M7 bears some endorsements suggesting that the first party was declared medically unfit bymedical board but we have no evidence on record either byway of report or by way of any certificate issuedby the medical board testifying to the effect that the first party has been declared medically unfit much less to say that it was acase of continued ill health, The contention of the management that the first party was remaining absent regularly and frequently though was being offered thejob on surface and that was on account of his ill health as argued for the first party gets no support from any material brought on record. Even otherwise when, undisputedly, the first party was being offered job on surfisce and his so worked for a period of 3 years , it cannot be said that he suffered from continued ill health . Moreover, if at all the first party was remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty for any reason much less on account ofhis ill health, the proper course available to the management was to take disciplinary action against the first party for his unauthorised absence. It was again open to the management tohave subjected the first party for medical examination so as to find out whether he suffered from any continued ill health . The fact that he suffered from some Eye injury that too, to the extent of30 percent ofhis vision (ertainly cannot bea ground sufficient to say that it was a case ofcontinued ill health. Now the question wouldbe as towhether even assuming for a moment that the first party suffered from continued ill health, whicther the management wasjustified in terminating his services without giving him any opportunity of hearing in the matter. The provisions of clause 16 ( 1 ) of the Standing Orders noted above, certainly give powers to the management to terminate the services of a permanent workman just giving one month's; notice or twoweeks notice as the case may be or to pay one month's pay of two weeks pay in lieu of the said notice. First ofall this provision of law nowhere provides that termination can be justified or can be made invoking the same for the ground of continued ill health. Therefore , it is not understandable as to how this provision of law was invoked by the management to discontinue the services ofthe first party on the ground of continued ill health . Fiven otherwise, taking the support of the said provision also the management could not have terminated the services ofthe first party without giving any proper opportunity of hearing much less conducting any regular departraental enquiry he being a permanent employee of the management company. Undisputedly, no such opportunity of hearing was given to the first party either by issuing show cause notice, a memo or conducting any regular enquiry. It is now well settled principle of law that notwithstanding the certified standing orders of the management having no 4236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 4, 1929

[PART II- SEC. 3 (i ) ]

TheRegional Director.

ONGC Ltd. , Southern Region ,

Chennai

Il Party/Management

APPEARANCE

towards his full and final settlement of the claim against it. The amount shall be paid within six months from the date of publication of this award, or else it must carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum till the date of its realisation . No costs.

For the Claimant :Mr. J. Narayanamurthy, Advocate

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by mejon 21st May, 2007 ) .

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

A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जून, 2007

AWARD

1. The Cental Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-30011/83 /2004 - JR( M ) dated 25-1-2005 has referredthe dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned dispute is as follows:

का.आ. 1896.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधितंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 27/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action ofthe management of ONGC in not regularising the services of S/ Shri K. Selvam and 16 others is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled ?'

[सं. एल-30011/83/2004- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th June , 2007

2.After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on fileas I.D. No. 27/2005 and notices were issued toboth the parties and they have entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim Statement and counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claini Statement are briefly as follows ;

S.O. 1896. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. L.D.No 27 / 2005) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Chenpai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetween the employer in relation to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 6-6-2007.

[No. L -30011 /83/2004 - IR( M) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 17th May, 2007

PRESENT;

Shri K. Jayaraman , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 27/2005

BETWEEN

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d ) of sub -section ( 1 ) Isub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ).between theManagement ofONGC Ltd. and their workmon )

BETWEEN

Sri V.Gopinathan ,

Dy. General Secretary. Petroleum Employees'

Union ONGC Lad.

I Party / Claimant

AND

The Petitioner union espouses the cause of 17 workmen out of which 14 are messengers and 3 are sanitary cleaners by designation. The said workmen areworking under Respondent from the year 1988 in the same category. In the earlier years 1985-86 the employees were engaged through contractor and from the year 1988 onwards , the employees are employed directly by the Respondent/managemem and the employees are given designation as term based employees. Under labour law nameły Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act nor in service rules of the Respondent organisation , there is a designation calied as term based employee. Only to defeat the provisions of labour laws , the Respondent / Management coined a new designation called as term based eniployce . The above employees were given appointment letter fixing the term of employment as six months in the year 1988 and later extended it by another six months and from the year 1989 onwards. no appointment letter was issued nor the employees term was fixed. The regular (permanent ) employees of Respondent/ Management and the concerned employees are doing the same nature ofjob for the last 17 years. These employees are performing the same job in same section and drawing different wages. Previously. 37 employees were not regularisod and as such , they have filed a Writ Petition before [ भाग-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

4237

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

the High Court in W.P. 777/97 and when it was came up for final disposal , 22 petitioners out of 37 were regularised and 14 persons were left out and one expired. While disposing of the Writ Petition, the high Court has held that in the present juncture the scope of regularisation of any more employee is very remote and scrutiny ofthe aforesaid controversy as between the Petitioners and Respondent will depend upon the material evidence to be adduced on behalf ofboth parties and therefore, the High Court directed thePetitioner to seek remedy before the adjudication machinery, since the Petitioners are all workmen under the provisioris of I.D. Act . Therefore , the 17 workmen through their union raised the industrial dispute for regularisation of their service. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment ( Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 is applicable to this establishunent . Since the concerned employees are working continuously from the year 1988 onwards and they having worked for more than 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months, they are entitled to be made as permanent . Therefore, the Petitioner union prays that these workmen should be granted the benefit of wages as applicable to regular employees from the date of these employees have been regularised and prays this Tribunal to pass an award to regularise these employees from the date these employees have completed 480 days in a continuous period of24 calendar months with consequential benefits.

4. As against this, the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the issue referred in this matter relates to regularisation of service of term based employees. The Respondent Commission was established under Oil &Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959 for development of petroleum resources and production and sale ofpetroleum and petroleum products produced by it and as per Section 3 (2) of the Act, the Commission shall be abody corporatehaving perpetual succession and a common seal with a power to acquire , hold and dispose of property and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. In the said Act, it has also framed its regulations that all appointments in service of the commission shall be made only against the posts created by competent authority. The commission was primarily attendingto exploration workwhich may or may not prove fruitful. The manpower requirement was determined keeping in mind the minimum mumber for which it could provide sustained employment when once theproject reached fruition and started yielding results. In that context, in respect ofwork which are not directly related to exploration and production , the comunission was outsourcing its manpower requirement for certainjobs such as watch and ward, Louse keeping and courier service. Thus, the Southern Regional Office was placing its indent for manpower for watch and ward, housekeeping and

courier service on some of the external agencies who used. to deploy their men for attending to these jobs and there were three agencies namely (i ) Thai Security Services (P) Ltd, ( ii ) M/s . Dialtone and ( iii ) Industrial Maintenance Services (P) Ltd. In the year 1986 one National Commercial Employees Union filed W.P. No. 7651/86 praying for regularisation/absorption of contract labour . During the pendency ofW.P. based on an understanding reached with contract labour, it was agreed to have a single agencywhich couldbe entrusted with the task of supplying manpower for carrying out these jobs for which contracts were awarded. On 16-12-86 a settlement was made between the commission and the contract workmen working under various contractors by which it was agreed to form a co- operative society in order to bring out improvement in the working conditions and welfare of the contract workers working in the Southern Regional Office, Chennai . On 16-3-1987, the W.P. was dismissed as withdrawn and the contract workmen formed a co - operative society in the name of Priyadharshini Indira Gandhi Co-operative Labour Contract & Society Ltd. By a notification dated 9-11-76 the CentralGovt: prohibited the employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning , dusting and watching ofbuildings owned and occupied by the establishment. Then the Tamil NaduNational Industrial Commercial Employees Union filed a WP. No. 9688/87 seekingto restrain the commission from utilising the services of agencies like Central Industrial Security Force and for continuing to utilise the service of Priyadharshini Indira Gandhi Co-operative Labour Contract & Society Ltd. Though interim injunction was made to maintain status quo when it was finally disposed of on 5-1-88 the High Court has disposed ofthe W.P. holding the settlement dated 16-12-86 permitting formation of co- operative society for supply of manpower cannotbe sustained having regard to the notification dated 9-12-76. On12-1-88, the Commission terminated the contract, it had entered into with Priyadharshini Indira Gandhi Co -operative Labour Contract & Society Ltd. w.e.f. 13-1-88 . Following the termination of contract awarded to Society, the commission took a policy decision to employ workmen of the society on fixed term basis and the workmen were all issued with letter of term appointment confirming the temporary employment from 13-1-88 and the employment was upto 29-2-88 . Thereafter , the said tern appointment was being extended with the approval of competent authority on an ad-hoc basis pending decision about the disbanding of this work force . In the year 1991 , the Commission maved into its own premises at Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Chennai and many of the offices located in different places in Chennai were all closed and activities ofthese offices are shifted to its own premises. With this improvement in communication facilities , as such emergence of e-mail, internet, etc. and also computerisation of various records, the scope for desk services got considerably diminished. Even the need for service of sanitary cleaners also declined . In the changed scenario, [PART I-SEC . 3 (ii ) ) 4238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

not espoused by a substantial section of the workmen of Southern Regional Office of the Respondent. There is no proper authorisation of the Petitioner union to raise the dispute, therefore, there is no valid industrial dispute regarding the demand for regularisation of 17 term based employees and hence the order of reference itself is no valid in law. There is no certified standing orders for Southern Regional Office of the Respondent . The term based employees were given letters indicating their tenure of employment and subsequently, based on the approval of the competent authority, the said term based appointment was being extended from time to time. The term based einployees are not in the service of the Respondent and in any event, the nature of work, duration ofwork and other conditions ofwork of these term based employees are different from the permanent employees of theRespondent .Hence, there is no scope for regularisation of any of the term based employees . They can get employment only against the post sanctionedby competent authority and any appointment can only be subject to the policy of the Respondent. Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment ( Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act , 1981 is not relevant for deciding the present dispute. Hence , for all these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are :

(1) "Whether the action of the Respondent/ Management in not regularising the services of Sri K. Selvam and 16 others is legal and justified?"

(ii) "To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

Point No. 1 :

6. Learned for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner union espouses the cause of 17 workmen . Out of these 14 are messengers and 3 are sanitary cleaners and theworkmen are working in the Respondent/Management from the year 1985 onwards and they are employed directly by the Respondent / Management . Though thest employees are given designation called term based employees, it is so called only to defeat the provisions of labour laws, which extend various benefits to workmen andthere is no designation called term based employee in the Standing Orders or in the service regulations of Respondent/Management. Furthet, these employees were given appointment letter fixing term ofemployment as six months in the year 1988 and later it was extended by six months and from the year 1989 onwards , no appointment letterwas issued nor the term of employees was fixed . The work of the regular employee (permanent employees) and the concerned employee are all being the same for the last the commission wanted a study to be made about its manpower requirement and based on such study, if posts are to be created, then these term appointees were to be considered for such additional posts. After 1991-92 several changes had taken place in the Commission. In view ofthe constant changes that were taking place, the number of messengers, sanitary cleaners and security staff who were appointed on fixed term basis were also being periodically rationalised and the number got considerably reduced. In the year 1991, 37 terms appointees who were working as messengers fled W.P. No. 777 of 1997 seeking a writ of mandamus to Respondent to regularise their service from the date of their initial appointment. On 15-12-97, the competent authority gave sanction for creation and filling upof 12 posts ofjunior sanitary cleaners for the regional officeat Chennai . The two supervisors and 21 cleaners who were on term appointment basis were called for interview and12 of them who met the prescribed criteria were appointed after observing the reservation policy of the Governinent of India. On 18-12-98 the competent authority gave approval for creation and appointment of 11 posts ofjunior attendants and 5posts ofjunior sanitary cleaners .Out ofthe 36 term appointees who were working as messengers , 11 who met the prescribed criteria were appointed as Junior attendants . Similarly, the 5 term appointees vere appointed as junior sanitary cleaners. The appointments were made in March, 1999. Again , in the year 2000, the competent authority gave sanction for creation and appointment of 11 posts of junior attendants and three posts of junior sanitary cleaners . 11 terh appointees who were working as messengers and who met the prescribed criteria were appointed as junior attendants and 3 sanitary cleaners on term basis were appointed as junior sanitary cleaners. Thus , out of 37 messengers who were parties to W.P. No. 777 of 1997 one Mr. Balakrishnan expired and remaining 14 term appointees were being retained in view of the pendency of W.P. On 14-10-2003 W.P. No. 777 of 1997 was disposed of by single Judge of Madras High Court holding that ' remedy workmen is by risingappropriate industrial dispute and get it adjudicated by the forum created under I.D. Act. Therefore, the Petitioner union has raised this dispute . The Respondent being aGovt . company any appointment can be made only against the sanctioned post and no person can make claim for appointment without a vacancy existing in the sanctioned post . Since from the year 2000 , no new post hasbeen created in the cadre ofjunior attendant and junior sanitary cleaner nor has any vacancy arisen in the sanctioned posts. As such , the remaining term based employees could not be considered for appointment . Therefore, there is no scope to regularise any person in the services of Respondent unless he was appointed against thesanctioned post. In this case , the Respondent is having 257 employees in the workmen category in the Southern Regional Office at Chennai and to the knowledge of the Responders, the cause of 17 term based employees was 4239 [भाग II-खंड (ii) )

भारव का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आपाड़ 9, 1929

as per theproposition of Supreme Court. Hence, he prays thatan award ntaybe passed in their favour. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that even after judgement in Uma Devi's case in 2006 II LLJ 722 , the DivisionBench ofSupreme Court in 2006 III LLJ 482 Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union Vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd: and another has held that "theworkmenwho were engaged and continued for years together cannot be termed a temporary or casuals and it shouldbe proper to regularise who had worked for several years." Therefore, he prays that an award may be passed infavour of the Petitioner union .

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent in this case contended that the Respondent/ Management was constituted under Oil & Natural Gas CommissionAct , 1959 , The Commission was primarily attending to exploration work which may or may not prove fruitful, the manpower requirement was determined keeping in mind the minimum number for which it could provide sustained employment when once the project reached fruition and started yielding results. It will not require more staff. Only in that context , in respect of the work which are not directly related to exploration and production, the Commission was outsourcing its manpower requirement for certainjobs such as watch & ward, housekeeping and courier service. Initially, the Southern Regional Office at Chennai was located in CSI Building, Cathedral Road and italsohad offices at several places . In the year 1991 , the Commission moved into its own premises at Thalamuthu NatarajanBuilding, Egmore, Chennai and many of the offices located in different places in Chennai were all closed and activities of those offices were shifted to its own premises.With the improveinent ofcommunication facilities such as the emergence of e-mail , internet etc. and also computerisation of various records, the scope of desk service got considerably diminished and even the need for service ofsanitary cleaners also declined. In that changed scenario, the Commission wanted a study to be made about its manpower requirement and based on such study, ifposts are to be created, then these term appointees were tobe considered for such additional posts. After 1991-92 several changes had taken place in the commissiott. Instead of being a statutory commission, a company was formed in the name of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, under CompaniesAct. In view ofthis constant changes thatwere taken place, the number ofmessengers, sanitary cleaners and security staff who were appointed on fixed term basis was also being periodically rationalised and the number got considerable reduced. No doubt , in the year 1997, 37 termbased appointees who were working as messengers filed Writ Petition No. 777 of 1997 seeking a Writ of Mandamusto the Respondent to regularise their service fromthedate of their initial appointment . But, in the mean time, on 15-12-1997 the competent authority of the Respondent/Management gave sanction for creation and 17 years , but they are drawing different wages , thus the Respondent /Management has not followed the principle ofequal pay for equal work. Previously 37 workmenwere not regularised and granted the same wages, hence as per the principle ofequal wages for equal work, they have filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and while the same was pending 22 Petitioners in the Writ Petition were regularised and the remaining persons were left out . Out of these 14 persons have raised this dispute and one expired. Further, from the documents filed by the Respondent, it is clear that there is need for employing these persons as messengers and seniority workers. Further, for the Regional Office ofthe Respondent/Management, thuse employees are essentially needed due to the shortage of class IV employees .Even this established from the documents filed by the Respondent. Any how, there is Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment ofPermanent Status to Workmen ) Act, 1981 which is also applicable to this Respondent/Management . As per Section 3 ( 1 ) ofthe said Act "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every workman who is in contimious service for aperiod of480 days in a period of24 calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be made permanent . The industrial establishment has beendefined in Section 2 (3) ( c) of the said Act, i.e. an establishment as defined in clause 6 of the Section 2 of Tamil Nadu shops and Establishment Act , 1947. Further, the SingleBenchof the Madras High Court and Division Bench of the High Court have clearly held that Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment ( Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act , 1981 is applicable to the nationalised banks and he relied on the rulings reported in 1994 I LLN 501 Andhra Bank, Salem Vs. Inspector of Labour & Another and also 1998 Writ LR 271 A. Palanivel & 2 Ors . Vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board, Chennai ; 1999 [ LLJ 188 Mamundiraj N. & Ors. Vs. Bhel , Trichy & Another and 2003 Writ L.R. 31 S. Gandhimathi Vs. Deputy Registrar ofCo -operative Society (Milk ), Tirunelveli &: Ors . Relying on thesedecisions, he argued that Section 3 ( 1 ) of the non- obstinate clause which prevails over any Law for the time being in force which includes any service rules, Govt . orders orGovt. Notification, therefore , want of sanctioned posts as required under service rules cannot take awaythe rights conferred under Section 3 ( 1 ) ofthe Act. He further argued that the Govt. orders which require that appointment should bemade only through Employment Exchange also cannot be a ground to reject the right provided under Section 3 ( 1 ) of the Act and it is to be seen whether the workmen have completed 480 days in the preceding 24 calendar months or not ? In this case, it has been clearly established and which is also admitted by the Respondent that the workmen were doing the work from the year 1988 and it is also established and admitted by the Respondem: witness that these workmen are doing the same nature of work as that ofregular employees, therefore they are entitled to get the same pay as per the principle ofequal pay for equal work,

2811 Gl/2007-28 [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 4240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

Supreme Cowt , the Supreme Court has held that the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal were reasonable and should be allowed to stand as against the direction given by the High Court, firstly to treat the said 153 workmen on aparwith the regular employees and thereafter to treat their services as having been notionally regularised from 1-5-1999 . In that case , the Supreme Court has observed that"admittedly the workmen who were employed for field survey workwere employed for about six months in a year between November and May . If at all , they are to be regularised, the appellant will have to find work for them during the months , when their services would otherwise have not been required ." In the case of 2001 SCC 408 in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Lid.'s case the Supreme Court has held that "the Court cannot create a post where none exits , nor issue direction to absorb or regularise temporary employees nor continue them in service , nor paythem salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive or legislative functions . Furthermore , such questions cannot be decided in Court on the basis of emotions and sympathies but must be decided on legal principles. It further held that though some directions given by Supreme Court in certain cases for regularisation oftemporary or ad hoc employees without laying down any principle of law , did not lay down any precedent and had to be treated as directions given under Article 142 of the Constitution. " It further held that "jobs cannot be created by judicial orders nor even by legislative or executive decisions . Jobs are created when the economy is rapidly expanding which means when there is rapid industrialisation . The additional burden imposed on people at large to benefit a few, in case of State created employment/public sector/ State owned/operated Corporations. " Further, " right to livelihood or work Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be stretched so far as to mean that everyone must be given a job . Article 41 has been deliberately kept by the Founding Fathers in the Directive Principles Chapter and hence made unenforceable ." It further held that " since one has been working for some time in the post , it will not be just to discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up , is one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment . Similarly, no direction can begiven that a daily wage employee should be paid salary of a regular employee . If an employee is not appointed against a sanctioned post he is not entitled to any scale of pay." In that decision, it is also held that "the State works out the scheme taking into consideration the financial implications and economic aspects. The Court cannot impose on the State a financial burden by insisting on regularisation or permanence in employment , when those employed temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly. The burden may become so heavy by such a direction that the undertaking itself may collapse under its own weight. It is not as if this had not happened. So, the filling up of 12 posts ofjunior sanitary cleaners for the RegionalOffice at Chennai and 12 term based employees, who have got prescribed criteria were appointed after observing the reservation policy of Government of India. On 18-12-1998 the competent authority gave approval for creation and appointment of 11 posts ofjunior attendants and5posts ofjunior sanitary cleaners. Therefore, out of36 term based employees who have filed the Writ Petition whomet the prescribed criteria were appointed as junior attendamms. Again, in the year 2000, the competent authority gave sanction for creation and appointment of 11 posts of junior attendants and three posts of sanitary cleaners. Thus, 11 term appointees who were working as messengers and who met the prescribed criteria were appointed as junior attendants and 3 sanitary cleaners on term basis were appointed as junior sanitary cleaners . Thus , out of 36 messengers, who were parties to Writ Petition No. 777 of 1997, one of them expired and remaining 14 term appointces were being petained in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition. On 14-10-2003 the said Writ Petition was disposed of holding that since the petitioners are workmen , they have to work out their remedy by raising appropriate industrial dispute and get it adjudicated by the forum createdunder 1.D. Act and the Writ was disposed of. Since in this case the Respondent/Management being a Govt . company any appointment can be made only against the sanctioned post and no person can make a claim for appointment without a vacancy existing in the sanctioned post. It is admitted by the witnesses examined on the side ofthe Petitioner that since 2000, no new post has been created in the cadre of junior attendant andjunior sanitary cleanernor has any vacancy arisen in the sanctioned posts. As such, the remaining term based employees could not be considered for appointment or regularisation . There is no scope to regularise any person in the service of the Respondent unless he was appointed against sanctioned post: Further, no person can gain entry into service by making a false claim for regularisation merely on the basis that hehadworked for the Conunission for some period. Further, the learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the mlings seported in 20071 SCC 250 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh and 2007(1) SCC 408 Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, wherein in the first case, namely ONGC , which is similar in nature, regularisation was asked for the temporary seasonal workmen who have completed 240 days of continuous service,wherein the Industrial Tribunal has awarded that workmen can be regularised against the vacancy as and when such vacancies became available with other consequental direction, but in the Writ Petition filed by both sides, the Single Bench of the High Court has passed an order that the workmen should be treated as such on parwiththe regular employees and the Division Bench or the High court has given permanent status and also for regularisation. When the matter was came up before the [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

4241

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

acceptedby theHigh Court " and upheld the findings given by the Tribunal

9. I find much force in the contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner because the members of the Petitioner union had passed a resolution in an emergency meeting, copy of which is marked under Ex. W8 , which clearly shows that the members of the union have authorised the union to represent the case of 17 workmen. But, with regard to regularisation, I find much force in the contention of the Respondent because it is well settled that"no regularisation is permissible in exercise ofexecutive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of rules and regulation do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments . They are terms calculatedto condone any procedural irregularities and are meam to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. " Further, in several decisions , the Supreme Court has held that "when appointment was purely on ad hoc and contractual basis for a limited period, on expiry of theperiod right to remain in service came to end and regularisation cannot be a mode of recruitment by any State . It further held that regularisation cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad- hoc in nature . " In this case, though it is alleged that the workomen in this case are doing the work of messenger and also sanitary work for a number of years, they have not established before this. Court that they have been appointed in sanctioned posts . Under such circumstances , this Tribunal cannot pass any order for regularisation, when there is no sanctionedpost. As such , I find this point against thePetitioner. PointNo. 2 :

The next point to be decided in this case isto what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

Court ought not to impose a financial burden on the State by such directions , as such directions may turn counterproductive. " Relying on these decisions , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that at this juncture , the Respondent Corporation is not needed so much of messengers and so much of sanitary cleaners . Any how, as a welfare measure as and when vacancy arises, it will. absorb some of the persons in the post being created by the competent authority. Therefore, the workmen in this case are not entitled to ask for any regularisation or permanence , in view of the recent judgements of Supreme Court. He further contended that the Respondent/ Management have 257 cmployees in workmen category in Southern Regional Office and to the knowledge of the Respondent the case of 17 term based employees, was not espoused by substantial section of the workmen of SouthernRegional Office ofRespondent/management. The Petitioner union has not established the fact before this Tribunal that they have been authorised by the union to raise the dispute . Therefore, there is no valid industrial dispute regarding the demand for regularisation of 17 term based employees, therefore , the order of reference itselfis not valid in law. He also relied on the ruling reported in 1981 [ LLJ 354 State ofPunjab Vs. Labour Court, Jullundur & Ors. wherein the issue was whether the gratuity dues can be recovered through an application under section 33C(2) ofthe LD. Act , in which the Supreme Court has held 'that"Parliament intended that the proceedings for payment ofgratuity due under the payment of Gratuity Act mustbe taken under that Act and not under any other, that being so, it mustbe held that the applications filed by employees under Section 33C(2 ) ofLD . Act did not lie and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and clispose of the application." Similarly, in this case, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that espousal is not proper and the union has no authority to espouse the cause of 17 workmen and hence, the reference itself is tot validunder theAct. :

10. In view of myforegoing findings, that the action of the Respondent/management in not regularising the services of17 workmen is not illegal, I find the workmen concerned in this dispute are not entitled to any relief.Bot; atthe same time , as pointed out by the learned counsel for theRespondent and also pointed out by the Supreme Court in 2007 ( 1 ) SCC 250, I find if a direction is given to the Respondem/Management to absorb the workmen as and when sach vacancies become available , it will be more beneficial to the concerned workmen and as such, I direct the Respondent/Manageinent that 17 workmen concerned in this dispute who had admittedly completed 480 days in acontimyous period of 24 calendar months be regularised as and when such vacancies become available. No Costs.

11. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to theP.A. , transcribed and typedby him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 17th May, 2007.)

K. JAYARAMAN, PresidingOfficer 8. But, as against this , learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner has produced documentsto show that Executive Members of the Union have authorised the union to represent the case of 17 workmen concerned in this dispute . Further, he relied on the ruling reported in 2005 I LLJ 1089Jadhav 1.H. Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd. wherein the Supreme Court has held that "no particular forın prescribed to effect such espousal. The Industrial Tribunat's finding of such espousal based on evidence and hence the said finding of the tribunal could not be upset in judicial review without holding it to be irrational orperverse." Further it observed that "the Tribunal had appreciated the evidence and found that a union had espoused the appellant's cause and it point out that there was no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal . The objection in this case was that the union espousing the appellant's cause was not the majority union but that objectionwas rightly rejected by the Tribunal and wrongly THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

4242

Witnesses Examined :

: WW1 Sri K. Pandithurai For the 1 Party/Claimant

WW2 Sri F.C. Lionel

WW3 Sri T. Dorairaj For the IIParty/Management : MW1 Sri F. Jayaraj Documents Marked:

Forthe 1Party/Petitioner :

[PART II-SEC. 3 (1)] 27-01-88 Xerox copy ofthe biodata ofconcerned.

M9 Nil

Xerox copy ofthe Government of India Certificate of Incorporation.

16-12-86

M10

Xerox copy of the Mos between contract labourers and Respondent/ Management

15-05-87

M11

Xerox copy of the contract service for messenger service system.

M12 12-01-88

Ex.No. Date Description

21-01-88

Xerox copy of the memo issued by DeputyGeneral Manager.

21-0188

Xerox copy of the memorandum of Deputy General Manager of Respondent/Management

29-02-88

Xerox copy of the memorandum of Deputy General Manager of Respondent/Management .

W4 14-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter regarding allotment ofGPF No.

04-02194 Хегox copy of the letter regarding allotment ofGPF Identification .

30-04-93 Xerox copy of the office order .

W7 NI

Xerox copy of the pay slip of K. Janarthanan.

19-11-03

Xerox copy of the resolution of emergency meeting ofUnion.

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Society.

15-12-97

M13

Xerox copy of the office order of sanitary cleaners.

25-05-88

M14

Xerox copy of the order extending engagement .

18-12-98

M15

Xerox copy of the office order of Junior Sanitary Cleaners/attendants. 23-12-94)

M16

Xerox copy of the office order ofJunior Sanitary Cleaners/ Jr. attendants. 11-01-88

M17

Xerox copy of the approval of Respondent extending Duration of requirement for three months .

31-03-88

M18

Xerox copy of the approval of Respondent extending Duration of requirement upto 31-8-88.

M19 Nil Xerox copy of the approval of Respondent extending Duration of requirement upto31-8-1988.

M20 30-04-96

For the II Party/Management:

Ex.No. Date Description

MI Nil

Xerox copy of the certificate regarding location of ONGC Offices at Chennai premises.

M2 NI

Xerox copy ofthe ONGCAct, 1959.

Xerox copy of the approval of Respondent extending Duration of requirement .

01-08-96

M21

Xerox copy of the approval of Respondent extending Duration of requirement.

M22 02-05-97

06-10-87 Xerox copy of the order in W.P. 14207, M3

07-10-97

Xerox copy of the order in WP No. 14662/ 87.

05-01-88

Xerox copy of the order in W.P. 9688 & 11964/87.

M6 Nil

Xerox copy of the list of term based employees with Designation. 21-01-88

Xerox copy of the specimen appointment order.

Xerox copy of the approval of Respondent extending Duration of requirement .

10-06-97

M23

Xerox copy of the approval of Respondent extending Duration of requirement.

20-05-19

M24

Xerox copy of the approval of Respondent extending Duration of requirement.

14-10-03

M25

Xerox copy of the order of the High Court in WP. 777 of 1997 .

[भाग -खंड ( )]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आभाड़ 9, 1929

4243 नईदिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

foradjudication to Presiding Officer, CGIT-cam -Labour Court, Lucknow :

"Whether the action of the Management of Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd. in terminating Shri . Rajpal Singh, So Yadram Singh w.e.f. 31-12-1986 is legal ? Ifnot to whunt relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

का.आ. 1897,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की थारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेयरहावसिंग कॉर्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और तभके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. की. 54/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/2/2002-आई आर (एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th June , 2007

S.O. 1897. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D. No. 54/ 2003) ofthe 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 Central Warehousing Corporation and their workman, which was received by the Central Goverrunent on 6-6-2007.

[No. L-42012/ 1/2002 -IR(M) ]

N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

Shrikant Shukla, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 54/2003

Ref.No. 1-42012/2 /2002 -IR( M ) dated 31-3-2003

BETWEEN

Worker has stated in his statement of claim, filed in this Tribunal on 15-9-2003 that he was appointed on the post ofMali on 18-6-1985 in Central Warehouse, Jaspur, UdaraSingh Nagar and all of sudden on 31-12-1986 his. services were terminated by oral order. Worker has alleged thathewas not given notice or retrenchment compensation, though he has worked for more than 240 days under the opposite party. Worker has alleged that he continuously represented orally and by written representations , requested the opposite parties , but the opposite party did not reply the representation nor he was taken back in the service. Worker has also alleged that against the illegal action of the opposite party, he represented to Bhartiya Anusuchit Jati and Suchit Warg Uthun Samiti , Moradabad and Sri Janak Raj Sharma, President , District Panchayat, Udam SinghNagar and other reputed person through letters but neither the worker was reinstated nor the opposite party took any cognizance. Worker's case is that the post onwhich he was employed is still vacant and the same of the permanent nature and therefore the worker is entitled tobe reinstated on the post ofMali . The worker thereafter presentedhis claim petition before the conciliation officer, KumaunHaktwani on 19-6-2002 which was rejected onthe ground that the same does not come under the purview of Central Conciliation Officer. Worker thereafter appealed on 12-4-2002 which was returned on 17-6-2002 on the ground that appeal cannot be disposed af by this office.Worker thereafter again represented stating that in case there is any delay in filing the claim petition, the worker cannotbe held responsible and the delay is liable to be condoned. Worker has prayed for reinstatement with back wages and all consequential benefits.

SriRajpal Singh, S/o Sri Yadram R/o. Village & Post Ratupura, Tehsil : Thakurdwara, Distt. Muradabad.

AND

Manager. Central Warehousing Corporation, Jaspur Koshipur, Udham Singh Nagar Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation ,

RegionalOffice,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.).

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the following dispute No. L-42012/2/2002- IR(M) dated 31-3-2003 which was amended on 27-6-2003

Written statement has been filed by Regional Manager ofopposite party No. 2 on behalf ofthe opposite parties. The opposite party has denied the claim of the worker and has alleged that the same is misleading. It is alleged thatworker was engaged from July, 1985 to October, 1985. It is alleged that worker was engaged in contingencies. It is further alleged that worker worked only 119 days intermittently on daily wages. After disengagement on October, 1985 he neither approached nor made correspondence to the concerned authorities for any claim and has come forward after 14 years with the false and fabricated story. It is submitted by the opposite party that whatever correspondence was made on behalf of the worker the same has been replied suitably. It is also stated that there is no post of Mali sanctioned at Central 4244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

[PART II- SEC. 3 (li) ] Warehousing Corporation , Jaspur. It is submitted that the engagement ofthe worker was temporarily arrangement. It isalsoalleged that the claim is based on false story and is specifically denied. It is also submitted that the claim is highly delayed and devoid of merit and it is therefore submitted that the worker is not entitled to any relief.

The opposite party has filed the photocopy of the following documents alongwith written statement:

From the careful perusal of statement of worker Sri Rajpal Singh it is made out that he was engaged on dailywages @ Rs. 8.65 per day. Worker has also admitted that no arrear ofwages arc due on Central Ware Housing Corporation. Worker has also stated in cross -examination that in the beginning he worked from 1 P.M. to 5 P.M. Worker has also admitted that he went to Asstt. Labour Commissioner in the year 2000 and there his claim was rejected thereafter he appeared in 2002,

Worker has stated in the cross -examination that whatever record he has filed in this court but not a single document was tiled by him .

1. Letter of Ware Housing Manager addressed 10 Regional Manager, Central Ware Housing Corporation, Lucknow No. CW - II/RGH /ESTT. CONFD/98-99/567 dated 5-1-1999 рареr No. 13/4.

Worker has also stated in his cross -examination that unit was opened in 1983-84 . He has denied the fact that Sri N. D. Tewari was to inaugurate theunit.

2. Letter of Regional Manager dated 29-1-1999 addressed to Dy. Director, Rashtriya Anusuchit Jati and Anusuchit Jan Jati Commission , Lucknow regarding termination of the service of paper No. 13/5.

3. Letter ofDy . Manager (Gen.) addressed to District SupplyOfficer,Udam Singh Nagar with reference to District Supply Officer's letter No. 127/ जि.पू.अ/प्रष. /99 dated 29-7-1999 paper No. 1.3/6 .

Sri Rajesh Kumar , Manager of the opposite party has stated that the worker was engaged on 1-7-1985 as dailywager Mali . He has also stated that in the beginning he was engaged for planting flower plants . He has also stated that Rajpal Singh was paid @ Rs . 8.65 per day. Similarly Sri O. N. Kanınojia has also stated that the worker Rajpal worked in July, August, September, October , 1985. He further stated that worker has worked 27 days as daily wageswatchman and 4 days as Gardener in October, 1985, 4. Leter ofDy. Manager (Estt .) dated 21-7-2000 address to Janak Raj Sharma , President District Panchayat , Udam Singh Nagar regarding certificate of employment paper No. 13/7 .

5. Letter of Regional Manager Incharge, Lucknow dated 11-10-2000 to Ware House Manager, Comral WareHousing, Jaspur regarding notice fromRajpal Singh through his Advocate paper No. 13/8.

6. Letter ofWare House Manager dated 17-10-2000 address to Padam Singh Chaughan Advocate. Moradabad 13/9 .

7. Order of Conciliation Officer dated 19-1-2000 13/10.

Accordingto the correspondence on record it is made outthat Central Warehousing Corporation , Jaspur was in the constituency of the then Chief Minister Sri N. D. Tewari and inauguration of the unit was to be made by him and for this purpose the then Regional Manager had sent certain funds as temporary advance for plantation of ornamental / commercial plants , purchase of certain gamlas for beautification of the unit. Dueto certain reasons Chief Minister could not inaugurate the unit . During that time Regional Manager had given sanction for a Mali for 40 days or more. The Payment of wages/bonus was made by theRegional Office, Lucknow through temporary advance. It is made out that Rajpal Singh was taken on daily wage basis for the above purposes .

& Circular about retrention of record related to financial and account C- 15 to C- 15/8 .

9. Impressed cash account of Central Warehousing Jaspur ofAugust, September, October, November. 1985 and 4-9-1986 to 19-11-1986 , 15/9 to 15/13 .

10. Office order ofPersonal Manager, Central Ware Hopsing Corporation dated 18-9-1986 regarding payment ofbonus 15/14.

Worker has not filed a single document in support of his case although he was given opportunity.

Worker has examined himself and the opposite party has examinell Sri Rajesh Kumar and Sri O. N. Kazunojia.

It isalso made out from the correspondence on file that Dy. Director, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission , Lucknow sent letter dated 17-11-1998/ 18-12-1998 regarding removal of daily wager and the same was replied by Regional Manager on 29-1-1999. District Supply Officer Udam Singh Nagar vide his letter dated 12-5-1999 encquired about the employment of the worker and Dy. Manager (Gen. ) Central Ware Housing Corporation videletter dated 29-7-1999 replied for which Sri Rajpal Singh was engaged and reason for his removal . It is also evident that Janak Raj Sharma, President District Panchayat also wrote letter dated 9-6-2000 regarding issue of certificate to casual labour . The same was suitably replied by Dy. Manager (Estt .) on 21-7-2000 , It is also made out that worker got issued legal notice through one Advocate Sri Padam Heard arguments and perused evidence on record.

4245 [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत। का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आधाद 9 , 1929

The salary disbursed in cases of July, 1985 268. 15,August 1985 233.55, September 1985 259.50 andOctober 198534.60 and 233.55.

Singh Chaugban on 25-8-2000 and the same was replied by WareHouse Manager on 17-10-2000. It is also made out that conciliation officer did reject the application of the worker for the condonation ofdelay.

From the records available the impressed vouchers, misc . payment vouchers the life is only 5 years that is to say that they can be preserved for 5 years only.

According to the witness of the opposite party worker worked only 119 days. He has also stated that the workerwas paid bonus on 19-11-1986 i.e. 205.85 and on calculation the total salary of the worker is Rs. 1029,35 and bonus calculated @ 20% comes out to Rs . 205.85 . From the documentary evidence it is clear that the worker has worked only for 119 days in total. Worker's testimony is not at all trustworthy.

In the aforesaid circumstances after careful conclusion I come to the conclusion that the worker was engaged for a short period for ornamental plantation in Jaspur unit of Central Ware Housing Corporation as the then ChiefMinister , Sti N. D. Tewari was likely to inaugurate the unit. In absence of any appointment letter it cannotbe said that he was appointed on the post of Mali on regular post . The worker has come with the false case that he appointed as Mali .

On the aforesaid discussion I come to the conclusion that since the worker was daily rated workman who worked only from July 1985 to October 1985 that too only for 119 days therefore he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation notice, notice pay under the established law. It is false to say that workman Rajpal Singh was terminated on 31-12-1986, Disengagement ofthe worker Rajpal Singh by the management of Central WareHousing Corporation Ltd. after October , 1985 is not illegal or unjust. Issue is therefore answered against the workman and therefore the worker is not entitled to any relief whatsoever,

Lucknow, 23-5-2007

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer It is also made out from the evidence on record that the worker for the first time pressed for reinstatement in September 1998. Worker did not represemed against his termination for more than 11 long years and worker's sole testimony that he has requested for his reinstatement regularly is not trust worthy. It cannot be said that if there wasdispute the same can suvive more than 11 years . I also come to the conclusion that on the date of reference order there was hardly any dispute . Therefore the claim of the worker must fail due to delay in espousing the claim.

नई दिल्ली, 6 जून , 2007

Nowcoming to the next part ofthe case as towhether the workman worked from 18-6-1985 to 31-12-1986 continuouslyfor more than 240 days as alleged by the worker. The worker has not filed any document to coroborate to his case that he worked for more than 240 days priortohis termination. Worker alleges that he worked till 31-12-1986 and he has written the same fact in the statement of claim.

का.आ. 1899.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 कर 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसारण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट अथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ आईडी सं. 198/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11011/7/97- आई आर ( एम) ] एन. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th June, 2007 Duringhis examination in chief the worker has stated that he was terminated on December 1986. Worker was questioned as to what was the date, to which he replied that he does not remember. He has stated that he was appointed by the oral order and accordingly remurved by the oral order, Further he has stated that he has worked for more than500days.

On the other hand management has stated thatworker has worked merely from July 1985 to October, 1985. The break up is as under :

1. July1985

31days

2. August 1985 27 days

3. September 1985 30 days

S.O. 1898.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. I.D. No. 198/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of A.A.L and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-6-2007.

4. October 1985 31days

[No. L- 11011/7/97-IR(M) ] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer (4daysMali 27 days Watchman) 4246

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, NEW DELHI PRESENT:

Shri R. N. Rai, PresidingOfficer

L.D. No. 198/1999

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri RamGopal & Others,

C/oAirPort Horticulture Karamchari Sangh, R/oRZ-G-97, Gali No. 3 , VijayEnclave, Palam Dabri Road, New Delhi - 110045

1. The Chairman,

AirportAuthority of India , (International Air Port Diviision) OperationOfficer, Gurgaon Raod, NewDelhi -110037

Name

Designation S. No.

2. The Superintending Engineer (Horticulture) , Airport Authority of India, (International Air Port Division) Operation Officer , GurgaonRoad, New Delhi - 110037,

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its Letter No. L-11011/7/ 97 - IR. (Misc): Central Government dated 01-10-1999 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the demands raised by Airport Horticulture Karamchari Union and Delhi General Udyog Karamchari Union as contained in their statement of claim dated 31-3-1997 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C ) , New Delhi , against the management of Airports Authority of India, Indira Gandhi International Airport , Gurgaon Road , New Delhi , is justified ? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled . "

Given Wages

Dateof

Appointment

Gardener 1. RamGopal

Gardener 2

Last Wages

1350

2101

Oct. , 1993

1350

2101

March, 1994

GayaPrasad

Gardener

1350

2101

November, 1993

3. PradeepKumar

Gardener 4.

1350

2101

March, 1994

Suresh Kurnar

Gardener 5. YashPal

2101

1350

April, 1994

Gardener

1350

2101

October, 1993

6. ChanderPal

2101

1350

March, 1993

Gardener 7. Sunil Kumar

Gardener Ram Chander Paswan

1350

2101

December, 1993

Gardener 9

1350

2101

February, 1994

Rajendra Kumar Sharma

Gardener 10.

1350

2101

April, 1994

VijayKumar

Gardener

1350

2101

October, 1994

Krishan Kumar

11,

Gardener

1350

2101

January,1992

Naresh Kumar

12.

Gardener

1350

2101

March, 1984

13. SubeSingh

Gardener

1350

2101

October, 1995

HamPal

14.

Gardener NandLal

15.

Gardener RamKishore

16.

Gardener

1350

2101

1994

1350

2101

May, 1994

1350

2101

March, 1994

Banwari Lal

17.

Gardener RamRattan

18.

Gardener

1350

2101

April, 1993

1350

2101

December, 1994

19. Narender Kumar

Gardener

1350

2101

January, 1996

20. Jai Ram Tiwari 4247 [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

That theworkmen sent a demand notice on 1-2-1997, to theDirector, A.R.C. Projective Officer, Palam Airport, Terminal No. 1 , New Delhi, through Registered AD /UPC demanding to reinstate with full wages and continuity in service. The Management did not reply to the demand notice. The workmen repeatedly went on duty but they were refused duty.

That on 31-3-1997 the workmen made a demand for reinstating them in service and made other demands.

The workmen applicants have filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the above mentioned workmen served the Management contimmuously on the post of' Mali ' ( Gardener ) as mentioned in front of their name till 18-12-1996, upto full satisfaction. The workmen never gave any opportunity to complain during theirtenure ofservice. The last drawn wages of the workmen was Rs . 2101 per month but the management intentionally paid to the workmen less than minimum wages ofRs. 1350 per inanth till November, 1996.

A copy of demand notice is submitted as Annexure 'A' to this claim .

That the workmen raised a dispute , which was not referred by the appropriate Government. The workmen filed awrit petition in Delhi High Court C. W No. 2281 of 1998 which was allowed on 19 July, 1999,

That theManagement at the time of appointment of Workmen and also during the tenure of their services took the signatures of the workmen against their will in the name of their service on blank vouchers with revenue stamp, blank papers with revenue stamp , printed blank forms etc. If the workmen would not have signed . They would have been terminated from service then and there .

That the appropriate Government has now made the present reference. The term of reference is as under :

"Whether the demands raised by Airport Horticulture Karamchari Union and Delhi General Udyog Karamchari Union as contained in their staternent of claim dated 31-3-1997 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (c) , New Delhi , against the Management of Airports Authority of India, IndiraGandhi International Airport, Gurgaon Road,New Delhi, isjustified ? If so, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?"

That the Workmen were not given legal facilities provided under Labour Law like Appointment Letter, Leave Wages, Casual Leave, at the time of giving salary not allowed to fill the amount, taking salary on Register. The Workinen complained several times about this orally but of no use. The Workmen were also not given earned wages of December, 1996 because the Workmen wanted to take the salary on Register and also to be allowed tofill the amount in Register.On this , Shri R. S. Sharma front Management withheld the salary.

That thetermination is illegal , against the principles of natural justice revengeful and in violation of Section 25Gby the Management.

TheManagement has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the petitioners/ claimants were never employed by the respondents as such there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner / claimants and the respondents as such the claim ofthe petitioners/claimant is not maintainable and as such is liable to be dismissed.

That the Workmen usually made themselves present on duty on 19th December, 1996 and demanded their legal rights and dueto demand of earned wages of December, 1996 filling the salary on Register and getting; it on Register. Appointment letter, leave with pay, casual leave , salary as per minimum wages arrears as per minimurn wages etc. in clear terms . Mr. R. S. Sharma of Management refused to lake workmen on duty and told them that he has torminated their services from 19th December , 1996 and refused to give earned wages. When the Workmen demanded the termination order in writing, Mr. R. S. Sharma threatened them that he would falsely implicate them in serious offences and give nothing in writing .

That the contents of para No. 1 of the statement of claim are wrong, false, incorrect and hence denied. It is denied that the workmen/petitioners/ claimants / applicants as mentioned in the para under reply were ever employed with the Respondent No. I. It is further denied that the petitioners /claimants as mentioned in the para under reply were ever employed as malies (gardeners ) by the respondents No. 1 and as such there is no question of their performing duties to the satisfaction of the Respondent Nos. 1 or 2 till 18-12-1996.

It is further submitted that as the petitioners / claimantswere not in the employment of the Respondents at any point of time as such there could be no cause of complaint by the Respondents against them.

That the workimen had lodged complaint to theLabour Commissioner, Curzon Road , New Delhi against the Management. That while terminating the services of workmen no charge was levelled against them nor the charge sheet was given. Terminating the services ofWorkmen like this suddenly without assigning any reason is illegal and against the principles ofnatural justice, and unfair labour practice.At the time of termination, the workmen were not paid their earned wages , minimum wages arrear, leave encashment , notice pay service compensation etc. That 1ermination of service of the workmen was made without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of I.D. Act and Section 25G of the Act .

However, it is submitted that the work was awarded toMis.Rainbow Land Scape & Horticulture Servicesvide 2811 GI/2007-27 4248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

occasion to issue letter of appointent/to grant leave wages/ to grant casual leave . It is also denied that the respondent No. I and/or any officer of Respondent No. I ever asked the petitioners /claimants to sign on payment of wages register. It is further submitted that the Respondent No. I was not liable to give any facility/provide amenity to the petitioners/ claimants.

agreement dated 5-10-1995 and to the other contractors for executing the work as per the " Schedule of the work" of the contract for the Horticulture work to be maintained on unit rate basis meaning thereby that the contractors had to provide the services to the Respondent No. I at the specific rate meaning thereby that the contractors had to execute the work. The hote tuentioned agreements were not for suppiving deploying workers /malies /manpower on contract basis. The photocopy of one such letter of award and schedule of work is annexed herewith as Annexure A

It is further submitted that the petitioners / claimants were never employed with the respondent No. 1 and as such there is/ was no occasion question of their complaining/demanding any facility from the respondents.

It is further subinitted that the petitioners/ claimants were never employed with the respondent No. 1. As such there is no occasion/ question of their demanding the salary on register from the respondents and also to be allowed to fill the amount in register or withholding of their salaryby Slini R. S. Sharma of the respondent No. 1 .

It is pertinent to mention here that as per the agreements with contractors , the Respondent No. I was giving the specific amount as mentioned in the agreement to the contractors who in turn engaged workmen , supervise their work and paid the wages to its workmen. The contract was awarded on the basis of tenders , and in case a new contractor is given the job contract, he brings its own labour and the Respondent had/ has no role to play in this regard.

That as the petitioners/ clainiants were not under the cimployment of the respondents , the question to pay/give less then the minimum wages or any wages to the petitioners/ claimants did not arisc .

However it is submitted that the work was awarded toM/s. Rainbow Land Scape & Horticulture Service and other contractors . The contractors were responsible for executing thework as per the contract condition and liablo to pay mimimum wages as per the Delhi Administration along with other link benefits , It is further submitted that no complaint was ever received by the respondents from theworkers deputed by the contractors at the site regarding payment/compensation and/ or any problem regarding their services at any time during the contract period.

However it is submitted that Mrs. Rainbow Land Scape & Horticulture Service and other contrators were responsible for executing the werk as per the contract conditions andwere liable to pay minimum wages as per theDelhi Administration along with other link bencfirs It is further submitted that no claimant was ever receivedby theRespondent from workers deputed by the contractor at the site regarding payment and/ or any other problem regarding their services at any time during the contract period.

It is submitted that the petitioners/claimants were never employed with the respondent No. I as such there was no occasion/question of their demanding legal right . earned wages . filling the salary on register and getting it on register , appointment letter. leave with pay, casual leave . salary as per minimum wages , arrears as per mini ושת wages. It is further submitted that as the respondent No. 1 had never employed the petitioners/claimants, the question ofterminating; their services or tefusal to give them carned wages or their demand of termination order in writing or threat of falsely implicating them in serious offences by the respondent No. 1 /Mr R. S. Sharına does not arise.

It is denied thatthe petitioner No I and other malies were ever employed with the respondents 11 is further denied that the Respondent No. I and/ or any one of its officers ever exploited the petitioner No. 1 and other petitioners and got blank papers/ receipts signed by then . It is denied that the petitioner No. 1 and other malies were ever employed by the Respondent No. I and as such there was any threat of termination to them by the Respondem No. I.

In view of the averments made in the foregoing paras of reply there was no question of violating Section 25 -Gas the petitioners /claimants were nevet under the employment of the respondents .

It is submitted that vide an agreciment dated 5-10-1995 the contract was awarded to M/s . Rainbow Land Scape& Horticulture Service for executing the work as per the "Schedule of work " of the contract. The contractors had to execute the work . The agreement was not for deploying/supplying manpower on contract basis .

The workmen applicants have filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of their claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the written statement. The managemem has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken .

It isfurther submitted that the contractors were liable for executing the work as per the " Schudule ofwork " of the contract and not the petitioners /claimants.

Heard arguinent's from both the sides and perused the papers on the record

It is submitted that the petitioner/claimant were never employed by Respondents and as such there was no [ भाग 1]-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

4249 From perusal of the pleadings of the parties the Following issues arise for determination:

1. Whether the workmen have performed 240 days work in the years 1993, 1994 and 1595?

2. Whether the workmen are entitled to rein- stalement

7. To what amount ofback wages the workmen are entitled ?

labours. No document regarding angagement of contract prior to 19-10-1995 has been filed on the record by the management . It is sufficient to prove that the work of gardening was perforined by the casual labours in 1993 , 1994 and upto October, 1995. The last photosheet B-62 pertainstoOctober, 1995. Thus , it stands proved that up to October, 1995 gardening work was done by the casual labours and their attendance was taken for the purpose of making payment and attendance register was maintained.

ISSUE NO . 1

11 was submitted from the side of the workmen that all the 20 workmen worked continously till 18-12-1996to the full satisfaction of the managenient. It was further subinitted that the workmen were not given legal facilities just as appointment letter, casual leve , leave wages and other benefits under the ID Act . They are not the members of ESI and EPF though they have discharged their duties as casual labours in the years 1993, 1994 and! 1995. Their services have been terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice.

Itwas further submitted from the side of the workmen that the management has concealed the relevant attendance register. This ID case was filed in 1999 whereas the attendance registers of 1992 , 1993, 1994 and 1995 were weeded out in February, 2004 as being 5 (five ) years old. The management should have retained the original attendance register in view of the pendency of the case. The names ofthe workmen atleast Shri Ram Gopal, Rajinder and Shri Ram Chander Paswan appear in the attendance register in the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 so , the management deliberately weeded it out in 2004 to conceal the original attendance register from the Court and it has been stated by the witness that the attendance register has been destroyed being more than 5 (five) years old. In the circunstances an adverse inference is to be drawn that the management deliberately weeded out the attendance register pertaining to 1993, 1994 and 1995 in February, 2004 so that the same may not be placed before the Court for its perusal.

It was submitted from the side of the management What there was no employer employee relationship between de management and the workmen . The workmen may be the contractor's men . The workmen are not the direct casual Inbour of the management, so there is no question of payment of legal benefits to them.

It is not the case of the management that contract labours were engaged prior toOctober, 1995 so, it becomes quite obvious that prior to 1995 casual labours were engaged for performing the gardening work . The management has not filed any attendance register 10 show that these workmen were not employed during the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 .

11 was further submitted that the work was awarded to M/s. Rainbow Land Scape and Horticulture Services vide agreenient dated 5-10-1995 and to the other contractors for executing the work as per schedule of the work of the contract for the Horticulture work to maintain on unit rate basis The contractor had to execute the work and the contractors emptoyed their own men. There is no direct engagement of the workmen even as casual labours.

It was submitted that all the workmen have not filed photocopies of attendance sheets pertaining to them . In all the sheets filed by the workmen the name of Shri Ram Gopal , Rajinder and Ram Chander Paswan appear. The other workmen have not filed any proof to substantiate their claim.

was submitted from the side of the workmen that the workinen have annexed with the records paper B-37 to B -53. These are the photocopies of attendance register maintained by the management The names of S/Shri Rajinder , Ram Gopal and Shri Ram Chander Paswan have been mentioned on all the photocopies of the attendance register. It was submitted that this register has been maintainedby the management for the attendance of casual labours engaged by the management for the work of gardening. These photocopies of attendance sheets pertain to the ycars 1993, 1994 and 1995. The management has denied the authenticity of these photosheets of attendance taken by the workmen .

The admitted case of the management is that M/ s, Rainbow Land Scape and Horticulture was assigned thecontractwork from 19-10-1995. Priorto 19-10-1995 the work of gardening was being dischargedby the casual

It is true that the photocopy sheets of attendance register contain the names of Ram Gopal , Rajinder and Raru Chander Paswan on all the pages and it is found established that these 3 (three) workmen have worked atleast for 240 days in the years 1993 , 1994 and 1995 as casual labours . The contract workers have been engaged in November, 1995. Prior to November , 1995 work was being done by these workmen . The workmen have completed 240 days work in the years 1993, 1994 and 1995. The other workmen have filed no proof to substantiate their claim statement and they are not found to have worked for 240 days in the years 1993, 1994 and 1995. This issue is decided accordingly.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9. 1929

4250

ISSUE NC.2

removed all ofa sudden. There is provision of retrenchnient compensation for his remos al. Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long interregnum of unemployment. In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.

It was submitted from the side of the management that reinstatement is not the only relief in all the cases of illegal ternination . Section 11A of the ID Act , 1947 provides for payment of compensation also .

It was submitted from the side of the workmen that compensation is payable in cases where an undertaking has become sick or it has been closed or it is in eсопотне loss. It has notboon established that the management is in economic loss and it is a sick Industry.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that employment can only be nuade on the basis of procedure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution cushrines affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals. So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme.

My attention was drawn by the Ld . Counsel of the workman to 2000 LLR 523 State ofUP and Rajender Singh. The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered for reinstatement with full back wages as the scrvices of the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years was dispensed with withoum following the procedure for retrenchment . In the instal case also no retrenchment compensation has been paid . This case law squarely covers the instant casc .

Itwas further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgement has afforded a right according to, which the government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages .

11 has been held in 1978 Lab IC 1668 that in case service of a workman is terminated illegally the normal rule is to reinstate him with full backwages .

Myattention was further drawn to AIR 2002 SC 1313 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wager even ifserving for a short period shouldbe reinstated.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provisions of ID Act un - constitational . The Govermanent has got no license to make always appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life time . Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the rule ofpublic employment At the time of making temporary appointments Articles 14. 10. 21. 23. 226 & 309 are infringed There is no constitutional mandate that the government is at liberty to go on giving fixed terni appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workmen that in the instant case Sections 25F,G ofthe ID Act are attracted. In Section 25 of the ID Act it has been provided that if a workman has performed 240 days work and if the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be given pas in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no dessation ofservice in case provisions of Section 25F are not complied. In the instant case no compensation has been paid to the workmen .

In care aworkman has worked for 240 days in a усат and the work is ofcontinuous and regular nature he should be paid retrenchment compensation. In case retrenchment compensation is not paid Section 25F of the ID Act is attracted. There is no cessation of his services. He is deemed continued in service in the eye of law In case there is breach of Section 25F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence

No such Article of the Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government or Public Sector units can continue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term appointments again and again . Since fixed term appointments and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme , such discrimination will amount to vicious discretion . The Government or Public Sector unit will go on resortingto the method of pick and choose policy and give temporary and ad hoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles ofequality enshrined in the constitution willbe given a go bye . Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in this judgement the provisions ofthe ID Act governing the services of the workman have not been declared un - constitutional . Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions cnumerated (berein or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legistations.

Section 11A ofthe ID Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order ni discharge or disnussal and direct reinstaterment of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of society. It appears that legislature wanted that such workmen, should not be harassed un -necessarily. so Sections 25 F, U. T and Clause 10 of Vth Schodule have been enacted. The objects and reasons of ID Act . 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in any unfair labour practice. The workmen should not be engaged for years and then they should be [ भाग -खंड 3 (ii ) ]

4251

भात का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require . Accordingto this benign provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as it thinks fit .

is the normal rule. In case services have been illegally terminatedeither by dismissal or discharge or retrenchment , in such circumstance the workman is entitled to fall back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness . In the instant case the workmen were always ready to work but they were not permitted on account of invalid act of the employer.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4 ) Scale has not azurulled Section 1 ] A ofthe ID Act and the legislature has authorized this Tribunal to set aside dismissal or discharge on its consideration and direct reinstatement . The judgement cited by the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

In 2005 IV AD SC 39-three Judges Bench of the Hon'bleApex Court held that reinstatement with fuli back wages is justified. In this case the workmen have performed more than 240 days work and he has been retrenched without payment of compensation and pay in lieu of notice.

A three Judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in 1993-II- LLJ that termination of services affects the livelihood of not only of the employee but also ofthe dependents. So in case of illegal termination of service the workman should be reinstated.

It was submitted from the side of the management that reinstatement is not the only remedy. In such cases theworkman may be given compensation. Section 11A of the ID Act , 1947 provides that in case of dismissal or discharge is found illegal reinstatement should be ordered. It has been held in a catena of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rute. The statute provides for reinstatement . In certain exceptional cases where the undertaking has been closed down or it has become sick there may be order for payment ofcompensation,

Reinstatement should not be misconceived as regularization. By the order of reinstatement the status quo ante of the workman is restored . He is given back wages in order to compensate him for his illegal dis -engagement. This is a special remedy provided in ID Act and it has not been anuulied and set aside by anyjudgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The provisions of the ID Act are still constitutional and they are to be given effect too.

In the facts and circumstances of the case the workman- S/Shri Ram Gopal , Rajinder and Shri Ram Chander Paswan are entitled to 25 % backwages.

The reference is replied thus:

In case the workmen are reinstated with backwages the respondents have every right , after payment of back wages and reinstatement, to retrench them validily following the principles offirst come last go so that Section 25 G & Hof the D Act are not violated.

In view ofthe law cited above and the facts pertaining in this case, the workmen S/ Shri Ram Gopal, Rajinder and Ram Chander Paswan are entitled to reinstatement. This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO . 3

The demands raised by Airport Horticulture Karamchari Union and Delhi General Udyog Karamchari Union as contained in their statement of claim dated 31-3-1997 filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (c) , New Delhi , against the management of Airports Authority of India , Indira Gandhi International Airport. GurgaonRoad, New Delhi isjustified. The workmen S/ Shri Ram Gopal , Rajinder and Shri Ram Chander Paswan are entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. the date of their termination from service . The management should reinstate the above named workmen alongwith 25 % back wages within two months from the date of publication of the award. The other 17 workmen are not entitled to any relief.

It was submitted by the management that payment of full back wages is not the natural consequence of the order ofdischarge or dismissal being set aside . It has been held in (2003) 6 SCC 141 that it is incumbent upon the Jabour court to decide the quantum of back wages.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 16-5-2007, R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली, 7 जून , 2007

It has been further held in this case that payment of back wages having discretionary element involved it is to be dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case . No definite formula can be evolved,

का.आ. 1899.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 94/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Ithas been further held in this case that payment of backwages in its entirety is the statutory sanction. In(2003) +SCC 27 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view ofdetay in raising the dispute and initiating the proceedings back wages need not be allowed . In the instant case there is no delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the dispute.

In 1978 Lab IC 1968 three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that payment of full back wages

[सं. एल-40012/73/91 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी PART I- ЅБС. 3 (ii); 4252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

NewDelhi . the 7th June , 2007

S.O. 1899. In pursuance of Section 1 of tic Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the C'entrai Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2004) Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Courr . Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispure berveen the employers in relation to the management of Postai Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-6-2007.

No. L-40012/73 /91 -IRLOC SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

dismissed. Accordingly the management reinstated him and he was paid all the back wages. Thus according to him he is working continuously from the date of appointment 1.e. 15-4-1981 and he has completed 240 days continuous service.He has acquired the status of permanency. However only with the intention to deny the benefit refused to regularize him . he is not paid equal pay of the regular postman. His appointment was against the vacant and permanent post . The casual workers appointed in the year 1982 i.e. subsequent to the petitioner have already been regularised by the managemcul . They are favoured by it in awarding permanency . They are regularized and thus according to him the action of the management in nol regularizing him and not giving permanency alongwith the consequential benefit is illegal and by raising the dispute he has prayed permanency as indicated above .

Case No. CGIT/NGP /94/ 2004

Date: 5-6-2007

Petitioner PartyNo. 1

Shri Prabhakar Mahadev Mahadikar , Through The Secretary, All India Postai Employees Union,G. P. O., Nagpurs

Versus

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices . NagpurDivision, Giripeth. Nagpurг.

Respondent : PartyNo. 2

AWARD

(Dated: 5th June , 2007)

(1 ) The Central Government after satisiging me existence ofdisputes betwoon Shri Prabhakar Majader Mohadikar, Through The Secretary, All Incha Postal Employecs Union, G. P. O. , Nagpur Party No. i and e Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Nagpur Dis Giripeth, Nagpur Party No. 2 referred the sate for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. 1012 73/91 - IR(DU) dt . 19-11-1991 under Clause (d) of Sub -section (1) and sub -section ( 2A) ofSection 1th of Industrial Dispatcs Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule

"Whether the action of the Management of St Supκά. of Post Offices , Nagpur in not regularizing the services of Shri P. M. Mohadikar is justificdn . what relief he is entitled to ?"

(3) The management appeared and resisted the clairu it was denied that he was appointed on 15-4-1982. According to it the petitioner had been working as a substitute in a leave vacancy of the regular postman on daily wages , when the occasion arose. It is contended that the order ofthe Hon'ble High Courtdt . 27-2-1987 is clear enough to hold that the petitioner was reinstated in the same post which he was holding before his termination . Accordingly he being a substulite Postman on daily wages as and when called on arising occasion is not entitled for the benefits of permanency It is contended that the petitioner cannot claumn a regular post over and above those who are better situated The management has also denied that the petitioner has completed 240 days continuous service every year and that his appointment was against the clear and vacant post . The appointments ofthe Postman are made in accordance with the recruitment nules and the petitioner is not cutitled for any benefit as claimed by him. He is neither the contingent worker nor the casual labour . One Shri Mute had filed an original application before the Central Adininistrative Tribunal praying similar relief . The Hon'ble C.A. T. has disnussed his application . Similarly the petitioner Qughane had also filed original application before the C.A.T. which was numbered as C. A. No. 481/1990 for the same relief. It is contended that the Hon'ble (.. A T. in a case of Shri S. K. Mage while dismissing lus original application has observed that he has no right for regularization , unless he qualified in the examination prescribed by the rules and therefore . according to the management he is not entitled for the relicf.

(4) Both the parties adduced the evidence to prove their contentions. I have also gone through the documents . the question that arises for my consideration is :

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization ?

(5 ) On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that since he has been reinstated firstly by the order ofCGIT (2) The petitioner Shri P. M. Mohadikar by rusing thedispute has claimed permanency in the post of PostBan in which he is working from 1981 with all consequentini benefits . He has contended that he was appousted as casual labour on 15-4-1981 . however , without aus nolee and without following the mandatory provisions of his services were terminated w.c.f. 31-3-1983 . He challenged the termination before the Tribunal and the Tebonai directed the respondent to reinstate him in the service with the continuity and back wages by an Award Dt . 15-11-1991. He was also awarded back wages . This award was challenged in the High Court in a Wrn Patation No. 373/1992 . The Writ of the respondent management was

[ भाग- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

4253

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

onlya right ofemployment on a priority basis in which he wasearlierworking. The order does not entitle him to get a permanency. He will have to go through the test as indicated in thejudgement for getting regularization at par with the permanent postmen working in that department Mumbai and secondly confirmed in the High Court andas the appointment was against the regular permanent post , he is entitled for the permanency. Undisputedly he was reinstated as per directions of the Award which was subsequently maintained in the Hon'ble High Court. It is also undisputed that he was working since 1982 , the disputes are whether his appointment as a Postman was against the permanent regular post or as a casual labour working on daily wages in the leave vacancy of the permanent Postman when the occasion arose.

(8) Mr. Golhar appearing for the workman has submitted that the petitioner continuously doing the job and he is singled out. He is doing a job of a Postman from last more than 20 years and performing the work as regular workman.Hence as per principles of equal pay for equal work is violated. It is neither a case for equal pay for the equal work. There is a question of regularizations of the employee. Undisputedly as per rules of the post certain test are tobe taken for getting a permanency, which the petitioner has not at all completed. These are the recruitment rules and untess those are successfully gone through , nobody can claim the equal position with the person who isplaced in better post . He has cited one case of this tribunal only.But that cannot be a president. Thus he is not at all entitled for the permanent post.

(9) It is a fact that Shri Mute had applied before the Hon'ble C.A.T. who was also placed with a similar position like the petitioner and claiming the same relief has been rejected. The same rule will have to be applied to the petitioner. It seems there is the petitioner approachedto this CGIT and withdrawn his own original application which waspendingbefore the Hon'ble C.A.T. whatever it maybe since the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis during the leavevacancy occasionally, he cannotbe given the benefit of permanent employee . There is also no evidence that , the petitioner worked continuously for 240 days in one calendar year. In such circumstances no relief canbe granted to the petitioner and I hold that he is not entitled for any relief. In the result I answer the reference in the negative and the reference stands as dismissed.

Hence this Award,

Dated:5-6-2007

(6 ) There is no evidence to prove that the appointment of the petitioner was against the permanent and regular post. It is an admitted fact that his name was neither sponsored by the employment exchange nor he attenuled any examination . It is a fact that his appointment was only during the leave vacancy whenever it arose. The petitioner was never appointed in a clear permanent vacant post . The Award as well as the Order of the Hon'bleHigh Court is clear enough that as he was working earlier, he was reinstated. His reinstatement was in the same post in which he was appointed. As indicated above no evidence to show that his appointment was against the clear, peronanezu and vacant post . In such circumstances the petitioner will get the benefit only of the employee only of the previous post in which he was terminated. Even the order of Hon'ble High Court is clear enough to indicate that he was entitled only for appearing to the test examination taken by the board for appointing the Postman, The petitioner was permitted to appear for the same examination and unless he passes that examination he would not be entitled for the same. He was never appointed on a clear permanent post nor he was reinstated in the permanent vacant post of the Postman. He was reinstated on the post which he was enjoying before termination of the services and therefore, unless he passes the required examination the management cannot consider him either for the permanency or for regularization and giving the benefits of the permanent post . He cannot be given the benefits of the postmen who are appointed under the regular recruitment rules .

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2007

का.आ. 1900.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्वद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 92/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/74/91 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्रसिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 7th June, 2007 17) It is a well established principle in a reported case In AIR 2006 Supreme Court Page No. 1860 Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Humadevi and Others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the management has right. to appoint on a temporary contractual or on daily wages . Employment on daily wages does not confirm any right of a permanent employment . In view of the principles of this case when the petitioner was appointed only in leave vacancy, though later on reinstated as per directions of the CGIT as well as the Hon'ble High Court cannot get a right of becoming permanent automatically. Even the order under which the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the order of reinstatement of CGIT is clear enough to show that he was reinstated for the failure of compliance of mandatory provisions of post retrenchment and he will get

S.O. 1900. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2004) (PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

Goverrument Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the mariagement of Postal Department and their workman, which was received by the CentralGovernment on 7-6-2007.

[No. L-40012/74/91 -IR(DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGI-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

i.c. 8-5-1981 and he has completed 240 days continuous service .He has acquired the status of permanency, However only with the intention to deny the benefit refused to regularize him , he is not paid equal pay of the regular postman . His appointment was against the vacant and permanent post .The casual workers appointed in the year 1982 i.e, subsequent to the petitioner have already been regularized by the management . They are favoured by it in awarding perraanency. They are regularized and thus according to him the action of the management in not regularizing him and not giving permanency alongwith the consequential benefit is illegal and by raising the dispute he has prayed permanency as indicated above.

Case Nok CGIT/NGP/ 92/21004

Petitioner

Gughane .

Shri Ashok Balkrishna

R/o 352, New Nandanwan Layout . Nagpur

PartyNo. 1

Respondent: The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices.

Nagpur Division , Giripeth, Nagpur

Party No. 2

AWARD

(Dated: 5th June . 2007)

( 1) The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Ashok Balkrishna Gughane, R/ 352, New Nandanwan Lavourt , Nagpur -1-4 ( 1009 Party No. 1 and The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices . Nagpur Division, Giripeth, Nagpur Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-400 12/74/21 -IR(DU) dt 8-11-1991 and 12-11-1991 under clause ( d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A1of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) with the Following schedule :

"Whether the action of the Management of Sr Supdt. of Post Offices. Nagpur in not regularizing the services of Shri A. B. Gughane on due date is justi- fied ? If not , what relief he is entitled to ?"

(3 ) The management appeared and resisted the claim it was denied that he was appointed on 8-5-1991. According to it the petitioner had been working as a substitute in a leave vacancy of the regular postman on daily wages, when the occasion arose. It is contended that the order of the Hon'ble High Courtdt . 27-2-1987 is clear enough to hold that the petitioner was reinstated in the same post which hewas holding before his termination. According he being a substnute pestinan on daily wages as and when called on arising occasion is not entitled for the benefits of permanency. It is contended that the petitioner cannot claim a regular post over and above those who are better situated . The management has also denied that the petitioner has completed 2410 days continuous service every year and that his appointment was against the clear and vacant post . The appointments ofthe postman are made in accordance with the recruitment rules and the petitioner is not entitled for any benelit as claimed by him. He is neither the contingent werker nor the casual tabour. One Shri Mute had filed an original application before the Central Administrativ: Tribunal praying similar relief. The Hon'ble C.A.T. has disınissed his application . Similarly the petitioner Gughane had also Giled original application before the C.A.T. which was numbered as C. A. No. 1089/1993 for the same reliefbut seeing the view of the Hon'ble C. A. T. he has withdrawn the application. It is contended that the Hon'ble C.A.T. in a case of Shri S. K. Mutc while disnaissing his original application has observed that he has no right for regularization, unless he qualifies in the examination prescribed by the rules and therefore, according to the management he is not entitled for the relief.

(4) Both the parties adduced the evidence to prove their contentions . I have also gone through the documents . the question that arises for my consideration is:

(1 ) Whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization ?

(5) On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that since he has been reinstated firstly by the order of CGIT Mumbai and secondly confirmed in the High Court and as the appointinent was agaust the regular permanent post. he is entitled for the permanency. Undisputedly he was (2) The petitioner Shri A. B. Gughane by raising the dispute has claimed permanency in the post of Pos man in which he is working from 8-1-1981 with all consequential benefits. He has contended that he was appointed as a casual labour on 1-5-1981 , however, without any notice andwithoutfollowing the mandatory provisions of law he was terminated from the service w.c.f. 2-8-1983 . Не challenged the termination before the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondent to reinstate him in the service with the continuity and back wages by an Award D1. 27-10-1986. He was also awarded back wages . This awardwas challenged in the High Court ina Writ Potition No. 124/1987 , The Writ of the respondent management was dismissed. Accordingly the management reinstated hum and he was paid all the back wages. Thus according to hi he is working continuously from the date of appointinent [भाग -खंद 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

4255

inthejudgement for getting regularization at par with the permanent postmen working in that department. reinstated as per directions of the Award which was subsequently maintained in the Hon'ble High Court. It is also undisputed that he was working since 1982, the disputes are whether his appointment as a postman was against the permanent regular post or as a casual labour working on daily wages in the leave vacancy of the permanent postman when the occasion arose.

(8) Mr. Golhar appearing for the workman has submitted that the petitioner continuously doing the job and he is singled out. He is doing a job of a postman from lastmore than 20years and performing the work as regular workman. Hence as per principles of equal pay for equal work is violated. It is neither a case for equal pay for the equal work. There is a question of regularizations of the employee. Undisputedly as per rules of the post certain test are to be taken for getting a permanency, which the petitionerhas not at all completed. These are the recruitment rules and unless those are successfully gone through, nobody can claim the equal position with the person who isplaced inbetter post. He has cited one case of this tribunal only. But that cannot be a president . Thus he is not at all entitled for the permanent post.

(9) It is a fact that Shri Mute had applied before the Hon'ble C.A.T. who was also placed with a similar position like the petitioner and claiming the same relief has been rejected. The same rule will have to be applied to the petitioner. It seem there is the petitioner approached to thisCGITandwithdrawn his own original applicationwhich waspending before the Hon'ble C.A.T. whatever it maybe since the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis during the leave vacancy occasionally, he cannot be given the benefit of permanent employee. There is also no evidence that , the petitioner worked continuously for 240 days in one calendar year . In such circumstances no relief canbe granted to the petitioner and I hold that he is not entitled for anyrelief. In the result I answer the reference in the negative and the reference stands as dismissed.

Hence this award.

Dated:1-6-2007

(6) There is no evidence to prove that the appointment of the petitioner was against the permanent and regular post . It is an admitted fact that his name was neither sponsored by the employment exchange nor he attended any examination . It is a fact that his appointment was only during the leave vacancy whenever it arose. The petitioner was never appointed in a clear permanent vacant post. TheAward as well as the Order of the Hon'ble High Court is clear enough that as he was working earlier, he was reinstated. His reinstatement was in the same post in which he was appointed. As indicated above no evidence to show that his appointment was against the clear, permanent and vacant post . In such circumstances the petitioner will get the benefit only ofthe employee only of the previous post in which he was terminated. Even the order ofHon'ble High Court is clear enough to indicate that he was entitled only for appearing to the test examination takenby the board for appointing the postman. The petitioner was permitted to appear for the same examination and unless he passes that examination he would not be entitled for the same . He was never appointed on a clear permanent post nor he was reinstated in the permanent vacant post of the postman . He was reinstated on the post which he was enjoying before termination of the services and therefore, unless he passes the required examination the management cannot consider him either for the permanency or for regularization and giving the benefits of the permanent post . He cannot be given the benefits of the postmen who are appointed under the regular recruitment rules .

A.N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2007

का.अ. 1901.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 93/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करवी है, को केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/34/96 - आई आर ( डी.यू ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 7th June, 2007

(7) It is awell established principle in a reported case inAIR2006 Supreme Court Page No. 1860 Secretary State ofKarnataka Vs. Humadevi and Others . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the management has right to appoint on a temporary contractual or on daily wages. Employment on daily wages does not confirin any right ofapermanent employment. In view of the principles of this case when the petitioner was appointed only in leavevacancy, though later on reinstated as per directions ofthe CGIT as well as the Hon'ble High Court cannot get a right ofbecoming permanent automatically. Even the order under which the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the order of reinstatement of CGIT is clear enough to show that he was reinstated for the failure of compliance of mandatory provisions of post retrenchument and he will get only a right ofemployment on a prioritybasis inwhich he wasearlierworking . The order does not entitle him to get a permanency. He will have to go through the test as indicated

S.O. 1901. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Asvard (Ref. No. 93/2004) Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between 2811 GI/2007-28 [PART -SEC . 3 (ü ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9, 1929

4256

the employers in relation to the management of Postal Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-6-2007.

[No. L-40012/34/96- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR, COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/93/ 2004

has acquired the status of permanency. However only with the intention to deny the benefit refused to regularize him. he is not paid equal pay of the regular postman . His appointment was against the vacant and permanent post . The casual workers appointed in the year 1982 i.c. subsequent to the petitioner have already been regularized by the management . They are favoured by it in awarding permanency. They are regularized and thus accordingto him the action of the management in not regularizing him and not giving permatiency alongwith the consequential benefit is illegal and by raising the dispute he has prayed permanency as indicated above.

Date: 5-6-2007

Petitioner : Shri Shyamrao Rajaram Kahile , PartyNo.1 R/ o Panchpaoli , Pahila Fatak, Nagpur

Versus

Respondent : The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, PartyNo. 1 NagpurDivision, Giripeth, Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 5th June, 2007)

(1 ) The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Shyamrao Rajaram Kahile, R/ Panchpaoli , Pahila Fatak, Nagpur Party No. I and The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Nagpur Division, Giripeth, Nagpur PartyNo. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. 1-40012/34/96- IR(DU) dl. 2-3-1998 under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule

"Whether the action of the Management of Sr. Supdt . of Host Offices, Nagpur in not regularizing the services ofShri S. R. Kahile a postman working since 1991, is legal andjustified ? If not to what the workman isentitled ? "

(3)The management appeared and resisted the clairu it was denied that he was appointed on 15-4-1982 According to it the petitioner had been working as a substitute in a leave vacancy of the regular postman on dailywages , when the occasion arose . It is contended that the order ofthe Hon'ble High Courtdt. 27-2-1987 is clear enough to hold that the petitioner was reinstated in the samepost wlaich he was holding before his termination . Accordingly he being a substitute postman on daily wages as and when called on arising occasion is not entitled for the benefits of permanency. It is contended that the petitioner cannot claim a regular post over and above those who are better situated. The management has also denied that the petitioner has completed 240 days continuous service every year and that his appointment was against the clear and vacant post . The appointments ofthe postman are made in accordance with the recruitment rules and the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit as claimed by him . He is neither the contingent worker nor the casual labour . One Shri Mute had filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal praying simular relief. The Hon'ble C.A.T. has dismissed his application. Similarly the petitioner Gughane had also filed original application before the C.A.T. which was numbered as O. A. No. 481/1990 for the same relief. It is contended that the Hon'ble C. A. T. In a case of Shri S. K. Mute while dismissing his original application has observed that he has no right for regularization, unless he qualifies in the examination prescribed by the rules and thereforc . according to the management he is not entitled for the relici

(4)Both the parties adduced the evidence to prove their contentions . I have also gone through the docunients. the question that arises for my consideration is :

(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization?

(5) On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that since he has been reinstated firstly by the order of CGIT Mumbai and secondly confirmed in the High Court and as the appointment was against the regular permanent post . he is entitled for the permanency. Undisputedly he was reinstated as per directions of the Award which was (2) The petitioner Shri S. R. Kahile by raising the dispute has claimed perinanency in the post of Postman in which he is working from 1981 with all consequential benefits . He has contended that he was appointed as a casual labour on 15-4-1982, however, without any notice andwithout following the mandatory provisions of law his services were terminated 31-3-1983 . He challenged the termination before the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondent to reinstate him in the service with the continuity andback wages by an Awarddt. 15-11-1991 . Не was also awarded back wages . This award was challenged in theHigh Court in a Writ Petition No. 373/1992 . The Writ of the respondent management was dismissed . Accordingly the management reinstated him and he was paid all the back wages . Thus according to him he is working continuously from the date of appointment i.e. 15-4-1982 and he bas completed 240 days continuous service. He ㅏ

[भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

4257

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30 , 2007/आषाढ़ 9, 1929

in thejudgement for getting regularization at par with the permanent postmen working in that department. subsequently maintained in the Hon'ble High Court . It is also undisputed that he was working since 1982 , the disputes are whether his appointment as a postman was against the permanent regular post or as a casual labour working on daily wages in the leave vacancy of the permanent postman when the occasion arose.

(8) Mr. Golhar appearing for the workman has submitted that the petitioner continuously doing the job andhe is singled out . He is doing ajob of a postman from last more than20 years and performing the work as regular workman. Hence as per principles of equal pay for equal work is violated. It is neither a case for equal pay for the equal work. There is a question of regularizations of the employee. Undisputedly as per rules of the post certain test are to be taken for getting a permanency, which the petitionerhas not at all completed. These are the recruitment rules and unless those are successfully gone through, nobody can claim the equal position with the person who isplaced inbetter post. He has cited one case ofthis tribunal only.But that cannot be a president. Thus he is not at all entitled for the permanent post.

(9) It is a fact that Shri Mute had applied before the Hon'ble C.A.T. who was also placed with a similar position like the petitioner and claiming the same reliefhas been rejected. The same rule will have to be applied to the petitioner, It seems there is the petitioner approached to thisCGITandwithdrawn his own original application which was pending before the Hon'ble C.A.T. whatever it maybe since the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis during the leave vacancy occasionally, he cannot be given the benefit of permanent employce. There is also no evidence that, the petitioner worked continuously for 240 days in one calendar year. In such circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioner and I hold that he is not entitled for any relief, In the result I answer the reference in the negative and the reference stands as dismissed.

Hence this award

(6) There is no evidence to prove that the appointment of the petitioner was against the permanent and regular post. It is an admitted fact that his name was neither sponsored by the employment exchange nor be attended any examination . It is a fact that his appointment was only during the leave vacancy whenever it arose.The petitioner was never appointed in a clear permanent vacant posi:.The Award as well as the Order of the Hon'ble High Court is clear enough that as he was working earlier, he was reinstated. His reinstatement was in the same post in which he was appointed. As indicated above no evidence to show that his appointment was against the clear, perinanent and vacant post. In such circumstances the petitioner will get the benefit only ofthe amployee only of the previous post in which he was terminated. Even the order of Hon'ble High Court is clear enough to indicate that he was entitled only for appearing to the test examination taken by the board for appoiming the postinan. The petitioner was permitted to appear for the same examination and unless he passes that examination he would not be entitled for the same . He was never appointed on a clear permanent post nor he was reinstated in the permanent vacant post of the postman. He was reinstated on the post which he was enjoying before termination of the services and therefore, unless he passes the required examination the management cannot consider him either for the permanency or for regularization and giving the benefits of the permanent post . He cannot be given the benefits of the postmen who are appointed under the regular recruitment rules.

Dated: 5-6-2007 A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2007

का.आ. 1902.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/159/2004- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 7th June , 2007 (7) It is a well established principle in a reported case in AIR 2006 Supreme Court Page No. 1860 Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Humadevi & Others . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the management has right to appoint on a temporary contractual or on daily wages . Employment on daily wages does not confirm any right ofa permanent employment . In view ofthe principles of this case when the petitioner was appointed only in leave vacancy, though later on reinstated as per directions of the CGIT as well as the Hon'ble High Court cannot get a right ofbecoming permanent automatically. Even the order under which the Hon'ble High Court has confirmed the order of reinstatement of CGIT is clear enough to show that he was reinstated for the failure of compliance of maklatory provisions of post retrenchment and he will get only a right of employment on a priority basis in which he was earlier working. The order does not entitle him to get a permanency. He will have to go through the test as indicated

S.O. 1902. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2005) Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial [PART I-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

4258

Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofTelecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-6-2007,

[No. L-40012/ 159/2004-IR(DU ) )

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

performed her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors till she was terminated on 14-5-2004. The Respondent Department has decided as one time measure to convert part time casual labourers into full time casual labour vide Ietter No. 269-13/09-STN - II , dated 16-9-1999. The said letter extendedbenefits of conversion ofpart time casual labour working for less than four hours into full time casual tabourers.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:

Shri T. Ramachandra Reddy, Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rd day ofMay, 2007

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 33/2005

BETWEEN

Smt . J. Balamani ,

H. No. 18-7-739/33/B,

Petitioner

3. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has made arepresentation for conversion into full time casual labour and the same was forwarded to Divisional Engineer with due certificates on 10-1-2001 by Accounts Officer , Telecom Installation Unit , Hyderabad where the Petitioner was working.In continuation of the said letter the particulars of the Petitioner's employment as on 30-3-2001 were furnished to Divisional Engineer. In response to the letter dated 3-5-2001 information pertains to the casual labours of various units is forwarded to PGM, HTD vide DGM (SI) - South dated 10-5-2001 . The Petitioner's name is at S.No. 6. The Petitioner's case was forwarded with required information vide letter dated 15-2-2002. Subsequently with additional information vide letter dated 16-7-2002 to PGM, HTD.

Sriramnagar Colony, Goulipura, Hyderabad-53.

AND

Respondent

The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, AP Cirdle, Abids , Hyderabad.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner :M/ sDr. A. Raghu Kumar & B. Pavan Kumar , Advocates

Sri Karoor Mohan,

For the Respondent :

Advocate

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/ 159/2004- IR(DU) dated 17-2-2005 in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

4. It is further submitted that at this juncture the unit where the Petitioner was working has been totally closed. It is further submitted that the Respondent is engaging many juniors and also some other persons on contract basis. The Petitioner approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) on 20-8-2004 for reengagement and for conversion of her case into full time casual labour. The conciliation proceedings are ended in failure . As such the matter was referred to the Government ofIndiawho in turn the referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication. It is further submitted that the Respondent is an industry and part time workers are workmen under the definition of Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and the Respondents should follow the conditions required under the Actto retrench the workman by giving one month notice in writing or in lieu of such notice one month pay . The termination of the Petitioner in violation of Sec . 25F. ThePetitioner prays this tribunal to declare the action of the Respondent in retrenching the Petitioner's service is illegal and inviolation ofScc . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently reinstate the Petitioner with all attendant benefits .

"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Smt . J. Balamani , Ex . Casual Labour w.e.f. 14-5-2004 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workinan is entitled

This reference was registered as Industrial Dispute No. 33/2001 and notices were issued to the parties.

5. The Respondent filed counter and denied the averments made by the Petitioner against the Respondent and pleaded that the Petitioner has worked intermittently as part time sweeper in the office of the Respondent from 16-6-1993 to August, 2001 and thereafter from June , 2003 toApril , 2004 She has worked for four hours per day upto 14-5-2000 and thereafter 6 hours per day from 15-5-2000. it

is further submitted that Respondent introduced a scheme called "Casual Labour ( grant to temporary status and 2. The Petitioner Smt. J. Balamani filed her claim statement sthing that she was engaged as a part time casual labour in the office of the respondent on 16-6-1993 and she 4259 [भाग II- खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

regularization) Scheme , 1989 " , under which temрогагу status would be conferred to the casual labourers employed as on 7-11-1989 and who have rendered a continuous service ofat least one year, out ofwhich they must have been engaged on work for a period of240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing five day week) . The said scheme is applicable to full time casual labour working in the Department and Petitioner was not engaged before 30-3-1985. It is further submitted that subsequently it was clarified that the part time casual labour who worked for 240 days in any four years prior to 30-3-1985 were included in the scheme to confer tentporary status. In view of the decisions ofApex Court in the case of Janakadhari Paswan Is. Union of India and in Sakkubai and others Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Communications , there is no question of granting temporary status/ regularization ofpart time casual labourers. Since the Petitioner was not engaged before 30-3-1985 and not on rolls as on 7-11-1989 that the Petitioner is not eligible to confer temporary status .

10. The respondent filed the affidavit of Sri S.P.L. Narasimham, A.G.M. , arid got marked the Xerox copies of documents as follows : Ex. M1 is the letter regarding employment of part time labourers on their regular absorption to group ' D ' posts dated 14-8-84 . Ex. M2 and M3 are letters regarding ban on engagement of casual labour dated30-3-1985 and 22-6-1988 . Ex. M4, M5 and M6 are letters regarding grant of temporary status and regularization . Ex. M7 is the letter regarding part time casual labours and their conversion into full time staff dated 14-8-1998 . Ex. M8 and M9 are letters regarding conversion of part time casual labour into full time workers dated 16-9-1999 and 25-8-2000. Ex, M10 is the letter dated 5-10-2004 to ALC ( C) regarding regularization of the petitioner. Ex.MII is the letter No. BSL/SECTT/25-2/ 2005 dated20-3-2006 . Ex . M12 is the order in OA No. 935/2001 dated 13-11-2002 of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench . He also reiterated the averments made in the counter and most documents filed by both the parties appears to be one and the same .

6. It is further submitted that the said scheme was clarified from time to time and considered for inclusion of left out cases and sought information with regard to the casual labour working as on 1-8-1998, The Respondent has clarified through the letter dated 16-9-99 and letter dated 25-8-2000 as one time relaxation, giving benefit te parttime casual labourers who have worked 240 days preceding 12months .

7. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was engaged by the installation unit as part time casual labour. Installation unit is entrusted with specific time bound work for installation of telecom equipment etc. As the workwas completed the Petitioner was not engaged and the installation establishment was closed permanenily.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner worked from 16-6-1993 till 14-5-2004 for about 11 years as a part time casual labour and the Petitioner comes as worker within the definition of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further contended that thePetitioner is entitled to the benefit for conversion into full time casual labour and also consequential absorption and further contended that the name of the Petitioner was recommended for conversion into full time casual labour but instead of confirming as a full time casual labour the Respondent retrenched the Petitioner in violation of provisions of Sec. 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 without giving any notice or one month pay in lieu of notice and other benefits .

8. It is denied that the Respondent is continuing to engagejutors to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Respondent has retrenched the services of the Petitioner as a result of the closure of the installation unit and to dismiss the petition.

12. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Petitioner who was engaged on daily wages will not get any right or claim for the permanentjob inview of the Judgement in 2006(4) at page 197 between Secretary of State Government of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others and further pointed that every workman has to be recruited as per the established procedure and rules and further contended that the project in which the Petitioner hasworked was closed, as such, the Petitioner was disengaged and the Petitioner will not get any right .

1.3. It has to be scen whether the Petitioner is entitled to get temporary status in view of the regulation of Casual Labour (grant to temporary status and regularization) Scheme, 1989. According to said scheme temporary status would be conferred on the casual labours employed as on 17-11-1989 and who had rendered a continuous service of atleast one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days . Since the Petitioner was not engagedbefore 30-3-1985 and she was not on rolls as 17-11-1989ת the Petitioner is not eligible for confirmation 9. The petitioner filed an affidavit in support ofher claim and got marked Xerox copies of documents which are Ex . WI to W7. Ex. W1 is the letter pertains to petitioner's engagement dated 16-7-2002 . Ex. W2 is the service particulars of the petitioner dated 16-9-99. Ex. 'W3 is the letter of department of Telecom , regarding conversion of part time casual labourers into full time casual labourers dated 25-8-2000 . Ex. W4 is the letter regarding regularisation of the services of casual mazdoors working in Accounts section dated 10-1-2001. Ex. Ws is the letter regarding grant of semporary status to casual labourers who have completed 240 days as on 1-8-1998. Ex . W6 is the letter regarding regularization of casual labourers dated 10-5-2001 . Ex. W7 is the letter regarding case ofpart time sweepers dated 14-5-2004, She reiterated the pleas taken in her claim petition.

2811 G1/2: 007-29 [PART II-Str. 3 ( ⅱ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 30, 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

4260

17. In view of the circumstances , 1 hold that the termination of services of the Petitioner w.e. f. 14-5-2004 is illegal and not justifici and the Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner without back wages. It is further directed that the Respondent should consider the Petitioner for conversion, into full time casual labour under the relevant scheme and the rules . If the Petitioner is not eligible under the said rules for conversion into full time casual labour, the Respondent is at liberty to retrench the Petitioner only by following the procedure laid down for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

oftemporary status under the above scheme. Further, the said scheme is only applicable to full time casual labour. Petitionerwas Ex. W1 discloses that the application of forwarded to Assistant General Manager recommending for the conversion of the part time casual mazdoor into full time casual mazdoor. The service particulars which are certified by Jonior Engineer shows that she worked for 190 days in 1993 273 days in 1994, 337 days in 1995, 366 days in 1996. Further the total number ofdays from her initial engagement from 16-6-1993 to 31-12-2001 is 2784 days . The Respondent has not disputed this document .

Awardpassed accordingly Transmit .

Dictatedto Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant . transcribed by her and corrected by the on this the 23rd day ofMay, 2007.

14. The Respondent issued the orders dated 25-8-2000 vide Ex. M9 for conversion of part time casual labours worting for less than 4 hours per day into full time casual labours . It was taken as a one time relaxation which reads as follows:

T. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for the Respondent:

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner:

MWI: Sri SP.L. Narasimham

WW) : Smt. J. Balamani

Documents marked for the Petitioner "As one time relaxation, Part Time Casual Labourers with less than 4 hours of duty per day who have worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months may be converted into full time casual labourers. This will be applicable only to the extent of the munibers indicated against respective field units in the Annexure (the figures are based on the information furnishedby the circles themselves) and it will further be subject to the conditions mentioned in the following paragraphs. "

Documents marked for the Respondent 15. The Petitioner's application was forwarded recommending for conversion of part time casual workers under the above scheme. But the Respondent did not give the benefit of the said scheme to the Petitioner . The Petitioner also made a representation to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) who referred the matter to the Respondent . The Respondent has written a letter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) as in Ex . MIO stating that the case of the Petitioner was not considered because there is no shortage of Grade 'D ' staff and further stated that the installation unit where the Petitioner was working was closed.

Ex.M1: Copy of DOT Ir . No. 269/39-84 -STN dt. 14-8-84

Ex.M3 Copy of DOT Ir. No. 270/6/84 -STN di. 22-6-88 Ex.M4: Copy of DGT Ir. No. 269-10/89 - STNdt. 7-11-1989 Ex.M5 : Annexure to Ex. M4 reg . Casual Labourers (Grant ofTemporary Status and Regularization ) Scheme Ex.M6: Ex. M6 : Copy of DGT Ir. No. 269-10 /89 - STN đi. 17-12-90

Ex. W1 : Copy of Ir. No. TA/ DGM ( S1 ) /CM/ 2002-2003/69 dt . 16-7-2002 Ex. W2: Cory ofservice particulars Ex. W3 : Copy of Ir. No. 269-13/ 99 -STN- If dt. 25-8-2000 Ex. W4: Copy of Ir. No. TA/AO ( 1 ) /CM/01 dt. 10-1-2001 Ex WS: Copy oflr . No. TA/ AO( 1 ) /Casual Mazdoors/15 Ex W6 : Copy of Ir. No. TA/DGM( S1 )/CMS/2000-2001 / 29 Ex, W7 : Copy of ir. No. TA/DE - SWI - HD /TSM/ 04-05/13 dt. 14-3-2004 Ex.M2: Copy of DGP & T Ir . No. 270 / 6 /84 - STN dt. 30-3-1985 Ex. M7 Copy of Ir. No. 269-10/ 89 - STN-II dt. 14-8-98 ExM8 : Copy of Ir . No. 269-13/99 -STN-II dt. 16-9-99 16. The Petitioner has worked for more than 10 years continuously as a part time worker and she comes under the definition of workman under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the Petitioner was retrenched the Respondent is expected to retrench the workman as per the procedure under Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Therefore, the termmation or retrenchment of the Petitioner is in violation of Sec. 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947. Since the Respondent has not given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and further the Petitioner was not paid one month wages in lica ofthe notice and further Petitioner was not paid the retreachment compensation of 15 days average pay for every completed yearofservice. Therefore, the retrenchment or termination ofthe Petitioner is illegal.

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

4261

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

APPEARANCES

Ex19: Copy ofir. No. 269-13/99 -STN - II t. 25-8-2000

For the Petitioner

Ex .M10 : Copy of Ir. No. SR-203 /PT/KW - 1/2000-01/ 13 dt 5-10-2004

:M/s. Dr. A. Raghu Kumar & B.Pavan Kumar, Advocates Ex .M11 : Copy of Ir. No. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited/ SECTT/25-2/2005 dt. 20-3-2006

For the Respondent : Sri Karoor Moban, Advocate

AWARD

Ex. M12 : Copy oforder in OA No. 935/2001 dt. 13-11-2002

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून , 2007

This isa reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40012/160/2004- IR(DU) dated 22-3-2005 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 with the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1903.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध मियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विषाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण! श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2005 ) रे प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/160/2004- आई जर (डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management ofBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Smot, M. Jangamına, Ex. Casual Labour w.e.f. 18-5-2002 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot,to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

New Delhi , the7th June, 2007

This referencewas registered as Industrial Dispute No.40/2005 and notices were issned to the parties .

S.O. 1903. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2005) Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and heir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-6-2007.

[No. L-40012/ 160 /2004- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The Petitioner Sint . M. Janganuma filed her claim statement stating that she was engaged as a part time casual labour in the office of the Respondent on 1-7-1993 and she performedherduties to the satisfaction of her superiors tilt she was terminated on 18-5-2002 . The Respondent Department has decided as one time measure to convert part time casual labourers into full time casual labour vide letterNo. 269-13/99 -STN- II, dated 16-9-1999. The said letter extended benefits of conversion ofpart time casual labour working for less than four hours into full time casual labourers.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri T. Ramchandra Reddy, Presiding Officer

Dated the23rd day ofMay, 2007

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 40/2005

BETWEEN

Smt .M. Jangamma,

H. No. 6-2-971 / 11 ,

Rly.Quarters , Khairatabad,

3. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has made arepresentation for conversion into full time casual labour and the same was forwarded to Divisional Engineer with duecertificates on 10-1-2001 by Accounts Officer, Tellecom Installation Unit, Hyderabad where the Petitioner was working. In continuation ofthe said letter the particulars of thePetitioner's employment as on 30-3-2001 were furnished to Divisional Engineer . In response to the letter dated 3-5-2001 information pertains to the casual labours of various units is forwarded to PGM , HTD vide DGM ( SI)- South dated 10-5-2001 . The Petitioner's name is at S.No. 6. The Petitioner's case was forwarded with required information vide letter dated 15-2-2002. Subsequently with additional information vide letter dated 16-7-2002 10 PGM, HTD.

Petitioner

Hyderabad

AND

The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Respondent

AP Circle, Abids, Hyderabad

4. Further submitted that at this juncture the unit where the Petitioner was working has been totally closed. It is further submitted that the Respondent is engaging many juniors and also some other persons on contract basis. The Petitioner approached the Assistant Labour 3 (ii ) ]

[PART II-SEC ,

INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007 /ASADHA 9 , 1929

THE GAZETTE OF

4262

for installation of telecom equipment etc. As the workwas completed the Petitioner was not engaged and the installation establishment was closed permanently.

8. It is denied that the Respondent is continuing to engage juniors to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Respondent has retrenched the services of the Petitioner as a result of the closure of the installation unit and to dismiss the petition .

Commissioner (C) on 16-8-2004 for re -engagement and for conversion of her case into full time casual labour . The conciliation proceedings are ended in failure . As such the matter was referred to the Government of India who in tiern referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication . It is further submitted that the Respondent is an industry and part -time workers are workmen under the defusion of Sec . 2A(2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Respondents should follow the conditions required under the Act to retrench the workman by giving one month notice in writing or in lieu of such notice oue month pay The termination of the Petitioner in violation of Sec. 257. The Petitioner prays this tribunal to declare the action of the Respondent in retrenching the Pentioner's service is illegal and in violation of Sec. 25f ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and consequently reinstate the Petitioner with all attendant benefits.

9. The petitioner filed an affidavit in support of her claim and got marked Xerox copies of documents which are Exts . W1 to W?. Ex. W1 is the letter pertains to petitioner's engagenient dated 15-2-2002 . Ex. W2 is the service particulars of the petitioner dated 16-9-99 , Ex . W3 is the letter ofDepartment of Telecom, regarding conversion of part time casual labourers into full time casual labourers dated 25-8-2000. Ex. W4 is the letter regarding regularisation ofthe services of casual mazdoors working in Accounts section dated 10-1-2001 , Ex. W5 is the letter regarding grant of temporary status to casual labourers who have completed 240 days as on 30-3-2001 . Ex . W6 is the letter regarding regularization of casual labourers dated 3-5-2001 . Ex. W7 is the letter regarding case of part -time sweepers dated 14-5-2004. She reiterated the pleas taken in her claim petition

$. The Respondent filed counter and denied the averments made by the Petitioner against the Respondent and pleaded that the Petitioner has worked imernnuently as part - time sweeper in the office of the Responden from 1-7-1993 to 15-2-2002 and thereafter from Junk: 2003 10 April 2004. It is further submitted that Respondent introduced a scheme called "Casual Labour (grant to temporary status and regularization) Scheme, 1989 " , under which temporму statuswouldbe conferred to the casual labores employed as on 7-11-1989 and who have rendered continuous service of at least one year, out of which they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days ( 206 days in the case of offices observing five day week ! The said scheme is applicable to full time casual labour working in the Department and Petitioner was not engaged before 30-3-1985 . It is further submitted that subsequently it was clarified that the part- time casual labour who worked for 240 days in any four years prior to30-3-1985 were included in the scherne to confer temporary status . In view of the decisions ofApes Court in the case of Janakadhari Paswan Vs. Union of India and in Sakkubai and Others Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Communications , there is no question of granting temporary status/regularization of part - time casual labourers. Since the Petitioner was not engaged before30-3-1985 and not on rolls as on 7-11-1989, that the Petitioner is not eligible to confer temporary status .

110. The respondent filed the affidavit of Sri S.PL .. Narasimham, A.Ci.M. , and got marked the Xerox copies of documents as follows : Ex, MI is the letter regarding employment of part - time labourers on their regular absorptiontoGroup ' D' posts dated 14-8-84 . Exts . M2 and M3 are letters regarding ban on engagement of casud labour dated 30-3-1985 and 22-6-1988. Exts . M4, MS and M6 are letters regarding grant of temporary status and regularization. Ex. M7 is the letter regarding part time casual labours and their conversion into full time staff dated 14-8-1998 . Ex. M8 is the leter regarding ban on engagement ofcasual labours dated 12-2-99. Exts . M9 and M10 arc letters regarding conversion of part - time casual labour into full timeworkers dated 16-9-1999 and 25-8-2000. Ex. Mlus the letter dated 5-10-2004 to ALC ( C) regarding regularization of the petitioner . Ex . M11 is the letter No. BSL/ SECTT/25-2/ 2005 clated 21-3-2006 . Ex . M12 is the resolution passed by Respondent dated 3-3-2006. He also reiterated the averments made in the counter and most documents tiled by both the parties appears to be one and the same 6. It is further submitted that the said scheme was clarifiedfrom time to time and considered for inclusion of left out cases and souglu information with regard to the casual labour working as on 1-8-1998. The Respondent has clarified through the letter dated 16-9-99 and letter dated 25-8-2000 as one time relaxation , giving benefit to part -time casual labourers who have worked 240 days preceding 12 months.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner worked front 1-7-1993 till 18-5-2002 for about 9 years as a part -time casual labour and the Peutioner comes as worker within the definition of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 and further contended that thePetitoner is entitled to the benefit for conversion into full time casual labour and also consequential absorption and further contended that the name of the Petitioner was recommended for conversion into full time casual labour but instead of confirming as a full time casual labour the 7. 11 is further submitted that the Petitioner was engaged by the installation unit as part -time casual labour . lustallation unit is entrusted with specific time bound work 4263 [भाग-खंड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र जून 30, 2007/आषाढ़ 9 , 1929

Respondent retrenched the Petitioner in violation of provisions of Sec. 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without giving any notice or one month pay in lieu ofnotice and other benefits .

that the case of the Petitioner was not considered because there is no shortage of Grade 'D ' staff and further stated that the installation unitwhere the Petitioner was working was closed.

12. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Petitioner who was engaged on daily wages will not get any right or claim for the permanentjob in view ofthe Judgement in 2006 (4) at page 197 between Secretary of State Government of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi andOthers and further pointed that every workman has to be recruited as per the established procedure and rules and further contended that the project in which the Petitioner has worked was closed, as such, the Petitioner disengaged and the Petitioner will not get any right .

16. The Petitioner has worked for about 9 years continuously as a part time worker and she comes under the definition ofworkman under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the Petitioner was retrenched the Respondent isexpected to retrench the workman as per the procedure under Sec. 25FofIndustrial Disputes Act , 1947. Therefore, the termination or retrenchment of the Petitioner is in violation of Sec . 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Since the Respondent has not given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and further thePetitioner was not paid one month wages in lieu ofthe noticeand further Petitioner was not paid the retrenchment compensation of 15 days average pay for every completed year of service. Therefore, the retrenchment or termination ofthePetitioner is illegal .

17. In view of the circumstances, I hold that the termination of services of the Petitioner w.e.f, 18-5-2002 is illegal and not justified and the Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner without back wages . It is further directed that the Respondent should consider the Petitioner for conversion into full time casual labour under the relevant scheme and the rules. Ifthe Petitioner is not eligible under the said rules for conversion into full time casual Labour, theRespondent is at liberty to retrench the Petitioner only by following the procedure laid down for retrenchment under the Industrial Dispuges Act, 1947 .

13. It has to be seen whether the Petitioner is entitled toget temporary status in view ofthe regulation of Casual Labour (grant to temporary status and regularization) Scheme, 1989. Accordingto said scheme temporary status would be conferred on the casual labours employed as on 17-11-1989 and who had rendered a continuous service of atleast one year, out ofwhich they must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days . Since the Petitioner was not engaged before 30-3-1985 and she was not on rolls as - on 17-11-1989, the Petitioner is not eligible for confirmation of temporary status under the above scheme . Further, the said scheme is only applicable to full time casual labour, As perverification certificate Ex. W1 the service particulars which are certified by Divisional Engineer shows that she worked for 240 days in a year prior to 1-8-1998. The Respondent has not disputed this document.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictatedto Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 23rd dayofMay, 2007,

14. The Respondent issued the orders dated 25-8-2000 vide Ex. M10 for conversion of part time casual labours working for less than 4 hours per day into full time casual labours. It was taken as a one time relaxationwhich reads as follows:

T. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Presiding Officer

Appendixof evidence

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner:

Witnesses examined for the Respondent:

WWI : Smt. M. Jangamma MW1 : Sri S.P.L. Narasimham

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.WI : Copyofletter No. TA/DGM ( SI )/CM/2002-2003/69 dt. 15-2-2002

"As one time relaxation, Part Time Casual Labourers with less than 4 hours of duty per day who have worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months may beconverted into full time casual labourers . This will be applicable only to the extent of the numbers indicated against respective field units in the Annexure (the figures are based on the information furnished by the circles themselves ) and it will further be subject to the conditions mentioned in the following paragraphs."

Ex.W2 : Copy of service particulars

Ex, W3 : Copy of letter No. 269-13/99 -STN- I dt. 25-8-2000

Ex,W4 : Copy ofletter No. TA/AO( 1 )/CM/01 dt. 10-1-2001

Ex, W5 : Copy of letter No. TA/ AO( 1)/ Casual Mazdoors/ 15 dt.30-3-2001

15. The Petitioner's application was forwarded recommending for conversion ofpart -time casual workers under the above scheme. But the Respondent did not give the benefit of the said scheme to the Petitioner . The Petitioner also made a representation to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) who referred the matter to the Respondent. The Respondent has written a letter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) as in Ex. M1I stating

Ex. W6 : Copy ofletter No. TA/DGM ( SI )CMS /2000-2001/29 dt.10-5-2001 [PART I-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 30 , 2007/ASADHA 9 , 1929

4264

ANNEXURE

Ex. W7 : Copy of letter No. TA/DE -SWI -HD/TSMA04-05/13 ck. 14-5-2004

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Documentsmarked for the Respondent

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 12/ 2007

Ex,MI: Copy of DOT Lr. No. 269/39-84 -STN dt. 14-8-84

Petitioner, Party No. 1 :

TheGeneral Secretary,

Maharashtra Electrostmelt Theka Mazdoor Union , ExM2: Copy of DGP & T Ictter No. 270 /6/ 84 - STN dı. 30-3-1985

(Lal Bawta), AnandBhawan,

Ex.M3 : Copy ofDOT letter No. 270/6/84 - STN di 22-6-88

Bhanapeth Ward,

Chandrapur

Ex.M4. Copy ofDGT letter No. 269-10/89 -STN dL 7-11-1989

Versus

Respondent Party No. 2:

Ex.MS: Аплсхиre to Ex . M4 reg . Casual Labourers ( Granar ofTemporary Status and Regularization ) Scheme Ex.16:

Ex.M6 : Cop ofDGT ketter No. 269-10/89 - STN dt. 17-12-

The Excxcutive Diccior, Maharashtra Electrosmelt Ltd. , Mut Road, Chandrapur (MS)

Ex.M7: Copy of letter No. 269-10 / 89 -STN -11 dt. 14-8-9א

AWARD

ExM8: Copy of letter No. 269-4/ 93 - STN- II ( P1 . ) dl. 12-2-

(Dated: 25th May, 2007)

Ex.M9: Copy of letter No. 269-13/99 -STN -41 dt. 16-9-1999

Ex. M10: Cooy of letter No. 269-13/99 - STN - 11 d . 25-8-2000

Ex.M11: Copy of letrer No. SR-203 /PT/KW -11 / 2 ( M ) -(11/13 dt.5-10-2004

Ex.M12: Certified copy of resolution passed by Board of Directors, BSNL, in 74th meeting dt. 3-3-20006

नई दिल्ली, 7 जून, 2007

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between The General Secretary: Maharashtra Electrosmelt Theka Mazdoor Union (Lal Bawta ), Anan- 1 Bhawan, Bhattapeth Ward, Chandrapur Party No. I and The Executive Director, Maharashtra Electrosmelt Lid. , Mul Road. Chandraput ( MS ) Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudicationto this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L -42011 / 71 / 2006-1R ( DU ) dt . 12-1-2007 under clause (d) of sub Section ( 1 ) and sub Section (2A) ofSection 10 of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) with the following schedule.

2. " Whether the action of the Management of Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd. , in not revising the wages w.c. [. 1-1-1997 in respect of the contract workers , and in not extending other benefits , to them at par with the regular employees of the company, is legaland justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

का.आ. 1904.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार महाराष्ट्र इलेक्ट्रोस्मेल्ट लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42011 /71/2006 आई आर ( डीयू ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क आंधकारी

New Delhi . the 7th June , 2007

3. The management has filed a Writ and a copy of a judgement in Writ Petition No. 1104/2007 Maharashtra Eletrosmelt Lid. , Mul Road. Chandrapur V's . Union of India and 3 othersdt . 3-5-2007 . The Hon'ble High court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench , Nagpur in the above WritPetition quashed and set aside the order of the Ministry No. L42011 /71/2006 - IR ( DU ) DL 12-1-2007 , It also quashed and set aside the proceedings consequentialto the above order initiated before the CGIT Nagpur under the same Judgement. In view of the above judgement of the Hon'ble High Court the Reference No 12/2007 is disposed of. It stands as dismissed. Accordingly it is answered in the negative that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief as claimed by them .

S.O. 1904. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ). the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court. Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Maharashtra Electrosmelt Lid and their workman. which was receivedby the Central Government 017-6-2007.

Hence this negative award.

A.N. Yadav, Presiding Officer

Dated: 25-5-2007

[No. L-42011/ 71 /2006 -IR(DU) | SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer 4265 [ भाग ][-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 30, 2007/ आषाढ़ 9, 1929

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2007

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1906.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 1 जुलाई, 2007 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय- 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय- 5 और 6 [ धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबन्ध पंजाब के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

." नगर पालिका रोपड़ की सीमाओं के अन्तर्गत आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र।"

का.आ. 1905.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 208 दिनांक 11 जनवरी , 2007 द्वारा खनिज तेल ( कच्चा तेल ) मोटर और विमानन स्पिरिट, डीजल तेल, मिट्टी का तेल, ईंधन तेल, विविधा हाईड्रोकार्बन तेल और उनके मिश्रण जिनमें सिंथेटिक तेल और इसी प्रकार के तेल शामिल हैं के निर्माण या आत्पादन में लगे उद्योग सेवाओं में है, जोकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 26 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 16-1-2007 से छ: मास की कालावधि के लिए, लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया थ३;

(सं. एस-38013/16/ 07 - एस एस -1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 21st June, 2007 और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है किलोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 16-7-07 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[फा.सं. एस-11017/6/97-आई आर ( पी एल ) ] गुरजोत और , संयुक्त सचिव

S.O. 1906. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State InsuranceAct, 1948 ( 34 of 1948) the Central Government herebyappoints the 1st July, 2007 as the date on which the provisions ofChapter - IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2007

"Areas within the limits of Municipal Committee, Ropar."

[No. $-38013/16/2007 -SS- JJ S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2007

का.आ. 1907.- भारत के राजपत्र भाग II खण्ड 3 उप खाण्ड (ii ) दिनांक 20 जनवरी , 2007 में का.आ. संख्या 205 के तहत प्रकाशित श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतः स्थापित की जाएंगी, अर्थात्:

क्रमसंख्या

S.O. 1905. Whereas the CentralGovernment having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the provisions ofsub-clause (vi ) of the clause (n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , declared by the Notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 208 dated 11-1-2007 the services in Industry engaged in manufacture or production of mineral oil ( crude oil ) motor and aviation spirit, diesel oil, kerosene oil , fuel oil, diverse hydrocarbon oils and their blends including synthetic faels, Lubricating oils and the like which is coveredby item 26 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 19:47 ( 14 of 1947) to be a Public Utility Service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 16th January 2007.

38. मैसर्स राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग विस्तार प्रशिक्षण संस्थान , हैदराबाद

39. मैसर्स आई टी आई लिमिटेड, रायबरेली Andwhereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months.

40. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान एयरोनॉटिक्स लिमिटेड, कानपुर

41. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान एयरोनॉटिक्स लिमिटेड, हैदराबाद

42. मैसर्स भारतीय हस्तशिल्प और हथकरघा निर्यात निगम लिमिटेड

43. मैसर्स न्यूमंगलौर पोर्ट ट्रस्ट, मंगलोर

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 purpose of the said Act , for a period ofsix months from the 16th July, 2007,

44. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड (सभी इकाइयां)

[F. No. S- 11017/6/97- IR(PL) | GURJOT KAUR,Jt. Secy.

[PARI 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JUNE 30, 2007 / ASADHA 9, 1929

4266

39. M/s . I.T.1 . Limited , Raebareli .

45. मैसर्स मोरमुगाओ पोर्ट ट्रस्ट, गोवा

40. M/ s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Kanpur.

46. मैसर्स एच एम टी लिमिटेड, बंगलुरु ( सभी इकाइया कार्यालय

4). M/s . Hindustan Acronautics Limited, Hyderabad.

[सं. एस-38014/46/2006 - एस एस- [ ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

42. M/ s . Handicraft & Handloom Exports Corporation of India Ltd.

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2007

43. M/ s . New Managalore Port Trust . Mangalore .

44. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (AllUnits) .

45. M/ s . Mormugao Port Trust , Goa.

S.O. 1907. In the Notification of the Ministry of Labour & Employment published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section 3, sub -section (ii) dated 20th January, 2007 vide S.O. No. 205 the following entries shall be inserted namely:

46. M/ s. H.M.T. Limited, Bangalore ( All Units/ Offices).

Sl . No.

[No. S-38014/46/2006- SS-[ ] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

38. M/ s . National Institute of Small Industry Extension Training, Hyderabad.

Press. Ring Road, Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064

Poned by the Manares . Goti India

Contreiler of Publications, Delhi - 110054, 2007

and Published