This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO . D.L. (NT04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री से डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/ 0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 8 ]

मई दिल्ली, फरवरी 15 फरवरी 21 , 2009 , शनिवार/माघ 26- फाल्गुम 2, 1930 NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 15- FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 , SATURDAY/MAGHA 26-PHALGUNA 2, 1930 No. 81

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

भाग 11- खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (H)

PART II -Section 3-Sub-section (ii)

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

विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of Legal Affairs) (बिधि कार्य विभाग )

NewDelhi , the 3rd February, 2009 नई दिल्ली , 3 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 407.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 (1974का 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , श्री वीरेन्द्रनाथ बी. तिवारी , अधिवक्ता को, मुम्बई उच्चन्यायालय में भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय द्वारा या उसके विरुद्ध सभी दांडिक मामलों का, जिनके अंतर्गत दॉडिक रिट याचिकाएं, वांडिक अपीलें, दांडिक पुनरीक्षण , दांडिक निर्देश और दांडिक आवेदन भी हैं, संचालन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस शर्त के अधीन रहते हुए श्री वीरेन्द्रनाथ बी. तिवारी , अपर लोक अभियोजक के रूप में अपनी नियुक्ति की अवधि के दौरान भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय के विरुद्ध ऊपर निर्दिष्ट किसी दांडिक मामले में मुंबई उच्च न्यायालय में उपसंजात नहीं होंगे , इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो , अपर लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

S.O.407. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of1974), the Central Governement hereby appoints Shri Virendranath B. Tiwari , Advocate as Additional Public Prosecutor for the purpose of conducting all criminal cases including criminal writ petitions, criminal appeals , criminal revisions , criminal references and criminal applications by or against the Union of India or any Department or Office of the Central Government, in the High Court ofJudicature at Mumbai , with effect from the dateofpublication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for a period of one year or until further orders , whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that Shri VirendranathB. Tiwari , Advocate , shall not appear against the Union of India or any Department or Office of the Central Government in any criminal case referred to above , in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai during the period of hisappointment.

[सं. एफ 23 ( 2 )/2009- न्यायिक ]

[F. No. 23(2)/2009- Judl. ] M. A. KHAN YUSUFI , It . Secy. & Legal Adviser : एम. ए. खान यूसुफ़ी , संयुक्त सचिव और विधि सलाहकार

(803)

532G1/2008 804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय ( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 13 फरवरी, 2009

का.आ. 408.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय में केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के अधिवक्ता एवं रिटेनर काउंसेल श्री विकास पाहवा को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों में अभियोजन चलाने , अपील , पुनरीक्षण या इनसे उद्भूत अन्य कार्रवाईयों के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 225/4/2009- एवीडी- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department ofPersonnel and Training) NewDelhi , the 13th February, 2009 S.O.408.-In exercise of the powers conferredby the provisions ofsub- section (8) of Section 24 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974), the Cen- tralGovernment hereby appoints Shri Vikas Pahwa,Ad- vocate and Retainer Counsel of Central Bureau ofInvesti- gation, in the Delhi High Court as Special Public Prosecutor, for conducting prosecution , appeals , revision or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by theDelhi Special Police Establishment.

[No. 225/4/2009-AVD- IIJ

CHANDRA PRAKASH . Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 16 फरवरी , 2009

का, आ. 409.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एप्त‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार, गृह ( एससीए ) विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. जी.ओ.एम.एस. सं. 100 दिनांक 13 फरवरी , 2009 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से मैसर्स सत्यम कम्प्यूटर सर्विसिज लि. में घोटाले के संबंध में अपराध अन्वेषण विभाग , पुलिस स्टेशन हैदराबाद में दर्ज अपराध सं. 2/2009 दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 2009 के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120-बी सपठित धारा 406 , 420,467, 471 और477- ए के अधीन दर्ज आपराधिक मामले और उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों को दर्ज और इनका अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/6/2009-एवीडी- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 16th February, 2009

S.O. 409. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] of1946), the Central Government with the consent ofthe State Government of Andhra Pradesh, Home (SC. A) Department vide Notification G.O. Ms. No. 100 dated 13th February, 2009 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdic- tionof the members of the Delhi Special Police Establish- ment to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of Crime No. 2/2009 dated 9th January, 2009 under Section 120-B read with Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) relating to the accounting scam in M/s . Satyam Computers Services Limited registered at Crime Investi- gation Department Police Station, Hyerabad and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection withthe offence mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transac- tion or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/6/2009 -AVD- II] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर जयपुर, 5 फरवरी , 2009

सं. 15/2008-09

का.आ. 410. आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उप धारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एत‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2008-09 एवम् आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " डूण्डलोद शिक्षण संस्थान , पो.-डूण्डलोद , जिला- झुन्झुनू" को स्वीकृति देते हैं । बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड (23सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ/( मु. )/जय/ 10(23सी)/( vi )/08-09/3855 ]

बी.एस. ढिल्लों, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

New Delhi , the 5th February, 2009

No. 15/2008-09

S.O. 410. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-clause (vi ) ofclause (23 -C) of Section 10 ofthe Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of1961) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan, Post-Dundled, Dist . -Jhunjhunu" for the purpose of said Section for the A.Y. 2008-09 & onwards .

Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub - clause (vi ) of clause ( 23C) of Section 10 ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962.

[No. CCIT/JPR/Addl . CIT(Hqrs .)/ 10(23C)(vi)/ 2008-09/3855] B. S. DHILLON, Chief Commissioner of Income- tax 805 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

स्वास्थ्य और परिचारकस्मंशय वित्त मंत्रालय

( आयुर्वेद , योग व प्राकृतिक विवि भी सिद्ध एवं होम्योपैथी (वित्तीय सेवाएं विমাস )

विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2009

शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 413. केंद्रीय सरकार , होम्योपैथी केंद्रीय परिषद् अधिनियम, 1973 ( 1973 का 59 ) की धारा 13 की उप- धारा (2) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय होम्योपैथी परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की द्वितीय अनुसूची में एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

का.आ. 411.-भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम , 1955 (1955 का 23 ) की धारा 21 क के साथ पठित , धारा 21 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के परामर्श से , एत‌द्वारा , डॉ. कल्याण कुमार गगोई, निवासी म. नं. 10 , गली नं. 2 , तरुण नगर , गुवाहाटी-5 को, अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, गुवाहाटी स्थित भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के स्थानीय बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है:-

[फा. सं. 9/ 19/2008 - बीओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services )

New Delhi , the 9th February, 2009

स्तंभ ( 1 ) के अधीन भास्त के राजपत्र , असाधारण भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में तारीख 14 जनवरी , 2009 को प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (आयुष विभाग ) की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 226(अ ) में 13भयख में 'जे. आर नागर राजस्थान विश्वविद्यालय , उदयपुर ' के स्थान पर ' जे. आर नागर राजस्थान विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , उदयपुर' पढ़ा जाएगा ।

[फा.सं. आर. 14013/13/2004- एचडी]

टी. एस. भाटिया , उप सचिव

टिप्पण: मूल अधिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II , खंड 1 में का.आ. 76 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1973 द्वारा प्रकाशित की गई थी और इसमें अंतिम संशोधन का.आ. सं. 338 (अ) तारीख 20 जनवरी , 2009 द्वारा किया गया । S.O. 411. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause(c) ofsub-section ( 1) of Section 21 , read with Section 21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) , the CentralGovernment, in consultation with ReserveBank of India, hereby nominates Dr. Kalyan Kumar Gagoi , Resident ofHouseNo. 10, By lane No. 2 , Tarun Nagar, Guwahati -5, to be a member of the Local Board of the State Bank of India at Guwahati for a period ofthree years , from the date of notification or until further orders , whichever isearlier.

[F. No. 9/19/2008-BO- I] GB. SINGH, Dy. Secy.

MINISTRY OF HEALTHAND FAMILYWELFARE (Departitient ofAyurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy,Unani, नई दिल्ली , 13 फरवरी, 2009

SiddhaandHomoeopathy) CORRIGENDUM

NewDelhi , the 10th February, 2009

S.O. 413.In exercise of the powers.conferred by sub-section (2) ofSection 13 , ofthe Homoeopathy Central CouncilAct, 1973 (59 of 1973), the Central Government, after consulting the Central Council of Homoeopathy, hereby makes the following further amendments in the Second Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

का.आ. 412.-बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एतद्वारा , घोषित करती है कि धारा 10 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ग ) के उपखण्ड ( i ) के उपबंध , बैंक आफ बड़ौदा पर उस सीमा तक लागू नहीं होंगे जहां तक उनका संबंध श्री एम.डी माल्या, अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक , के ( i ) लाइफ इंश्योरेंस जेवी कंपनी और ( ii ) कृषि वित्त निगम लिमिटेड के बोर्ड में निदेशक का पद लेने से है ।

[फा.सं. 20/7/2005-बीओ-1 ]

जी.बी. सिंह , उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2009

Inthe notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of AYUSH), No. S.O. 226 (E) dated 14th January, 209 published in the Gazette of India , Extraordinary Part II , Section 3, Sub-section ( ii ) under column ( 1 ) , ' 13DDB ' shall be read as' J.R. Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur' instead of ' J.R. Nagar Rajasthan University, Udaipur'.

[F. No. R. 14013 /13/2004-HD]

T. S. BHATIA , Dy. Secy.

S.O. 412. In exercise of the powers conferred, by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 (10 of 1949), the Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India , hereby declare that the provisions ofsub-clause ( i ) of clause ( c) of sub-section (1)ofSection 10 of the said Act shall not apply to Bank of Baroda in so far as it relates to taking up directorship of Shri M.D. Mallya , Chairman & Managing Director on the Boards of ( i ) Life Insurance JV Company and ( ii ) Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited.

[F.No. 20/7/2005-BO- I ]

Note: The principal notification was pablished in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 1. vide number, 76 dated the 20th December, 1973 and lost somded vide S.O. number 338 (1 ) piged the20th January, 2009.

GB. SINGH, Dy. Secy.

806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES

सुक्ष्म, लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 6 फरवरी , 2009

New Delhi , the 6th February , 2009

S.O. 414.-In pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 oftheOfficial Languages ( Use for Official Purposes ofthe Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission under control of the Ministry ofMSME, where the percentage ofHindi knowing staff has gone above 80%:

का.आ. 414.-केंद्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा नियम , 1976 के (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में , सूक्ष्म , लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय के नियंत्रणाधीन खादी और ग्रामोद्योग आयोग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 % से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :

1. राज्य कार्यालय , खादी और ग्रामोद्योग आयोग , 5 डिंगल इस्टेट, कार्ट रोड , शिमला ( हिमाचल प्रदेश ) 171003

1. State Office , Khadi & Village Industries Commission , 5 Dingle Estate, Cart Road, Shimla (HimachalPradesh)-171003

2. राज्य कार्यालय , खादी और ग्रामोद्योग आयोग , 2/15, दानी हाउस , गोविंदनगर , रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) -492001

2. State Office . Khadi & Village Industries Commission , 2/15 , Dani House , Govind Nagar, Raipur(Chhattisgarh ) -492001

3. राज्य कार्यालय , खादी और ग्रामोद्योग आयोग , महादेव सिंह रोड, कांवली , देहरादून ( उत्तराखण्ड) -248001

3. State Office , Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Mahadev Singh Road, Kanwali , Dehradun (Uttarakhand)-248001

4. मंडल कार्यालय , खादी और ग्रामोद्योग आयोग , बाहेती भवन , रानी बाजार , बीकानेर ( राजस्थान ) -334001

4. Divisional Office , Khadi & Village Industries Commission , Baheti Bhavan , Rani Bazar , Bikaner (Rajasthan) -334001

5. राज्य कार्यालय , खादी ग्रामोद्योग आयोग , ई -ब्लॉक , चौथा माला , कैपिटल कमर्शियल सेन्टर , एलिस ब्रिज, आश्रम रोड , अहमदाबाद ( गुजरात ) -380009

5. State Office , Khadi & Village Industries Commission , E - Block , 4th Floor, Capital Commercial Centre, Ellis Bridge , Ashram Road, Ahmedabad( Gujarat) -380009 .

[सं. ई-12016/01/2005-हिन्दी] प्रवीर कुमार , संयुक्त सचिव

[No. E- 12016/01/2005-Hindi ] PRAVIR KUMAR, Jt . Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 415.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के उपनियम , ( 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 :-

भा मा संख्या भाग अनुभाग वर्ष क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का

शीर्षक

करने की स्वीकृत तिथि वर्ष/माह

9 1. 7885408 28-11-08

14543

2004 रेकॉन इंडस्ट्रीज स.नं. 108, प्लॉट नं. 69 /ए , रेलवे क्रॉसिंग के पास ,

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के

अलावा)

हडपसर , जिला-पुणे-411013

2. 7890195 23-11-08

1417

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता

और चिह्नांकन

मौयंज्वैलर्स, दुकान नं. 1 , 618 गुरूवार पेठ, मिथगंज पुलिस चौकी के पास, पुणे-411002 807 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1994

14220

19-11-08

7890805

ओपनवैल समर्सिबल

पम्पसेट्स

डोमेन इलैक्ट्रीकल्स प्लॉट नं. 70, एमआईडीसी इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया, चिकलथाना , जिला- औरंगाबाद-431210

1999

1417

3-12-08

7891197

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता

और चिहनांकन

ओसवाल ज्वैलर्स , दुकान नं. 4, स.नं. 9, महात्माफुले पेठ, कस्तूरी चौक के पास, जिला-पुणे-411002

1999

1417

3-12-08

5. 7891504

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता

और चिह्नांकन

बागडे ज्वैलर्स , 650, कसार गली, ए/पी एवं तालुका श्रीगोंडा , जिला-अहमदनगर 413701

2003

15328

2-12-08

7893306

अंडरग्राउंड नालियों और सीवरेज सिस्टम के लिए अनप्लास्टिसाइज्ड गैरदावित पॉलीविनायल क्लोराइड ' (पीवीसी-यू) पाइप्स

फिनोलैक्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, (उरसे पाइप डिवीजन ) गट संख्या 399 , गांव उरसे, तालुका-मावल , जिला-पुणे-410506

1999

1417

16-12-08

7893811

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता

और चिहनांकन

जिला-पुणे-410401 महावीर गोल्ड, दुकान नं. 6 , वसंतदादा संकुल, भांगरवाडी रोड , लोनावाला, तालुका मावल ,

1999

1417

19-12-08

8. 7894712

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं,

और चिह्नांकन

रेर डायमंड हब , 8 , एम जी रोड, केम्प, जिला-पुणे-411001 दुकान नं. 23 , कुमार प्लाजा ,

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर, उपमहानिदेशक ( मुहर ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARD

NewDelhi, the 5th February, 2009

S.O. 415. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) 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

Year

Section

Part

ISNo.

Title of the Standard

Name & Address of the Party

SL. Licence Grant Date

No. No.

2004

14543

Reckon Industries ,

28-11-08

1. 7885408

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged natural mineral water)

S.No. 108, Plot No. 69/A , Near Railway Crossing, Hadapsar, District Pune-411013 808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SBC .3 (ii) ] 1

9 2. 7890195 28-11-08

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artefacts - Fineness and marking

Shop No. 1 , 618 Guruwar Peth , Near Mithganj Police Chowky, Pune-411002 Maurya Jewellers,

3. 7890805 19-11-08

14220

1994

Openwell submersible pumpsets

Domain Electricals , PlotNo. 70, MIDC Indl Area Chikalthana DistrictAurangabad-431210

4. 7891197 3-12-08

1417

1999

Goldand gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking

Oswal Jewellers, Shop No.4, S.No. 9, Mahatma Phule Peth, Near Kasturi Chowk, District Pune-411002

5. 7891504 3-12-08

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys, jewellery/artefacts - Fineness and marking

BagadeJewellers, 650,KasarGalli, A/P& Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar-413701

6. 7893306 2-12-2008

15328

2003 Finolex Industries Ltd. , (UrsePipeDivision), GatNo. 399, VillageUrse, TalukaMaval, District Pune-410506

Unplasticized non- pressure polyviny! chloride (PVC -U) pipes for use in underground drainage and sewerage systems

7. 7893811 16-12-2008

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts - Fineness and marking

MahavirGold, Shop No.6, Vasantdada Sankul , Bhangarwadi Road, Lonavala, TalukaMaval, District Pune-410401

8. 7894712 19-12-2008

1417

1999

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts- Fineness andmarking

Rare DiamondHub, Shop No. 23 , Kumar Plaza, 8, M.G. Road, Camp, District Pune-411001

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director (General)

नई दिल्ली , 5 फरवरी, 2009

का.आ. 416.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है : -

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्र. सं.

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्याऔर वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30अक्तूबर , 2008 1 आईएस 61508-2: 2000 : विद्युत/इलेक्ट्रॉनिक/प्रोग्राम योग्य इलेक्ट्रॉनिक सुरक्षा- संबंधी पद्धतियों की कार्यात्मक सुरक्षा- भाग 2 विद्युत /इलेक्ट्रानिक/प्रोग्राम योग्य सुरक्षा संबंधी पद्धतियों की अपेक्षाएँ

इसभारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 18 /टी-108 ]

प्रकाश बचानी , वैज्ञा.- ई, एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी वि. ) 809

भारत का राजपन्न : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi, the 5th February, 2009

S.O. 416. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

SL No.

(2)

(1)

1 ISMEC 61508-2: 2000 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems Part 2 Requirements forElectrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems

Date of Establishment

No. & Year of the Indian Standards, ifany superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4) (3)

30October, 2008 Copyofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also BranchOffices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: ET 18/T- 108]

PRAKASH BACHANI , Sc; E & Head (Electrotechnical Department)

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 417.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है:-

क्र. स्थापितःभारतीय मानक (कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक सं

(2)

(1)

1 आईएस 61508-0 : 2005 विद्युत/इलेक्ट्रॉनिक/प्रोग्रामयोग्य इलेक्ट्रॉनिक सुरक्षा- संबंधी पद्धतियों की कार्यात्मक सुरक्षा- भाग ० कार्यात्मक सुरक्षा एवं भाई ई सी 61508

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(4) (3)

30नवम्बर , 2008 इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं.।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 18/टी-114 ] प्रकाश बचानी , वैज्ञा . - ई , एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी वि. )

NewDelhi , the 5th February, 2009

S.O. 417. In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau ofIndian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

Sl. No. & Year of the Indian Standards No.

(2)

(1)

1 IS/IEC 61508-0: 2005 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems Part 0 Functional Safety and IEC 61508

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment

No. & Year of the Indian Standards , ifany Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4) (3)

30November , 2008 810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-Sac. 3 ( ii)] Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: ET 18/T - 114]

PRAKASH BACHANI, Sc. E & Head (Electrotechnical Department)

नई दिल्ली , 5 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 418.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के रखंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्र. स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

स्थापित तिथि

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30 अक्तूबर , 2008 1 आईएस 61508-5: 1998 विद्युत/इलेक्ट्रॉनिक/प्रोग्राम योग्य इलेक्ट्रॉनिक सुरक्षा- संबंधी पद्धतियों की कार्यात्मक सुरक्षा- भाग 5 सुरक्षा एकात्मकता स्तर की पद्धतियों के उदाहरण निर्धारित करना

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9, बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपात , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : ईटी 18/टी-111 ]

प्रकाश बचानी , वैज्ञा. ई, एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी विभाग ) NewDelhi , the 5th February, 2009

S.O. 418. In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of I: adian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No.

No.& Year of the Indian Standards, ifany Superseded by the New Indian Standard

Dateof Establishment (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1

30October,2008 IS/IEC 61508-5 : 1998 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems Part 5 Examples of methods for The Determination of Safety Integritylevels

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau ofIndian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: ET 18/T- 111 ]

PRAKASH BACHANI, Sc . E & Head (Electrotechnical Department) 811 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

नई दिल्ली , 5 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 419.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप विनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाईसेंसों को आगे दर्शाई तारीख से लाईसेंस स्वीकृत कर दिया गया है :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत प्रक्रम सम्बन्ध एवं भारतीय मानक सहित

(5) (2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

8978319

04-11-2008

आईएस 1786 : 1985 हाई स्ट्रेंग्थ डीफार्मड बार

मेसर्स अलंकार एलॉयज प्रा. लिमिटेड , ग्राम बोरझारा , ब्लाक पेरसिवा, रायपुर ( छ.ग.)

8981308

11-11-2008

आईएस 710 : 1976 स्पेसिफिकेशन फार मेरिन प्लाइवुड

मेसर्स महावीर लैमिनिटेड,' 660-661 , उरला इण्डस्ट्रीयल , पुलिस स्टेशन के पीछे, रायपुर-493221 ( छ.ग. )

8975818

11-11-2008 मेसर्स एम एस पी स्टील एण्ड पावर लि. ग्राम एण्ड पोस्ट, जनगांव , रायगड-496001 ( छ.ग. )

आईएस 2830 : 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इंगौट, बिलेटस , बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि-रोलींग इनटूस्टिल फार जनरल स्ट्रक्वरल्स परपज

8980811

12-11-2008

आईएस 13487 1992 एरिगेशन इक्वीपमेंट- एमिटर

मेसर्स कृति इण्डस्ट्रीज ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड , प्लाट नं. 75-86 , सेक्टर 2 , पीथमपुर , जिला धार (म.प्र. )

12-11-2008 8981914

आईएस 14543 : 2004 पैकेजड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर

मेसर्स बी एस पी बेवरेजेस , मायका रोड, गांव कोतमा ब्लॉक, तहसील सोहागपुर , शहडोल -7484001

8981005

14-11-2008

आईएस 458 : 2003 प्रिकास्ट कंक्रीट पाइप्स

मेसर्स श्री व्यंकटेश कंक्रीट उद्योग , प्लाट नं. - 84, सेक्टर- आई , इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , गोविन्दपुरा , भोपाल (म.प्र. )

8981409

14-11-2006

आईएस 1786 1985 हाई स्ट्रेंथ डीफार्मड कार

मेसर्स एस के सरावगी एण्ड कं. प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नं. 38 से 41 एण्ड 48 से 52 इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , सिलतारा , फेस II , रायपुर (छ.ग. )

8981510

14-11-2008 मेसर्स रौनक पेन्ट धर्क्स , 120-डी, इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, पोलाग्राउंड , सावेंर रोड, इंदौर

आईएस 4985 : 2000 अनप्लास्टीसाईज्ड पीवीसी पाइप्स फॉर पोटेबल वाटर सप्लाईज-विशिष्ठि

8982310

14-11-2008 मेसर्स ड्रोलिया ईलेक्ट्रोडस प्रा. लि. खसरा नं. 53/3 , 54 , 55/2 , 58/1 , 59, 60/1 , 61 , गांव-सीलतारा , ब्लाक- धरसिवा , रायपुर ( छ.ग. )

आईएस 2830 : 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इंगौट , बिलेटस , बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि-रोलींग इनटूस्टिल फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परषज

10.

8983211

18-11-2008

आई एस 2062 : 2006 स्टिल फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज

मेसर्स अंकित स्टिलस , 243/3, 243/8 , 245/1 , 245/2 , 12/2 रिंग रोड नं. 3 , गोंडवारा , रायपुर ( छ.ग. )

11.

8986520

18-11-2008

आईएस 14543: 2004 पैकेजड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर

मेसर्स पक्रूल बेवरेजेस , खसरा नं. 306 , धामधा रोड, गांव मुरा , तहसील धामाधा, कुम्हारी , दुर्ग ( छ.ग. ) 812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

(1)

(2)

(3)

12.

8983514 ज्वेल्स सिमलेस लिमिटेड, प्लाट नं. 159 , सेक्टर नं. 03 , इण्डस्ट्रीयल ऐरिया , पथिमपुर, धार 13.

8986621 मेसर्स गोदावरी पावर एण्ड इस्पात लिमिटेड , 428/2, फेस -1 , इण्डस्ट्रीयल ऐरिया , सिलतारा , रायपुर

14.

8984920 मेसर्स राधे कुष्णा बेवरेजेस , बिलासपुर रोड, पुलिस स्टेशन के सामने , खमतराई , भानपुरी , रायपुर 15.

8985114 मेसर्स कृष्णा आयर्न स्ट्रिप्स एण्ड ट्यूबस , प्लाट नं. 813-821ए, उर्ला इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, सरोरा , रायपुर 16.

8986318 मेसर्स प्रिमेअर प्लास्टिक पाइप इंडस्ट्रीज, बस स्टॅण्ड के सामने, डोंगरगड -491445 जिला राजनांदगांव (छ.ग. ) 17.

8986419 मेसर्स प्रिमेअर प्लास्टिक पाइप इंडस्ट्रीज , बस स्टेंण्ड के सामने , डोंगरगड-491445 जिला राजनांदगांव ( छ.ग. )

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

(5)

19-11-2008 आईएस 2830 : 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इंगौट, बिलेटस , बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि-रोलींग इनटू स्टिल फार जनरल स्ट्रक्चरल्स परपज

25-11-2008 आईएस 2831 1992 कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलेट इंगौट , बिलेटस, बलूम एण्ड स्लॅबस फार रि-रोलींग इनटू लो टेन्साइल स्ट्रक्चरल्स स्टिल

28-11-2008 आईएस: 14543 : 2004 पैकेजड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर

28-11-2008 आईएस 1239 भाग 1 : 1999 हाई स्ट्रेंग्थ डीफार्मड स्टिल बार एण्ड वायर्स फार कंक्रीट रेनफोर्समेंट

28-11-2008 आईएस 14151 भाग 1 1999 एरिगेशन इक्वीपमेंट-स्प्रिंकलर पाइप

28-11-2008 आईएस 14151 भाग II : 1999 एरिगेशन इक्वीपमेंट स्प्रिंकलर पाइय

[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन/ 13: 11 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi, the 5th February, 2009

8.O. 419. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub regulation ( 5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences for the month of November, 2008 particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Licence No. Name and address of the licensees Sl. No.

(1) (2)

(3)

1. 8978319

M/s. Alankar Alloys Pvt . Limited Village Borjhara, Block Persiva, Raipur-493001 (C.G. )

2 8981308

M/s . Mahavir Laminates 660,661 Urla Industrial Area , behind Police Station, Raipur(C.G.)

3. 8986217

M/ s. MSPSteel & Power Limited, Village & PO Jangaon, Raigarh -496001

IS No. and title

GrantDate (4)

(5)

IS 1786 : 1985

04-11-2008 Specification for high strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement

11-11-2008 IS710: 1976 Specification for Marine Plywood

IS 2380 : 1992

12-11-2008 Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets, blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structural purposes [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

813

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

(3)

(1) (2)

4. 8980811

M/s. Kriti Industries (India) Limited, 75-86 Sector II, Pithampur, Dist : Dhar

5. 8981914

M/s.BSPBeverages Maika Road, KotmaBlock, Sohagpur, Shahdol -484001 6. 8981005

M/s . Shree Venkatesh Concrete Udyog, PlotNo. 84, Sector- 1 , Industrial Area, Govindpura, Bhopal

8981409

M/s. SK Sarawagi & Co. (P) Ltd. Plot No. 38 to 41 & 48 to 52, Industrial Area, Siltara , Phase -II, Raipur

8. 8981510

M/s . Raunak Paint Works, 120-D, Industrial Area, Pologround, SanwerRoad, Indore

9. 8982310

M/s .Drolia Electrosteels (P) Limited Khasra No. 53/3 , 54, 55/2, 58/1 , 59, 60/1 , 61 , Village Siltara,Block Dharsiva, Raipur-493111 10. 8983211

M/ s . Ankit Steels, 243/3, 243/8,245/1,245/2, 12/2 , RingRoad, No. 2, Gondwara Raipur

11. 8986520

M/s . Parul Beverages

Khasra No. 306 , Dhamda Road, VillageMurra, Tehsil Dhamdha Kumhari,Durg

12. 8983514

M/s . Jewel Seamless Limited, Plot No. , 159 Sector 3 Inds . AreaPithampur, Pithampur, Dist: Dhar 13. 8986621

M/s. Godawari Power and Ispat Limited, 428/2 , Phase I, Industrial Area, Siltara,Raipur.

14. 8984920

M/ s . Radhe Krishna Beverages , Bilaspur Road, Opposite Police Station, Khamtarai , Bhanpuri , Raipur

15. 8985114

M/s. Krishna Iron Strips and Tubes Pvt. Limited, PlotNo. 813-821A, Urla Industrial Area, Sarora, Raipur

(5) (4)

12-11-2008 IS 13487 : 1992 Irrigation Equipment-Emitters- Specification

12-11-2008 IS 14543: 2004

PackagedDrinking Water (other thanPackagedNatural Mineral Water)-Specification

14-11-2008 IS458: 2003

Specification for Precast Concrete Pipes(with and without Reinforcement)

14-11-2008 IS 1786: 1985

Specification for high strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement.

14-11-2008 IS4985:2000

Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable Water Supplies Specification

14-11-2008 IS 2830 : 1992

Carbon steel cast billet ingots, billets, blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structural purposes

18-11-2008 IS2062:2006 Steel for General Structural Purposes-Specification

18-11-2008 IS14543: 2004

PackagedDrinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)--Specification

19-11-2008 IS2830: 1992

Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets, blooms and slabs for re-rolling into steel for general structural purposes

IS 2831 : 2001

25-11-2008 Carbon steel cast billet ingots, billets, blooms and slabs for re-rolling into Law Tensile structural Steel-Specification

28-11-2008.

IS14543: 2004 PackagedDrinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water) Specification

28-11-2008 IS 1239: Part 1: 2004

Specification for high strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcemen 814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii )] (1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5) 16. 8986318

IS 14151 : Part 1 : 1999

28-11-2008 M/s. Premier Plastics Pipe Industries Near New Bus Stand Dongargarh -491445 Dist: Rajanandgaon

Irrigation Equipment-Sprinkler Pipes- Specification -Part 1: Polyethylene Pipes

17. 8986419

28-11-2008 M/s. Premier Plastics Pipe Industries Near New Bus Stand Dongargarh-491445 Dist:Rajanandgaon

IS 14151 : Part II : 1999 Irrigation Equipment-Sprinkler Pipes- Specification-Part 2: Quick Coupled Polyethylene

[No. CMD/13: 11 ]

P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 420.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्र. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

स्थापित तिथि सं

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30अक्टूबर , 2008 1 आईएस 61508-1 : 1998 विद्युत/ इलेक्ट्रॉनिक/प्रोग्रामयोग्य इलेक्ट्रॉनिक सुरक्षा- संबंधी पद्धतियों की कार्यात्मक सुरक्षा- भाग 1 सामान्य अपेक्षाएँ

इन भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 18/टी -107 ]

प्रकाश बचानी , वैज्ञा.- ई, एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी वि. )

NewDelhi , the 5th February, 2009

S.O. 420. In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub -rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No.

Date of Establishment

No. & Year of the Indian Standards , ifany Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

30October, 2008 IS/IEC 61508-1 : 1998 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-Related Systems Part 1 General Requirements

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuranı.

[Ref: ET-18 /T- 107]

PRAKASH BACHANI , Sc . E & Head ( Electrotechnical Department) 815 [भाग II- खण्ड.3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 421.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भास्तीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

623 :1993

31 अक्टूबर , 2008 आई एस 623: 2008 ( समामेलन आई एस 3404: 1979) साईकिल- साईकिल के फ्रेम -विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

5876: 1970

30नवम्बर , 2008 2. आई एस 5876:2008 पोत निर्माण हापर सकपर्स (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

7079: 1995

31 अक्टूबर, 2008 आई एस 7079 :2008 स्वचल वाहन- गैर पेट्रोलियम बेस ब्रेक तरल के साथ प्रयुक्त द्रक्चालित ब्रेकिंग पद्धति के हेतु ब्रेक होज असैम्बली-विशिष्टि

(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय भानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : टी ई डी/जी-16]

राकेश कुमार , वैज्ञानिक- एफ एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी )

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2009

S.O. 421. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

St.

Date of Established No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and Year of Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

623:1993

31October, 2008- IS 623 : 2008 (Amalgamating IS 3404 : 1979) Bicycle-Bicycle frames-Specification (ThirdRevision)

5876:1970

30 November, 2008 IS 5876: 2008 Shipbuilding-Hopper scuppers (FirstRevision)

7079:1995

31October, 2008 IS 7079: 2008 Automotive vehicles-Brake Hose assemblies for hydraulic braking stems used with non-petroleum base brake fluid-Specification (Third Revision)

Copyofthis Standard is avialable for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also BranchOffices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: TED/G-16]

RAKESH KUMAR, Scientist F & Head(Transport Engg.) 816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 422.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

क्रम संख्या

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

संशोधन संख्या 1 , जनवरी , 2009

31जनवरी , 2009 आई एस 1063 : 1997 स्वचल वाहन- सपाट बैठने वाले एम 14x1.25 स्पार्क प्लग तथा उनके सिलिंडर शीर्ष में फिटिंग-विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन संख्या 1 , दिसम्बर , 2008 31दिसम्बर , 2008 आई एस 3172: 1997 आंतरिक दहन इंजन- ईधन इंजेक्शन उपकरण एकल और दोहरी सिरे वाले पाइप युग्मक ( एकल और दोहरे तिरेवाले बैंजो ) - विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन संख्या 1 , जनवरी , 2009

31जनवरी , 2009 3. आई एस 14380:1996 स्वचल वाहन चुम्बकीय प्रज्जवलन प्रणाली के लिये प्रज्जवलन कायलों की विशिष्टि

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : टी ई डी /जी-16 ]

राकेश कुमार , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी )

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2009

S.O. 422. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. Year and Title of the Indian Standards

No. and Year of

the Amendment

SI. No.

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

1 .

31January 2009

AmendmentNo. 1 , January 2009

IS 1063 : 1997 Automotive vehicles- M 14 x 1.25 spark plugs with flat seating and their cylinder head housing- Specification (Second revision)

31 December 2008

Amendment No. 1 , December 2008

IS 3172 : 1997 Internal combustion engines- Fuel injection equipment- single anddouble endedpipe unions (Single and double ended banjo)-Specification (Second revision)

31 January2009

Amendment No. 1 , January 2009

IS 14380 : 1996 Automotive vehicles -Ignition coils for magneto ignition systems- Specification

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: TED/G-16]

RAKESH KUMAR, Scientist F & Head (Transport Engg.) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

817 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21, 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

नई दिल्ली , 6 फरवरी , 2009

1 का.आ. 423. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

30नवम्बर, 2008 आई एस 11385 :2008 नहरों और क्रास निकासी कार्यों के लिए उपसतह का अन्वेषण - रीति संहिता ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

आई एस 11385 :2008 नहरों औरक्रास निकासी कार्यों के लिए उपसतह का अन्वेषण-रीति संहिता ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाख्खा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: डब्लूआर डी 5 /टी -19 ]

ए. एम. डेविड , वैज्ञा- ई, निदेशक ( जल संसाधन विभाग )

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2009

S.O. 423. In pursuance of clause (b ) ofsub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment SL No.

No. Title and year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30 November, 2008

IS 11385: 2008 Subsurface Exploration for Canals and Cross Drainage Works- CodeofPractice

IS 11385 : 2008 Subsurface Exploration for Canals and Cross Drainage Works- CodeofPractice (First Revision)

Copyofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: WRD5 /T-19]

A. M. DAVID , Sc -E Director (Water Resources Deptt. )

नई दिल्ली , 6 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 424. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4). 1.

30 नवम्बर , 2008 आई एस 13578-2008 बैराज और बियर के लिए उपसतह का अन्वेषण-रीति संहिता (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

आई एस 13578-2008 बैराज और वियर के लिए उपसतह का अन्वेषण-रीति संहिता ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) 818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: डब्लूआर डी 5/टी-21 ]

ए, एम. डेविड , वैज्ञा- ई, निदेशक ( जल संसाधन विभाग )

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2009

S.O. 424.-In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub -rule ( 1) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment SL No.

No. Title and year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 .

30November, 2008 IS 13578 : 2008 Subsurface Exploration forBarrages and Weirs - Code of Practice (First Revision)

IS13578: 2008 Subsurface Exploration forBarrages and Weirs - Code of Practice

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahatı , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: WRD 5 /T - 21 ]

A. M. DAVİD, Sc -E Director (Water Resources Deptt.)

नईदिल्ली, 6 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 425.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

अक्तूबर , 2008 आई एस/आईसी62271-200 2003 उच्च-वोल्टता के स्विचगियर और नियंत्रणगियर भाग 102 प्रत्यावर्ती धारा वियोजक भू- सम्पर्कन स्विच

इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110 002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ : ईटी 08/टी -39 ]

प्रकाश बचानी , वैज्ञा- ई एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी विभाग ) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

819 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

NewDelhi , the 6th February,2009

8.0. 425.Inpursuance of clause (b ) ofsub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standarde Rules, 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schodule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment SL No.

No. and year of the Indian Standard Cancelled

SO No. & Date published in theGazette of India Part- II , Section- I, Sub section (ii)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

October 2008 IS/IEC 62271-102: 2003High Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear Part 102 Alternating Current Disconnectors and Earthing Switches

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also BranchOffices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref:ET08 /T-39]

PRAKASH BACHANI, Sc- E & Head (Electrotechnical Departinent)

नई दिल्ली , 6 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 426.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

नवम्बर 2008

लागूनहीं

आई एस 15826-2008 वस्त्रादि - चर्खानुमा एवं ऐंठन देने वाली मशीन पर कता तस्सर का धागा-ग्रेडिंग और परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ

अब यह भारतीय मानक बिक्री के लिये उपलब्ध होगा।

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 और इसके क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोकात्मतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : टीएक्सडी/जी-25 ]

पी. भटनागर , वैज्ञानिक- ई एवं प्रमुख (टीएक्सडी)

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2009

S.O. 426. In pursuance ofclause (b) ofsub - rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it:-

SCHEDULE

Date of Established SL No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. & year of Indian Standards, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ν.Α.

November 2008 532G1/09-3

IS15826: 2008 Tassar Reeling-Cum- Twisting Machine Reeled Yarn- Grading and Methods ofTests

Henceforth, this standard will be available for sale.

820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Copyof this Standards is avialable for sale with HQ at Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and its Regional Offices at New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai andalsoBranch Offices at Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune and Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: TXD/G-25 ]

P. BHATNAGAR, Sc . ' E' & Head(Textiles)

नई दिल्ली , 6 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 427.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 1.

आई एस 1897 : 1983

30नवम्बर , 2008 आई एस 1897 : 20:08 विद्युत अनुप्रयोगों के लिए तांबे की पत्ती- विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एम टी डी 8 /टी-17 ]

डॉ. ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2009

8.O. 427. In pursuance of clause (5) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment Sl. No.

No. and year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of the Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

IS 1897 : 1983

30 November, 2008 IS 1897: 2008 Copper strip for electical purposes- Specification (Third Revision)

Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref: MTD 8 /T - 17 ]

DR . (MRS. ) SNEH BHATLA , Scientist ' F' & Head (MetEngg.) 821 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 428.-कोयलाधारी क्षेत्र ( अधिग्रहण और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , कोयला मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की दिनांक 4 अक्तूबर, 2008 की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 2761 में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:- :

उक्त अधिसूचना की, अनुसूची में " बी. वन भूमि " के अंतर्गत क्रम सं. 1 में वन का नाम " बिजारी " के बजाय " पोरदा " रखा जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. 43015/8/2008- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

NewDelhi , the 10th February, 2009

S.O. 428.--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification ofthe Government of India, Ministry ofCoal number S.O. 2761 dated the 4th October, 2008 namely: - Inthe said notification, in the SCHEDULE, Name of Forest at Sl. No. 1 under' B. Forest Land: ' shall be substituted by' Porda' instead of 'Bijari'

[F. No. 43015/8/2008 -PRIW - I ] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2009

का. आ. 429.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) , की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना तारीख 28 नवम्बर , 2008 संख्यांक का. आ. 3273 द्वारा जो भारत सरकार के राजपत्र, भाग II , खंड 3 , उप- खंड ( ii ) तारीख 13 दिसम्बर , 2008 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , का संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

उक्त अधिसूचना में:-

1. अनुसूची के सारांश में : कुल वन भूमि " 48.13 " एकड़ ( लगभग ) के स्थान पर कुल वन भूमि " 948.13 " एकड़ ( लगभग ) प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

2. ग्राम चेपाकलां के प्लाटों की सूची में: -

(i ) ग्राम का नाम " चेपकलां " के स्थान पर " चेपाकलां " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।.

(ii ) प्लाट सं. " 622 से 2155 " के स्थान पर प्लाट सं. " 622 से 2125 " प्रतिस्थाति किया जाएगा ।

3. ग्राम आराहरा के प्लाटों की सूची में: -

(i) प्लाट सं. " 1994 1999 " के स्थान पर प्लाट सं. " 1994 से 1999 " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

4. ग्राम सिन्दुआरी के प्लाटों की सूची में: -

(i ) प्लाट सं. " 65 , ( भाग ) " के स्थान पर प्लाट सं. " 65 ( भाग ) " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

5. ग्राम लंगातु के प्लाटों की सूची में: -

(i) प्लाट सं. " 540 से 654 " के स्थान पर प्लाट सं. " 540 से 645 " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

6. ग्राम देवरियाखुर्द के प्लाटों की सूची में: -

(i ) प्लाट सं. " 159 से 167 से 172 " के स्थान पर प्लाट सं. " 159 से 167 , 169 से 172 " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा । 7. द्वितीय अरण के लिए धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित किये जाने वाले क्षेत्र के सीमा वर्णन में: -

(i ) रेखा ज -झ के सीमा वर्णन में:-ग्राम चेपाकलां के प्लाट सं. " 186 " के स्थान पर प्लाट सं. " 286 " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा । (ii ) रेखा ज्ञ - अ के सीमा वर्णन में :-" ग्राम चेपकलां " के स्थान पर " ग्राम चेपाकलां " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

( iii ) रेखा टठ के सीमा वर्णन में :- ग्राम जूगरा के प्लाट सं. " 568 " के स्थान पर प्लाट सं. " " रिवाफिর শিথা আহুয়া । 822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] ( v ) क्षेत्र के सीमा वर्णन के क्रम सं. 26 में :- " रेखा य- क " के स्थान पर " रेखा य - क । " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा । ( vi ) रेखा ग 1 - घा के सीमा वर्णन में ग्राम केरी के दक्षिणी किनारे पर स्थित बिन्दु " ग " के स्थान पर " बिन्दु गः " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

(vii ) रेखा ङा - चा के सीमा वर्णन में:- " ग्राम देवररियाखुर्द " के स्थान पर " ग्राम देवरियाखुर्द " प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।

[सं. 43015/7/2005- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ( जिल्द- III) ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2009

S.O. 429. In exercise of powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition &Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957 ), the Central Government hereby amends the notification dated 28th November , 2008 ofthe Government of India, Ministry of Coal vide number S.O. 3273 published in the Gazette of India , Part II, Section 3, Sub- section ( ii ) dated December 13 , 2008, namely: ---

In the said Notification :--

1. In the list ofplots in respect ofvillage Jugra:

(1) Plot No. "455 to 464" shall be substituted by Plot No. " 455 to 468 " .

2. In the Boundary description of Area in respect of

(vii) Line G-H:

(1) " village Chepablan" shall be substituted by " village Chepakalan" .

[No.43015/7/2005- PRIW- I (Vol- III) ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी , 2009

का.आ. 430 ,-तेल उद्योग ( विकास ) अधिनियम , 1974 ( 1974 का 47 ) की धारा ( 3 ) की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में , उनके सामने दर्शायी गई अवधि के लिए , या अगला आदेश जारी होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , नियुक्त करती है: -

से

तक

श्रीपी.के. सिन्हा,

04-11-2008

03-11-2010 अपर सचिव एवं वित्तीय सलाहाकार , पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

श्री वी. के. सिब्बल ,

01-11-2008 31-10-2010 महा निदेशक ,

हाइड्रोकार्बन महानिदेशालय

[सं. जी. 35012/2/91- वित्त- II ]

एस. सी. दास , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

NewDelhi , the 11th February, 2009

S.O. 430.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub- section (3 ) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act , 1974 (47 of 1974 ), the Central Government hereby appoints the following officers as Members ofthe Oil Industry Development Board for the period shown against their names or until further orders , whichever is earlier:

From

04-11-2008

3-11-2010

Shri P. K. Sinha, AS& FA

Ministry ofPertoleum & Natural Gas

Shri V. K. Sibal

01-11-2008

31-10-2010

DG,DGH

[No. G. 35012/2/91 -Fin.II ] S. C. DAS, Under Secy.

823

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- वष्य 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 17 फरवरी,, 2009

का. आ. 431.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और अमिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोज अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (19.62 का 50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा मथा है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन आरी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2659 (अ) तारीख 14 नवंबर, 2008 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 14 नवंबर, 2008 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्म अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुद्रा से पंजाब राज्य में भठिण्डा तक क्रूह ऑवल स्थानान्तरण के लिए मुद्रा भठिण्डा पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से एचपीसीएल-मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड (गुरु मोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की सममुषंगी) द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 13 दिसंबर, 2008 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

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

और केद्रीय सरकार का, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर एचपीसीएल -मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड (गुरु गोविन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की समनुषंगी) में निहित होगा ।

पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अध्यधीन किसी भी क्षतिपूर्ति के लिए एचपीसीएल-मित्तल पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड पूर्णतया उत्तरदायी होगी और पाइपलाइन से सम्बन्धित किसी भी मामले पर केन्द्रीय सरकार के विरूद्ध कोई वाद, दावा या कानूनी कार्यवाही नहीं हो सकेगी । 824

[Part II--Sec . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

अनुसूची

जिलाः कच्छ

तालुका : मुन्द्रा

सर्वे संख्या कम सं गाँव का नाम

3 1

1 धब

दरिया व सर्वे नंबर 169 के बीच की भूमी

169

156/2 2 मुन्द्रा

244 3 बारोइ

216

207

219

218

सर्वे नंबर 207 में मेटल्ड रास्ता

165/1

165/2

163/1

163/2

161/1

161/2

161/4

161/3

161/5

161/6

161/7

162

सर्वे नंबर 161 व 170 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

170

171/4

155/1

221

244/2

सर्वे नंबर 221 व गाँव सीमा के बीच में राज्य मार्ग

130/1

131/1

131/2

131/3

131/4

131/5

131/6

138 राज्यःगुजरात

क्षेत्र फल

हैक्टर

आर वर्ग मीटर

17 .

23 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

825

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21, 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

तालुका: मुन्द्रा

जिला: कच्छ

कम सं गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सैंख्या

139 3 बारोइ (जारी)

119

136

140/2

142/1

गाँव सीमा व सर्वे नंबर 48/1 के बीच में राज्य मार्ग

गोवरसमा

48/1

48/2

48/3

12/1

12/2

12/4

12/5

14/2

16/1 5 शेखडीया

112

110/2

113

114

115/1

116 राज्या गुजरात

आर

हेक्टर

वर्ग मीटर 4

सर्वे नंबर 116 व 117/1 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

117/1

117/2

118/1

118/3 00

100

सर्वे नंबर 118/3 व 2/2 के बीच में नाला

2/2

2/1

3 00

सर्वे नंबर 3 में ढामर रास्ता

सर्वे नंबर 3 व 4 के बीच में नाला

10 826

[Part II--Scc. 3 (ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2. 1930

जिलाः कच्छ

तालुका: मुन्द्रा

सर्वे सैंख्या कम सं गाँव का नाम

12/1 5 शेखडीया (जारी )

12/2 राज्या गुजरात

क्षेत्र फल

हैक्टर

वर्ग मीटर 4.

सर्वे नंबर 12/2 व 15/1 के बीच में नाला

15/1

16/2

16/1

सर्वे नंबर 16/1 व 17/1 के बीच में ओढा

17/1

17/2

34 6 सडाऊ

37/1

47/2

327/1 7 गुन्दाला

327/2

326

324

325

322

331

332

333

317

311

312/1

310

309

585/1

585/13

369/1

C11

86. 00

सर्वे नंबर 389/1 में नाला

368/1

370/1

370/2 00

31 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

सालकी । मुन्द्रा

फल

गाँव का नाग

संख्या

कम सं

आर

हेक्टर

वर्ग मीटर

371

11 7 गुन्दाला (जारी)

सर्वे नंबर 371 व 585/1 के बीच में नाला

395/1

393/2

393/1

सर्वे नंबर 585/1 में नाला

376

216

215

सर्वे नंबर 215 में ढामर रास्ता

214

सर्वे नंबर 214 व 213 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

213

212

सर्वे नंबर 213 व 210/1 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

210/1

सर्वे नंबर 210/1 में ओढा

210/3

सर्वे नंबर 585/1 में सुनी नदी

सर्वे नंबर 585/1 में मेटल्ड रास्ता

00.

189

160

159

सर्वे नंबर 159 में ओढा

154/1

155

14/1

8 राधा

सर्वे नंबर 71 में ओढा

सर्वे नंबर 71 व 27 के बीच में ओढा

212

73 9 मोखा

211

213

21 532G1 /09-4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

[Part II-Scc. 3 (ii )]

राज्या गुजरात

क्षेत्र फल

सर्वे संख्या

आर

हैक्टर

वर्ग मीटर 2

219

50 9 मोखा (जारी)

218

214

सर्वे नंबर 214 व 177/2 के बीच में ओढा

177/2

177/3

सर्वे नंबर 177/3 व 176/1 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

178/1

172

सर्वे नंबर 172 व 169 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

171

170

सर्वे नंबर 170 व 243/2 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

161/2

243/2

244

248

सर्वे नंबर 248 व 157 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

155

154

153/1

153/2

152

150/2

सर्वे नंबर 150/2 व 251 के बीच में राज्य मार्ग

251

10.1667

253/2

253/1

254/1

254/2

254/4

259

सर्वे नंबर 259 व गाँव सीमा के बीच में मिठी नदी 829 [भाग II- सखण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/ फाल्गुन 2, 1930

गाँव का नाम

325/2

10 छसरा

सर्वे नंबर 325/2 व 322/2 के बीच में नाला

322/2

323/1

322/1

320

344

271

00 60

सर्वे नंबर 271 व 263/1 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

263/1

263/2

सर्वे नंबर 283/2 व 131 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

131

01.

133

134

136

सर्वे नंबर 136 व 126 के बीच में कार्ट ट्राक

126

125/1

सर्वे नंबर 125/1 व 121 के बीच में कनाल

121

122/1

122/2

119

123

106

107

सर्वे नंबर 344 व 104 के बीच में कामर रास्ता

104

103

00:

102

101

100

सर्वे नंबर 100 व 85 के बीच में ओढा

सर्वे नंबर 95 में नाला

830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] तालुका : मुन्द्रा

जिलाः कच्छ

राज्या गुजरात

क्षेत्र फल

कम सं गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सैंख्या

हैक्टर आर . वर्ग मीटर 1

10 छसरा (जारी)

सर्वे नंबर 344 में ओढा

[फा. सं. आर-31015/29/2008- ओ.आर. [1 ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th February, 2009

5. 0. 431. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.2659(E) dated the 14th November , 2008, issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette ofIndia dated the 14th November , 2008 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for evacuation of Crude Oil from Mundra in the State of Gujaratto Bathinda in the State of Punjab through Mundra - Bathinda Pipeline by HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, ( a subsidiary of Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) ;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the13th December, 2008;

And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Actsubmitted his report to the Central Government ;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in HPCL - Mittal Pipelines Limited, (a subsidiary of Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited) free from all encumbrances .

HPCL Mittal Pipelines Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P&MP Act , 1962 and no suit , claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to the pipeline .

831 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

State : GUJARAT Taluka : MUNDRA

District : KUTCH

Area Name of the Village

SurveyNo.

St. No.

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

6 2

DHRAB

Area in between Sea and Survey

number 169

169

156/2

56 2. MUNDRA

3 BAROI

244

216

100

207

219

218

Metalled Road in Survey Number 207

165/1

165/2

163/1

163/2

161/1

161/2

161/4

161/3

161/5

161/6

161/7

162

CartTrack in between Survey Number

161 and 170

170

171/4

155/1

221

244/2

StateHighway in between Survey

Number 221 and Village Boundary

130/1

131/1

131/2

131/3

131/4

131/5

131/6

138

23 832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

Taluka : MUNDRA

[Part II- Soc. 3 (ii ) |

District : KUTCH

Nameof the Village

SurveyNo.

$1 . No.

139 3 BAROI ( Contd. )

119

136

140/2

142/1 4 GOVARSAMA

State : GUJARAT

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

6 00

92 00

91 00

46 00

00 .

92 00

83 00

State Highway in between Village

Boundary and Survey number 48/1

48/1

48/2

48/3

12/1

12/2

12/4

12/5

14/2

16/1 5 SHEKHADIA

112

110/2

113

114

115/1

116 00

81 00

39 00

92 00

62 00

83 00

05 00

50 00

85 00

64 00

01 00

79 00

25 00

83 00

63 00

09 00

73 00

Carttrack in between Survey number

116 and 117/1

117/1

117/2

118/1

118/3 00

66 00

01 00

'03

100 00

04.

67 00

Nala in between Survey number 118/3

and 2/2

2/2

2/1

3 00

88 00

49 00

64 00

Asphalted Road in Survey number 3

Nala in between Survey number 3 and 4

4 00

13 833 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

State : GUJARAT

District : KUTCH

Taluka : MUNDRA

Area

SurveyNo.

Name of the Village

Are Sq.mtr.

Hectare

SI . No.

12/1

5 SHEKHADIA (Contd . )

12/2

Stream in between Survey number 12/2

and 15/1

15/1

16/2

16/1

Stream in between Survey number 16/1

and 17/1

17/1

17/2

6. SADAU

37/1

47/2

327/1

7 GUNDALA

327/2

326

324

325

322

331

332

333

317

311

312/1

310

309

585/1

585/13

369/1

Nala in Survey number 369/1

368/1

370/1

370/2 834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 / HALGUNA 2. 1930

Taluka : MUNDRA

District : KUTCH Nameof the Village

SurveyNo.

SI . No.

3 7 GUNDALA ( Contd. )

371

[Part II --Sec . 3 (ii ) ] State : GUJARAT

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

6 00

11 00

Nala in between Survey number 371

and 585/1

395/1

393/2

393/1

57 00

80 00

61 00

33 00

Nala in Survey number 585/1

376

216

215

75 00

57 00

40 00

59 00

Asphalted Road in Survey number 215

214

59 00

92 00

CartTrack in between Survey number

214 and 213

213

212

01 00

55 00

CartTrack inbetween Survey number

213 and 210/1

210/1 00

Stream in Survey number 210/1

210/3

52 נוני

Luni River in Survey number 585/1

56 100

Metalled Road in Survey number 585/1

189

160

159

68 100

11 (00

02 (10

17 00

Stream in Survey number 159

154/1

155 8 RAGHA

14/1

75 日

62 00

23 00

59 00

67 00

91 00

Stream in Survey number 71

36 00

Stream in between Survey number 71

and 27

9 MOKHA

212

211

213 00

21 835 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

District : KUTCH

State : GUJARAT Taluka : MUNDRA

Area

SurveyNo.

Name of theVillage

SI . No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

6 2

219

50 9 MOKHA (Contd.)

218

214

46 Stream in between Survey number 214 and 177/2

177/2

177/3

23 Carttrack inbetween Survey number

-177/3 and 176/1

176/1

172

84 Carttrack in between Survey number

172and 169

21.

171

170

98 Carttrack in between Survey number

170 and 243/2

161/2

243/2

244

246

Carttrack in between Survey number

246 and 157

155

-154

153/1

153/2

152

150/2

StateHighway in between Survey

number 150/2 and 251

251

10 10.1667

253/2

10.

253/1

254/1

254/2

254/4

259

Mitti River in between Survey number

259 and Village Boundary

07 10 CHHASRA

325/2

Nala in between Survey number 325/2

and 322/2

322/2

323/1

64 836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

Taluka : MUNDRA

[Part II-- Sec . 3 ( ii ) }

District : KUTCH

Name of the Village

SurveyNo.

SI . No.

322/1 10 CHHASRA (Contd. )

320

344

271 State : GUJARAT

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

6 00

07 00

41 00

19 00

72 00

Carttrack inbetween Survey number

271 and 263/1

263/1

263/2

Carttrack in between Survey number 263/2 and 131-

131

133

134

136 00

09 00

18 00

24 00

63 00

03 00

04 00

Carttrack inbetween Survey number

136 and 126

126

125/1 00

75 00

32 00

Canal in between Survey number 125/1

and121

121

122/1

122/2

119

123

106

107 00

71 00

19 00

13 00

17 00

75 00

02 00

29 00

Asphalted Road in between Survey

number 344 and 104

104

103

102

101

100 00

74 00

23 00

07 00

22 00

83 00

Stream in between Survey number 100

and95

71 766 00 88 00

Nala in Survey number 95

92 00

Stream in Survey number 344

[F. No. R-31015/29/2008- O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

837 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 432. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इक्विन ब्रीडिंग स्टड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1358 /2K8 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था.।

[सं. एल -14012/83/2001- आई.आर. (डी.यू.) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2009

counsel for the parties, in the presence of the workmen, whowere present in the cases pending before this Tribunal stated that the workman is ready to withdraw the reference provided the Management assures that the workman will beprovidewith the work in terms ofthe settlement between similarlyplaced workman held on 14-11-2008 . The counsel for the parties and the workman made a joint statementby which theManagement agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when requirted basis . They further agreed that in case the workman is covered by the scheme of regularization, temporary status he will be provided with that benefit under rules . It was also agreed bytheManagement that the workman shall be given the job keeping in view his past experience and he will be paid thewages on the D.C. rates after the same are approvedby the competent authority for District Hissar . After the statement ofthe counsel for the Management, the workman has requested for withdrawal of reference.

S.O. 432. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1358/ 2K8) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inIndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-1-2009.

[No. L- 14012/83/2001 - IR (DU)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, CHANDIGARH

PresidingOfficer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I.D. No .: 1358/2K8

Registered on 3-3-2008

Date ofDecision: 2-1-2008

Sh. Seo ChandC/o the President, Distt. Agriculture Workers-Union, 371/9, Jawahar Nagar,Hissar.

...... Petitioner

Versus

TheMinistry of Labour , Government of India vide their No. L- 14012/ 83/2001 - IR (DU) dated 20-02-2008 desired of this tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud in terminating the services of Shri Seo Chand w.e.f. 11-09-1999 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to ? Onrecord there has come the joint statement ofthe parties bywhich they have settled the matter amicably and the Management has agreed to provide work to the workman. In view of that the workman has withdrawn from the reference. There is no evidence produced by the parties in support oftheir respective claims except thejoint statement. In the circumstances there is nothing to support the claim oftheworkmanthat the termination ofthe services ofRajesh Kumar son of Sh . Parsada is not just and legal. He is , therefore, not entitled to the reliefclaimed by him. However, he is entitled to the reliefwhich the parties have agreed to by their statement which is made the part of this award, beingbinding on them in terms ofSection 18 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947. In the light ofwhat is stated earlier the reference is answered and the award is passed. Let a copy of this awardbe sent to the appropriate Government of necessary action and the file be consigned to record after duecompilation.

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar- 125001

......Respondent

KULDIP SINGH,PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी, 2009

For the Workman Sh . N.S. Chaudhary, Advocate

FortheManagement : Sh. K.K. Thakur, Advocate

AWARD

The case hasbeen summoned from the record at the joint requestofthe counsel for the parties who are present.

का.आ. 433.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इक्विन ब्रीडिंग. स्टड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चंण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1361 / 2K8 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[संएल-140 ईआर (डीयू) ] अल , डेस्क अधिकारी 838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ) New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2009

S.O. 433. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1361 / 2K8) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-1-2009 .

[No. L- 14012/82/2001 - IR (DU) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I.D. No .: 1361/2K8

3-3-2008

Registered on:

Date ofDecision: 2-1-2008

the managemnt of Equine Breeding Stud in terminating the services of Shri Satbir w.e.f. 11-09-1999 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ? On record there has come the joint statement ofthe parties by which they have settled the matter amicably and the Management has agreed to porvide work to the workman. In view of that the workman has withdrawn from the reference. There is no evidence produced by the parties in supportoftheir respective claims except the joint statement. Inthe circumstances there is nothing to support the claim oftheworkman that the termination of the services ofRajesh Kumar son of Sh . Parsada is not just and legal . He is, therefore, not entitled to the reliefclaimed by him. However, he is entitled to the relief which the parties have agreedto by their statement which is made the part of this award, beingbinding onthem in terms ofSection 18 ofthe Inductrial Disputes Act 1947. In the light of what is stated earlier the reference is answered and the award is passed. Let a copy ofthis awardbe sent to the appropriate Governmemnt of necessary action and the file be consigned to record after duecompilation.

Satbir C/o the President , Distt . Agriculture Workers Union, 371/9 , Jawahar Nagar, Hissar.

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2009

.....Petitioner

Versus

The Commandant , Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar- 125001.

Respondent

For the Workman :Sh. N.S. Chaudhary , Advocate

For the Management : Sh . K.K. Thakur , Advocate .

का.आ. 434.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इक्विन ब्रीडिंग स्टड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चंण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1360/2K8 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। AWARD

[सं. एल-14012/269/2001- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी The case has been summoned from the record at the jointrequest ofthe counsel for the parties who are present.

New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2009

S.O. 434. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1360/ 2K8) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-1-2009 .

[No. L- 14012/269/2001 - IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I.D. No .: 1360/2K8

Registered on : 3-3-2008

Date ofDecision : 2-1-2008

As a result ofpersuation in the cases similar to the present one, theparties agreed to settle the matter amicably and on 14-11-2008 , five ofthe similar cases pending against thepresent Management were settled amicably . Today the counsel for the parties , in the presence of the workmen, whowere present in the cases pending before this Tribunal stated that the workman is ready to withdraw the reference provided the Management assures that the workman will be provide with the work in terms ofthe settlement between similarlyplaced workman held on 14-11-2008 . The counsel for the parties and the workman made a joint statement by which the Management agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis . They further agreed that in case the workman is covered by the scheme of regularization , temporary status he will be provided with that benefit under rules . It was also agreed by the Management that the workman shall be given the job keeping in view his past experience and he will be paid thewages on the D.C. rates after the same are approved by the competent authority for District Hissar. After the statement of the counsel for the Management, the workman has requested for withdrawal of reference .

-Sh . Ashok C/ o the President , Distt. Agriculture Workers Union, 371/9, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar.

.....Petitioner The Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide their No. L- 14012/ 82/2001 - IR (DU) dated 20-02-2008 desired of this tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of 839 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 23 जनवरी, 2009 Versus

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Situd, Hissar- 125001.

का.आ. 435.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 : ......Respondent

Forthe Workman : Sh. N. S. Chaudhary,Advocate

Sh . K. K. Thakur , Advocate . Forthe Management :

AWARD

Thecasehas been summoned fron , the record at the joint request ofthe counsel for the parties who are present.

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इक्विन ब्रीडिंग स्टह के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चंण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 35 /2K4 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/270/2001-आईआर ( डीयू) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 23rd January, 2009

S.O. 435.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2K4) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-1-2009.

[No. L-42012/270/2001 - IR (DU)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

PresidingOfficer : Shri Kuldip Singh

As a result ofpersuation in the cases similar to the presentone, the parties agreed to settle the inatter amicably and on 14-11-2008 , five ofthe similar cases pending against thepresentManagement were settled amicably. Today the counsel for the parties, in the presence of the workmen, whowere present in the cases pending before this Tribunal stated that the workman is ready to withdraw the reference providedthe Management assures that the workman will beprovidewith the work in terms ofthe setttlement between similarly placedworkman held on 14-11-2008. The counsel forthe parties and the workman made a joint statement by which theManagement agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis . They further agreed that in case the workman is covered by the scheme of regularization, temporary status he will be provided with that benefit under rules . It was also agreed by the Management that the workman shall be given the job keeping in view his past experience and he will be paid thewages on the D.C. rates after the same are approvedby the competent authority for District Hissar. After the statement of the counsel for the Management, the workman has requested for withdrawal of reference .

Case L.D. No .: 35/2K4

Registered on 30-10-2004

DateofDecision : 2-1-2009

Sh. Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Parsada, Resident of7/19, Kalu Ram Ki Building, Thandi Sarak, Hissar.

Petitioner

Versus

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar- 125001 . Respondent

Forthe Workman

Sh. N.S. Chaudhary, Advocate

Sh . K.K. Thakur, Advocate.

For the Management

AWARD

The case has been summoned from the record at the joint request ofthe counsel for the parties who are present.

The Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide their No. L- 14012/269/2001 - IR (DU) dated 20-02-2008 desired of this tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud in terminating the services of Shri Ashok w.e.f. 11-09-1999 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to? On record there has come the joint statement of the parties bywhich they have settled the matter amicably and the Management has agreed to porvide work to the workman. In view ofthat the workman has withdrawn from the reference. There is no evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective claims except the joint statement. In the circumstances there is nothing to support the claim ofthe workman that the termination of the services of Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Parsada is not just and legal. He is , therefore, not entitled to the relief claimed by him . However, he is entitled to the reliefwhich the parties have agreed to by their statement which is made the part ofthis award, being binding on them in terms ofSection 18 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the light ofwhat is stated earlier the reference is answered and the award is passed. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government ofnecessary action and the file be consigned to record after due compilation.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

2K8) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman,which was received by the Central Government on23-1-2009,

[No. L- 14012/268/2001 - IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

similarly placed workman held on 14-11-2008 . The counsel forthe parties and the workman made a joint statement by which the Management agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis . They further agreed that in case the workman is covered by the scheme of regularization, temporary status he will be providedwith that benefit under rules . It was also agreed by the Management that the workman shall be given the job keeping in view his past experience and he will be paid thewages on the D.C. rates after the same are approved by the competent authority for District Hissar . After the statement ofthe counsel for the Management, the workman has requested for withdrawal of reference.

: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I.D. No.: 1362/ 2K8

Registered on

3-3-2008

Date ofDecision : 2-1-2008

Sh . Parmod C/o the President, Distt .Agriculture WorkersUnión, 371/9 , Jawahar Nagar , Hissar.

Petitioner

Versus

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar- 125001 .

Respondent

Forthe Workman

Sh . N.S. Chaudhary, Advocate

FortheManagement

Sh . K.K. Thakur, Advocate .

AWARD

The case has been summoned from the record at the joint request ofthe counsel for the parties who are present.

TheMinistry of Labour, Government of India vide theirNo. L-42012/270/2001 - IR (DU) dated 23-8-2004 desired of this tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the managemnt of Equine Breeding Stud in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Parsada w.e.f. 1-08-1999 isjust and legal ? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? On record there has come the joint statement of the parties by which they have settled the matter amicably and the Management has agreed to porvide work to the workman. In view of that the workman has withdrawn from the reference. There is no evidence producedby the parties in support of their respective claims except the joint statement. In the circumstances there is nothing to suppprt the claim of the workman that the termination of the services of Rajesh Kumar son of Sh. Parsada is not just and legal . He is, therefore , not entitled tothe relief claimed by him . However, he is entitled tothe reliefwhich the parties have agreed to by their statement which is made the part of this award, being binding on them in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial DisputesAct 1947. In the light ofwhat is stated earlier the reference is answered and the award is passed . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government ofnecessary action and the file be consigned to record after due compilation.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 23 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 436. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इक्विन ब्रीडिंग

स्टड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चंण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1362/ 2K8 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

As a result ofpersuation in the cases similar to the present one, the parties agreed to settle the matter amicably and on 14-11-2008 , five ofthe similar cases pending against thepresentManagement were settled amicably. Todaythe counsel for the parties , in the presence of the workmen, whowere present in the cases pending before this Tribunal stated that the workman is ready to withdraw the reference provided the Management assures that the workman will beprovidewith the work in terms of the settlement between similarly placed workman held on 14-11-2008 . The counsel fortheparties and the workman made a joint statementby which the Management agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis. They further agreed that in case the workman is covered by the scheme of regularization , temporary status he will be provided with that benefit under rules. It was also agreed by the Management that the workman shall be given the job keeping in view his past experience and he will be paid the wages on the D.C. rates after the same are approved by the competent authority for District Hissar. After the statement ofthe counsel for the Management, the workman has requested for withdrawal of reference .

[सं. एल-14012/268/2001-आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 23rd January , 2009

TheMinistry of Labour , Government of India vide their No. L- 14012 /268/ 2001 - IR (DU) dated 20-02-2008 desired of this tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the managemnt of Equine Breeding Stud in terminating the services ofShri Parmod w.e.f. 11-09-1999 S.O. 436. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1362/ [ भाग- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

841

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

Versus

The Chief Engineer (Train) Bhakra Beas Management Board, Sector 22-C, C, Chandigarh.

Respondent

Forthe Workman General Secretary, Nangal BhakraMazdoor Sangh

FortheManagement Sh. N. D. Kalra, Advocate .

AWARD

TheGovernment ofIndia , Ministry ofLabour referred thefollowing dispute for the adjudication ofthis Tribunal vide their No. L-42012/ 86/91 -D- 2 (B) dated 28-2/4-3-1992.

"Whether the action of the management ofBBMB (Power Wing) in treating Mr. Hira Lal, S/o Shri Gopal Das as Mali from the date ofhis appointment andnot as T/Mate is justified ? Ifnot, what reliefhe is entitled to? "

is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitledto ? On record there has come the joint statement ofthe parties bywhich they have settled the matter amicably and the Management has agreed to provide work to the workman. In view ofthat the workman has withdrawn from thereference. There is no evidence producedby the parties in support of their respective claims except the joint statement. In the circumstances there is nothing to suppprt theclaim ofthe workman that the termination ofthe services ofRajesh Kumar son of Sh. Parsada is not just and legal . Heis, therefore, not entitled to the reliefclaimed by him. However, he is entitled to the reliefwhich the parties have agreedto by their statement which is made the part ofthis award, being binding on them in terms ofSection 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. In the light of what is stated carlier the reference is answered and the award is passed. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government of necessary action and the file be consigned to record after due compilation.

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 23 जनवरी, 2009

का.आ. 437.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.बी.एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , चंण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 766/2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/86/1991-डी-2 (बी) ] स्नेह लंता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 23rd January, 2009

Thenotice ofthe reference was given to the parties who appeared through representatives and filed their respective claims . The workman filed statement ofclaimto which the Management replied by the written statement. The workman filed the rejoinder and also supported his claim with his affidavit besides placed on record the photocopies of documents such as seniority list , offer of appointment etc. The Management filed the affidavit of Sh. S. C. Mangal, Senior Executive Engineer to support their pleadings. They also placed on recard photocopies of some documents . The workman also tendered the affidavit ofSh.Hirdey Ram, in support ofhis claim, whereas the Management filed the affidavit of Sh . P. P. Wahi , Executive Engineer. During the course ofproceedings the parties filed a number of documents and also examined witnesses. The workman appeared as a witness whereas the Management examined S /Sh . S.C. Managal and Navneet Singh, as their witnesses.

S.O. 437. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 766/ 2K5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBBMB and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 23-1-2009.

[No. L-42012/86/1991 -D-2(B)]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case I.D. No .: 766/2K5

Theclaim of the workman is that he was employed as Mali against the post of T-Mate vide order of Executive Engineer (O & M) Division, No. 4664-65 on 15-11-1981 and was entrusted with the job of Mali . That as per the statements of crew members he was working as T-Mate andwas also issued an Identity Card with that status . The post of T- Mate was lying vacant but he was not given the designation of T- Mate whereas a co- worker Sh. Des Raj , was giventhe status of T-Mate vide order No. 254 dated 16-8-1989. Even otherwise, as per the seniority list issued by the ChiefEngineer (Transmission) vide No. 5853-59 dated 13-6-1990 he was placed at serial No. 132 and was shown as T-Mate right from the date of his initial engagement i.e. 15-11-1981.

Registered : 5-9-2005

Date ofDecision : 16-12-2008

Sh. Hira Lal S/o Sh. Gopal Dass C/o The General

SecretaryNangal Bhakra Mazdoor Sangh, Q.No. 35-G, Nangal Township, Distt . Ropar- 140124.

Petitioner

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman by raising the preliminary objection that since there was existing no dispute between the parties or the same was not apprehended , therefore , the reference is misplaced and not maintainable , On merits their claim is that the workman was engaged as work-charge Mali against [PART II SEC . 3(ii) ) 842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

have also not shown as to whether the workman was also considered for the post of T - Mate along with Sh. Des Raj and as to how Sh. Des Raj was found fit for the post. and whatconsideration the workman was lacking for converting his Cadre from Mali to T- Mate .

the post ofT-Mate work -charge . Claiming that designation ofthe workman was shown as T-Mate by oversight in the Identity Card, but he was correctly shown as Mali in the Register. Admitting that the Cadre of Shri Des Raj was changed from Mali to T- Mate as he was found fit for the post. The workman was , however, informed vide No. 5853/PF dated 18-6-1990 that his prayer for change ofCadre from Mali to T-Mate will be considered as and when the post is available. That the workman was shown at serial No. 28 in the seniority list of Mali circulated by the Chief Engineer (Transmission) , Chandigarh vide No. 594247 dated 13-6-1990. In the rejoinder the workman submitted that the post of T-Mate was lying vacant as he was appointed against the said post. He rebutted the claim of the Management as made out in para 2, 4 and 5 and reiterated the claim made by him in the claim petition. He prayed that hisclaim be decided with heavy costs on the Management .

The workman vide his statement dated 9-12-1994 provedhis affidavit exhibit W - 1 . He admitted the contents ofhis application exhibit W -2 and seniority list W- 3 as correct and stated that exhibit M - 1 is the offer of appointment. Sh . S.C. Mangal , who appeared as a witness for theManagement also proved his affidavit M -2 and the documents M-3 to M - 11 . In the cross- examination he stated that the workman was appointed as Mali against the post ofwork- charge T- Mate and was regularized as Mali in the year 1984. He could not say whether the post ofMali was available before the year 1984. He admitted that no notice was given to the workman before his Cadre was converted fromMali to T- Mate . Sh. Navneet Singh, who appeared as awitness for the Management, admitted the contents of letter dated 28-7-1989 which was marked as A- 1 .

It is clear from the facts brought on record that the Management adopted double standard while dealing withsimilarly placed workman in their establishment . On the one hand they accepted the claim ofSh. Des Raj , who was also working as a Mali for converting his cadre to that ofT -Mate, but postponed the consideration of prayer of theworkman for converting his çadre from Mali to T-Mate thepost against which he was working right from the day he was taken in the employ.nent of the Management . As stated earlier apparently there was no basis for the Management to postpone the consideration of the case of theworkman for the conversions of his cadre from Mali to T-Mate as he had already o ccupied the post of T - Mate from the date he was appoint ed by the Management. The non- conversion of his cadre rom Mali to T -Mate, if not earlier, from the date the same benefit was given to Sh . Des Raj by theManagement was un fair labour practice adopted bytheManagement. I do not i ind any weight in the claim ofthe Management that the workman had accepted the appointment as Mali against the post of T-Mate and also accepted his confirmation in t'ne cadre in the year 1994. In other communications and by his acknowledgement, the workman accepted as status of Mali although he was working against the post of I- Mate . A labourer may be unskilled or semi- skilled can hardly understand as to what shall be the implications of his acknowledgement qua his status in service . There are a number of documents on record which show the workman had all along been advocating his claim for convertion ofcadre from Mali to T--Mate and for that the competent authority had even called his explanation for having made the representation to higher authorities by over- reaching . That shows that the workman was not satisfied with the cadre he was given and was actively claiming the conversion of his cadre. It must have given him heart -burning when his colleague Sh. Des Raj was allowed the conversion of his cadre from Mali to TMate whereas he was not given that cadre at that time. The grant of conversion of cadre from Mali to TMate in favour of workman further shows that there was no reason for the Management to deny the conversion of cadre of the workman from Mali to T- Mate as otherwise the same would not have been given to him in the year 1992, by the Management . There is no merit in the claim of the Management that the reference is bad as it is not espoused by the Majority Union for the reason that the workman himself has followed his case and has admitted all the pleadings filed by him through the representative. The reference is , therefore , maintainable.

After going through all the record of this case , 1 am satisfied that the action of the management to deny the I have gone through the file and have also considered the submissions made by the parties , oral as well as in writing. The facts that the workman was engaged asMali against the post of Trades - man Mate, and that the Cadre of one Sh. Des Raj , who was also working as Mali , was changed to that ofT- Mate are admitted by the parties . The Management has also admitted that the Cadre of the workman was changed from Mali to T-Mate without giving him any notice in the year 1992. There is also no basis to claim that the post of T -Mate was not available with the Management as the workman was working against that post. Thus , the postponement of consideration of the application of the workman for converting his Cadre from Mali to T -Mate, till the post ofT -Mate was available was without any justification . The claim of the Management thatthe Cadre of Sh.Des Raj was converted from Mali to T-Mate as he was found fit for the post also does not get support from the record. The Management has not placed on record any evidence to show as to why the claim of the workman was not considered for the conversion ofhis Cadre fromMali to T - Mate although impliedly they have admitted that the post of T- Mate was available and the workman was working against that post . Moreover , they 843 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

For the Workman

For the Management

Sh . N.S. Chaudhary , Advocate Sh . K.K. Thakur, Advocate. AWARD

The case has been summoned from the record at the joint request ofthe counsel for the parties who are present.

treating ofthe workman as T- Mate, if not earlier from the date the same benefit was given to Sh . Des Raj was unjustified. The workman is entitled to be treated as T- Mate if not earlier from the date that benefit was given to Sh.Des Raj ie.from 16-8-1989 . He will alsobe entitled to all ! thebenefits that may arise by treating him as T- Mate from the date Sh. Des Raj was given the cadre of T- Mate . The reference is answered in these terms and the award is passed. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned tothe record after compilation.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 23 जनवरी , 2009 का.आ. 438, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इक्विन ब्रीडिंग स्टड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II , चंण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1359/2K8 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

As a result ofpersuation in the cases similar to the presentone, the parties agreed to settle the matter amicably and on 14-11-2008, five ofthe similar cases pending against thepresentManagement were settled amicably. Todaythe counsel for the parties , in the presence of the workmen, whowerepresent in the cases pending before this Tribunal stated that the workman is ready to withdraw the reference provided the Management assures that the workman will beprovidewiththe work in terms ofthe settlement between similarlyplaced workman held on 14-11-2008 . The counsel forthe parties and the workman made a joint statement by which the Management agreed that the workman will be provided with the job as and when required basis. They further agreed that in case the workman is covered by the scheme of regularization , temporary status he will be providedwith that benefit under rules . It was also agreed by the Management that the workman shall be given the job keeping in view his past experience and he will be paid thewages on the D.C. rates after the same areapprovedby the competent authority for District Hissar. After the statement of the counsel for the Management, the workman has requested for withdrawal of reference .

[सं. एल -14012/81 /2001- आईआर (डीयू) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 23rd January, 2009

S.O. 438.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1359/ 2K8) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-1-2009.

[No. L- 14012/81 /2001 - IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case L.D. No .: 1359/2K8

Registered on 3-3-2008

Date ofDecision: 2-1-2008

The Ministry of Labour , Government of India vide theirNo. L-14012/ 81 /2001 - IR (DU) dated 20-02-2008 desired ofthis tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud in terminating the services of Shri Satish w.e.f. 11-09-1999 is just and legal ? Ifnot , what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ? On record there has come the joint statement of the parties by which they have settled the matter amicably and the Management has agreed to provide work to the workman. In view of that the workman has withdrawn from the reference. There is no evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective claims except the joint statement. In the circumstances there is nothing to suppprt the claim ofthe workman that the termination ofthe services ofRajesh Kumar son of Sh . Parsada is not just and legal. He is, therefore, not entitled to the relief claimed by him. However, he is entitled to the relief which the parties have agreed toby their statement which is made the part ofthis award, being binding on them in terms of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the light of what is stated earlier the reference is answered and the award is passed. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government ofnecessary action and the file be consigned to record after due compilation.

Sh. Satish C/o the President, Distt. Agriculture Workers Union, 371/9, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar .

Petitioner

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2009

Versus

The Commandant, Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar - 125001 .

का.आ. 439.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंकऑफ त्रावनकोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के

Respondent

844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , इरनाकुलम् के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 124/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011 / 03/2004- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th January , 2009 S.O. 439. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam . as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Travancore , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28-1-2009 .

[No. L- 12011 /03/2004- IR (B - 1 )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: Shri P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 12th day of January, 2009/28th Pausa 1930) I.D. No. 124/2006 (I. D. No. 49/2004 of Industrial Tribunal, Kollam) Union :The General Secretary, StateBank ofTravancore Employees ' Union, HeadOffice, P.B.No. 157, Trivandrum. By Adv. Lakshmana Iyer.

Management : The Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore , Poojapura, Trivandrum-695012 . By Adv. P. Ramakrishnan .

This case coming up for hearing on 05-01-2009, this Tribunal - cum-Labour Court on 12-01-2009 passed thefollowing:

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is:

"Whether the demand of the State Bank of Travancore Employees ' Union , Head Office , Trivandrum for payment of special allowance w.e.f. 01-12-1999 to the senior electricians for doing the duties of senior electricians is justified ? If so , what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follow: The union has raised the industrial dispute on behalfof two workmen. There were two electricians in State Bank of Travancore . They were demanding promotion for sometime . The union insisted for considration of the demand of the two electricians . There was a conciliation and a settlement. The

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] management decided to promote the two electricians as senior electricians in the clerical cadre . However , they were asked to continue to performi the duties ofelectricians besides duties of senior electricians . The demand is for special allowance , which union contends, is attached to the post of senior electricians as the nature of work they are doing is skilled. But the management contends that the two electricians were promoted as senior electricians with aspecific understanding that they will continue to perform all duties of an electrician . There is no provision in any of the settlements or awards to pay special allowance to senior electricians . There is no post of senior electrician in S.B.T. No special allowance is attached to the clerical cadre of senior electrician . As per the settlement they are bound to perform theduties of electricians . They were not promoted to a general cadre post with additional duties . Therefore , the claim is not sustainable .

3. In the light of the above contentions the only point that arises for consideration is :-

Are the Senior Electricians entitled to get special allowance ?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony ofWW1 and documentary evidence of Exts . W1 to 7 on the side of the union and MW1 and Ext.M1 on the side of the management.

4. The point -Ext. W3 is a settlement between management and union dated 19-08-1999 by which the management agreed to promote two electricians as senior electricians in the clerical cadre but on an understanding that theywill continue to perform all duties ofan electrician. In pursuance to that Ext. W4 promotion order was issued. Para 2 of the order says that in addition to the duties and responsibilities ofelectrician they will have to perform the duties of senior electrician . Ext.W1 is a letter dated 12-04-1991 sent by Stata Bank of India to State Bank of Travancore in reply to the letter of S.B.T. stating that the electrician in S.B.I. were promoted as senior electricians by creating two posts of senior electricians Ext. W2 is a letter ofChief Manager of S.B.T. to the Manager (Personnel administration) informing that the duties performed by electricians in S.B.T. are similar to the duties of senior electricians of S.B.I. Ext. W6 is representation of union demanding special allowance . Ext . W7 is a reply by management bank to the union stating that the two electricians were promoted to a specialist cadre and not to ageneral cadre .Hence the demand ofthe union for special allowance to senior electricians cannot be considered.

Para 5.6 ofthe First Bipartite Settlement explains what isspecial allowance , it reads : --

"5.6 The special allowances prescribed above are intendedto compensate a workman for performance or discharge of certain additional duties and functions requiring greater skill or responsibility, over and above the routine duties and functions of a workman in the same cadre . In order to be entitled to 845 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

a special allowance , such additional duties and 'functions should constitute the normal part of the duties and functions performed or discharged by a workman. Special allowance are not intended to be paid for casual or occasional performance or discharge or such duties / functions . It would, however, not be necessary that a workman should continue to perform such duties or discharge such functions, whole time, in order to be entitled to such allowance" .

Para 5.8 is also relevant and reads :-

allowance and all the duties attached to that post is discharged on a pernanent basis by persons in higher cadre they cannot be denied special allowance on the ground that the promoted post do not carry special allowance . It is for discharging duties attached to a post which carries special allowance that the necessity to pay such allowance arises . Other than the two senior Electricians there is nobody else to attend to electrical work in the bank, It.. follows therefore that though the demand for special allowance for the post of senior electrician cannot stand, since the workman are discharging all the duties of an electrician they are entitled to get special allowance which is attached to the post of Electrician .

"5.8 Aworkman will be entitled to a special allowance if he is required to perform duty/duties and/or undertake the responsibilities listed against the category , irrespective of his designation/ nomenclature or any general authority vested in him " .

In the result an award is passed finding that the demend of the union for payment of special allowance to senior electricians for doing the duties of senior electricians isnot justified, but the workman are entitled to get special allowance attached to the post of Electricians as they are.. discharging all the duties of electricians on a permanent basis.

The award will come into force one month after its:.. publication in the official gazette.

Dictated to the personnel Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 12th day of January, 2009.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness for the Union

WWI 21-02-2008 Shri C. James Raj .

Witness for the Management

MWI 14-08-2008 Shri R. Satheesh Kumar

Exhibits for the Union

W1 copyofletter No. SBD/000946 dated 12th April 1991 of State Bank of India, Bombay

W2 Copyof letterNo. Prom/8/ 593 dated,4th June 1991 of State Bank ofTravancore.

W3 Copy ofmemorandum of settlement between the management of State Bank of Travancore and the Union on 19-08-1999.

W4 Copy ofletter No. PAD/5/30 dated 3rd January, 2000 ofStateBank ofTravancore , Head Office , Trivandrum .

W5 Copy ofduties of Electricians .

W6 Copyof letter No. SBTEU/ MD/ 364 /2001 dated 2nd May, 2001 of State Bank of Travancore Employees' Union (Regd. ), Thiruvanathapuram.

W7 Copy of letter dated 12-06-2001 from the management to the General Secretary, State Bank of Travancore Employees. Union Trivandrum .

Exhibit for the management

M1 Copy ofletter No. PAD/3 /582 dated 19-02-2000 from the Management to the workman 5. Exts . W5 and 5 (a) enumerate the duties of electricians and senior electricians respectively in S.B.T. The First Bipartite Settlement is dated 19-10-1966 . Ext . W3 settlement by which it was decided to promote electricians as Senior Electricians is dated 19-08-1999 . Naturally the first Bipartite Settlement will not contain a provision for the post of a senior electrician or as to whether it carries special allowance or not . However none of the subsequent settlements also do not provide for the post of senior electricians . It may be either because the posts are not created or because the union has not brought it to the notice of management . Whether a post carries special allowance is a matter for consideration by the Management unilaterally or by union and management together through aBipartite Settlement . But as mentioned above none ofthe settlements subsequent to 1999 contain a provision for a payment of special allowance to senior electricians nor a post of senior electrician is seen created . However the electricians were promoted to the clerical cadre by Ext . W4 promotion order. There is no dispute that the post of electrician carries special allowance due to the skilled nature ofwork . Ext . W4 order says that even when the two electricians were promoted their prime duty was to function as electrician and in addition to that they were to perform the duties of senior electrician . The duties of electricians and senior electrician are enumerated in Ext . W5 and 5(a) as already mentioned. The duties of electricians is defenitely a skilled work and it is a function over and above the routine duties and functions of a workman in a sub - ordinate çadre . Therefore provision is made in the Bipartite Settlement for payment ofspecial allowance to electricians . In para 5.3 of FirstBipartite Settelment the categories of subordinate staff; who are entitledto special allowance, are mentioned. Sl.No. 11 is electrician . Even though the post ofsenior electrician does not attract special allowance the workmen in this case were discharging all the duties of electricians . Para 5.8 of the settlement makes it clear that irrespective of the designation/nomenclature the employees are entitled to special allowance if they are required to perform the duties listed against a category . When a post attracts special 846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2009

2. The reference under adjudication is:

" क्या मण्डल यांत्रिक अभियन्ता ( कै. वै ) उत्तर रेलवे , लखनऊ द्वारा एवं श्रीपत पूर्व फिटर 3 टिकिट नं. 115 को दण्डादेश दि. 19-8-2002 के द्वारा अनिवार्य सेवा निवृत्ति का दण्ड दिया जाना न्यायोचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो पूर्व कामगार की पत्नी श्रीमति अहिल्यावती किस राहत को पाने की हकदार है ? "

का.आ. 440. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41012/171/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 28th January, 2009

S.O. 440. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway, and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 28-1-2009.

[No. L-41012/ 171/2005- IR(B- I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : N. K. Purohit, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 22/2006

Ref. No. L-41012/ 171/2005- IR(B- 1) dated : 7-8-2005

3. In brief, the case ofthe claimant Smt . Ahiliyavati isthat herhusband, Late Shripat was employed under CDO, NR, Lucknow who died on 31-8-2002 due to illness . It has been submitted that her husband had informed his office that he was unable to continue with his job due to his prolonged illness , and requested to retire him on medical grounds and give compassionate appointment to his son vide his applicationdt. 24-8-2001 . It is further submitted that the employer neither tried to ascertain the truth nor directed her husband to appear before Medical Board; but instead imposed punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 19-8-2001 , which is violative ofrules of natural justice, provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 as well as Rules of the Railways . The claimant has further submitted that subsequent to demise of her husband on 31-8-2002, she made an appeal against punishment order dt. 23-9-2002 vide her applicationdt . 23-9-2002 which is still under consideration, this again violates rules of natural justice and Railway Rules . Accordingly, the claimant has prayed that punishment order be quashed and she may be awarded all consequential benefits apart from compassionate appointment .

BETWEEN

Smt. Ahiliyavati W/ o Late Shripat

HouseNo. 47 , Baba Ka Purva Near Paper Mill , Nishatganj Lucknow (U.P. )

AND

TheDivisional Mechanical Engineer (KV)

Northern Railway, DRM Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

AWARD

12-1-2009

By order No. L-41012 / 171 /2005 - IR(B- I) dated: 07-08-2006 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofsub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispu tes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred following industrial dispute between Smt. Ahilyavati W/ o Late Shripat, House No. 47, Baba Ka Purva, Near Paper Mill, Nishatganj , Lucknow and the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (KV) , Northern Railway, DRM Office, Hazratganj , Lucknow for adjudication.

4. The management of the Railways has denied the averments made by the claimant in her statement of claim . The management has submitted that the deceased employee remained unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 25-7-99 to 17-5-2001 , without any information for his absence or sanctioned leave for the same . It is further submitted that the punishment orderdt. 19-8-2002 was passedby the Competent Authority after issue of charge sheet to the deceased employee and conducting the inquiry by the Enquiry Officer under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules , 1968. It has been alleged by the management that the deceased employee was served upon charge sheet by registered post vide letter dt. 17-5-2001 and thereafter he appeared before the management and submitted an application showing his inability to work and requested for compassionate appointment ofhis son, which was not possible in absence of any provision under Railway Rules . The deceased employee was given full opportunity to defend his case buthe failed to avail the same . The management has further submitted that neither the workman nor the claimant ever preferred any appeal against the impugned order . The management of Railways has prayed that the claim of the claimant be rejected as its action in imposing punishment 847 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

upon deceased employee, Shripat was just and in accordance with the Railway Rules and rules ofnatural justice.

done without giving proper opportunity to the workman to participate and cross examine the witness in the proceedings & no show cause notice was given to the workman therefore , impugned order is against the principle ofnaturaljustice.

5. In rejoinder filedby the claimant except reiterating the facts stated earlier in the statement of claim no new plea has been taken.

6. The parties have filed documents in port of theirrespective cases . The claimant has examined herself aswitness whereas the management has examined Sh. C. Bond, Office Supdt . -II ADME (CDO) ,NR, Lucknow. The parties cross examined each other's witness and filed writtenargument apart from making oral submissions .

7.Heardarguments of learned representative ofboth the parties and perused the relevant record.

14.Per contra learned representative on behalfofthe management has urged that inquiry was conducted after following dueprocedure and opportunity was given to the workman to appear and participate in the inquiry but he did notturn up.He has further urged that workman was absent since 29-7-99 therefore , an inquiry was set up by issuing standard Form No. 5 to the employee alongwith charge sheet and after inquiry show cause notice dt . 23-5-2002 alongwith inquiry report was also served upon the workman . He has afso stated that on compassionate ground appointment can not be given under rules to the son or wife ofthe workman .

15. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival submissions & in light of submissions carefully perused the relevant documentary & oral evidence on the record.

8. It is settled position of law that power of punishment to an employee is within the discretion ofthe employer and ordinarily the courts do not interfere , unless it is found that either the enquiry proceedings or punishment is vitiated because of non observance of relevant Rules or Regulations or principle of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend etc. or that the punishment is totally disproportionate to prove misconduct ofan employee.

9. Thus , the short question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is vitiated on any of the ground noted above.

under: 10. The charge levelled against the claimant are as

16.Insupport ofher claim , the claimant Smt. Ahliyavati hasstated, that the workman was ill for the last 4 to 5 years andhe remained admitted in Indore Hospital & later on in CivilHospital , Hazratganj where he died . Subsequent to hisdeath, she received impugned order . She has also stated that against this order an appeal was filed which is still pending. She has further stated that although she is getting pension but opposite party has not given appointment to his son sofar. But in cross - examination she has also admitted that no appeal was filed against the impugned order , only an application was submitted. She has also admitted that workman had not taken any treatment from theRailwayHospital.

" आप दिनांक 25-7-99 से लगातार अपने कार्य स्थान से अनधिकृत रूप में अनुपस्थित हैं। इस प्रकार आपने अपने कार्य के प्रति लापरवाही बरती और आपने अपने आपको उत्तरदायी बताया" ।

11. The Enquiry Officer found the above charge proved & observed in his report dt . 7-4-2002 that;

17. In rebuttal, the management witness Sh. C. Bond, Office Supdt. - II has stated that workman was continuously absent from 25-7-99 . Therefore , standard Form No. 5 was issued to him and after enquiry , enquiry report was submitted on 7-4-2002, later on memo dt. 23-5-02 alongwith copy ofthe enquiry report was sent to the workman and subsequentto that he was compulsory retired vide impugned order. Incross-examination he has stated that inquiry officer vide noticedt. 9-9-01,9-12-01 & 24-2-2002 had informedthe workmanto remain present during the inquiry proceeding otherwiseex-parte proceedings would be drawn against him.

" श्रीपत फिटर द्वारा लखनऊ में रेलवे की ओर से उच्चतम चिकित्सा सुविधा होने पर भी अपने इलाज का कोई प्रमाण नहींदिया है। उसके साथ रेलवे के अतिरिक्त कहीं भी चिकित्सा कराने का प्रमाण नहीं दिया है । उपरोक्त कर्मचारी को अनेक बार कार्यालय एवं कार्यस्थल के सूचना पट्ट के माध्यम से जांच में उपस्थित होने के लिए सूचना भेजी गई तथा निश्चित अवधि तक प्रतीक्षा की गई। श्रीपत फिटर के स्पष्टीकरण के आधार पर वह अपने लड़के को नौकरी दिलाने के प्रति जागरुक प्रतीत होता है लेकिन ऐसा प्रावधान किसी प्रक्रिया में संल्गन नहीं है " ।

12. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement vide impugned order dt. 19-8-2002 .

18. In documentary evidence copies of the death certificate of the workman, applicationdt. 24-8-2001 submitted by the workman for appointment of his son on compassionate ground , chargsheet, memorandum , enquiry reportdt . 7-4-2002 order of the Disciplinary Authority dt. 19-8. -2002, show cause notice dt. 19-8 . -2002 application dl . 23-9-2002 submitted by the claimant for giving appointment to son of the deceased workman on 13. Learned representative on behalf ofthe claimant has argued that the enquiry against the workman has been 848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHA

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

24.Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the claimant . She is not not entitled to any relief.

compassionate ground. Memo dt. 23-5-2002 alongwith enquiry report have been produced.

25.AwardAccordingly.

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2009

19. From application dt . 24-8-2001 submitted by the workman it reveals that he had received Standard Form No. 5 dt. 17-5-2001 by registered post & it also reveals that on 24-8-2001 he personally appeared alongwith his son & requested that due to illness he was not in a position to participate in the enquiry & made a request for appointment ofhis son in his place.

का.आ. 441. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 01/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/60/1988- आई आर( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 20. It is evident from the above oral and documentary evidence on record and admitted facts in the averments of both the side that workman remained continuously absent from his duty since 25-7-99 till impugned order dt . 19-8-2001 was passed & an applicationdt . 24-8-01 was submittedby him wherein he requested that due to prolonged illness he was not in a position to continue with the job so he may be retired on medical ground & his son be given appointed on compassionate ground .

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2009

S.O. 441. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 01/1991 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 28-1-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/60/ 1988 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officeг

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC /R/ 01/91

PresidingOfficer : Shri C. M. Singh

... Workman/Union

Shri Mahesh Nayak , S/ o Shri Harprasad Nayak, R/ o Pratapward, Ghee Godham , Bina, Distt . Sagar (MP)

Versus

21. Absence during the alleged period in the charge is an admitted fact . The claimant has admitted that claimant had not taken any treatment from the Railway Hospital . It is not the case of the claimant that any medical certificate for his illness or any application for leave on medical ground was ever produced by the workman during proceeding of the inquiry or prior to the inflation ofthe inquiry. From the evidence of the management witness it is also evident that number of times notice were issued to the workman for participation in the proceedings but he did not turn up . Neither in the statement of claim nor in statement or the claimant Smt . Ahliyavati , there is any allegation that opportunity of cross examination was not given to the workman . She has not alleged in her statement that charge sheet was not served or notice for participation in the inquiry proceedings was not issued to her husband. It is also not alleged that the copy of the inquiry was not served upon the workman . Though , there are pleadings in the statement of claim that inquiry was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice but the claimant has not alleged in her statement on oath that any principle of natural justice has been violated . From the documents filed by the claimant, it reveal that all the procedural requirement have been complied with & since the impugned order has been challenged by the claimant's side burden was on the claimant to establish alleged violation of principle of natural justice or any relevant rules pertaining to inquiry.

Regional Manager , State Bank of India, Regional Office, Moti Market , Gwalior.

...Management 22. As regard giving appointment on compassionate ground to the claimant or his son is concerned , it is not within , the purview and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to give such relief.

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of January , 2009

1. The Government of India , Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No.L - 12012/60/ 88 - D . III ( A)/I.R.B.III dated 23. In view of the above discussion the claimant has failed to prove that impugned order is in violation of principal ofnatural justice nor against any relevant rules of the Railway or perverse in any manner.

849 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

3-1-91 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Mahesh Nayak, S/ o Shri Harprasad Nayak, Casual Labour/subordinate Staff w.e.f. 10-10-86 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

servicesofworkman Shri Mahesh Nayak on different dates i.e. 92 days in the year 1981 , 99 days in the year 1982, 68 days in the year 1983, 101 days in the year 1984, 102 days in the year 1985 and 87 days in the year 1986. He was engaged on daily wages and not against any vacant post . He was engaged only to attend casual work which was sometimes for full days and sometimes for few hours . Sometimes the workman gave services of messenger and sometimes of waterman etc. He was not in continuous employment and was never engaged for 240 days in a year. That in the year 1985, it was decided to recruit persons permanently for the post of messengers to recruit candidates. For the purpose ofmessenger, an independent Interview Board was duly constituted as per rules of the Bank . Further , although workman Shri Mahesh Nayak had not completed 240days of continuous service in 12 calendar months even then the Bank took lenient and generous view in his favour and had given him the opportunity of appearing before Interview Board for absorbing him permanently in the Bank, if he qualified, But he could not succeed . Since he could not succeed in selection process , therefore, the Bank had to be discontinue to engage him from doing casual work w.e.f. 9th Oct. 1986. The case of the workman is not covered within the meaning of the term " retrenchment" under Sec . 2(oo) ofthe I. D. Act 1947. That in this case, provisions of Sec-25 (B ) or 25(F) of the I. D. Act 1947 are not at all attracted. The management has pleaded that the case of workman has no merit .

4. The workman in order to prove his case examined himself. The management in order to defend the case examined Shri G.N. Vachhani , then posted as Dy. Manager , Industrial Branch, State Bank of India, Gwalior and Shri Balbir Singh Slathi , SLA , then posted as cashier in State Bank of India, Bina Branch , Bina .

5. Both the parties have filed certain documentary evidence in support of their respective claims which shall be referred in the body of this award at appropriate places where the need be .

2. The case ofworkman Shri Mahesh Nayak in brief is that he was employed as temporary / casual watchman and messenger at Bina Branch of State Bank of India intermittently from April, 1981 to 10-10-86 , the date when his serviceswere terminated . He worked for 92 days in the year 1981 , 96 days in the year 1982, 58 days in the year 1983 , 92 days in the year 1984 and 102 days in the year. 1985. Thus from 1981 to 1985 , he worked for 440 days only. No reason oftermination of workman's services was given by the management . It has been averred by the workman thatduring the period he was employed, he had completed continuous service for an year as contemplated under Section25(B) ofthe I.D. Act 1947. His termination amounts to retrenchment and the same having been brought without complying with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act 1947 is void-ab- initio . Though the workman's services were terminated, his juniors namely one Shri Khemchand Sen has been given employment in the year 1987. Similarly one Shri Rambabu Jharia, who had worked only for 90 days as messenger has also been given appointment and are continuing in service till now. It is clear from the above that the work is available and without anyjustification, the management has refused to give work to him . The workman has come to know that the management of State Bank of India has entered into some agreement with the All India Federation and cases of all such employees who have completed 90 days work have been considered for regularization and many such persons have been given regular appointment by the management ofState Bank of India in various branches ofMP . However, the workman even though he has worked from 1981 to 1986, his case has not been considered for regularization . This is unjustified and is in contravention to the provisions of I.D. Act 1947. It has been averred by the workman that his termination is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages . The workman has been subjected to hostile discrimination without any justification. In the recruitment process in the year 1985 the workman's case was considered. It has been denied that he failed in interview as pleaded by the management . The additional educational qualifications ofthe workman was considered as negative . The termination of the workman is illegal , arbitrary and unjust . That the workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages .

3. The case ofthe management in brief is that due to exigencies , Bina Branch of State Bank of India had taken

6. The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the workman was continuously employed as temporary casual watchman and messenger at Bina Branch of State Bank of India w.e.f. April, 1981 to 10-10-1986, the date on which his services were terminated. That the workman was refused employment from 10-10-1986 without any reason , without issuing any charge sheet and without notice . That no opportunity was given to him of being heard . That his junior Shri Khemchand Sen has been given employment in the year 1987 and similarly his junior Shri Rambabu who had worked only for 90 days as messenger has also been givenappointment . That he is evident from the above that the work was available and without any justification the management has refused to give work to the workman . The learned counsel for the workman further submitted that the case of the workman as mentioned above is fully proved 850

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

continuously for not less than 240 days in the preceding year of his termination from service . Therefore the provisions of Sec . 25 -B of the I. D. Act 1947 are not attracted in this case . Consequently provisions of Sec . 25-F ofthe I.D. Act 1947 do not apply in this case. The workman is not entitled to be reinstated on the ground that he has been in continuous service for not less than 240 days in the preceding year of his termination from the Bank's services.Under the circumstances , it was not legally needed to issue one months notice in writing to the workman indicating the reasons for discontinuation of service. It was also not needed to pay wages to the workman in lieu ofnotice . Similarly it was also not legally required to give him retrenchment compensation to the workman as he was not retrenchedbut ceased to work as casual employee on dailywages.

7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that a settlement was arrived between the . management of the State Bank of India and the SBI Employees Union by virtue of which the cases of all such employees who had completed 90 days work were considered for regularization and many such persons were given regular appointments by the management of State Bank of India in various branches of MP . That in the recruitment process in the year 1985 , the workman's case was also considered but it is denied that he failed in interview as pleaded by the management . Against the above , the learned counsel for the management submitted that in the year 1985 it was decided to recruit persons permanently for the post of messengers and for the same, an independent Interview Board was duly constituted as perrules of the Bank. That taking a lenient view the workman was given an opportunity of appearing before the InterviewBoard for absorbing him permanently in the Bank, ifhe qualified , but he could not succeed and hence hewas not appointed. The management has filed the terms of settlement arrived at between the State Bank of India andthe SBI Employee Union on 15-2-85 . List ofcandidates called for interview vide settlement dated 15-2-85 and the list of selected candidates on the basis of interview held in 1985. It is admitted to the parties that workman Shri Mahesh Nayak appeared in the said interview. But according to management, he could not succeed in the interview . It is averred by the workman that it is wrong to say that he did not succeed in the interview. It is to be noted here that management's witness Shri G.N. Vachhani during hiş evidence ofcross examination expressed his ignorance, if the workman was called for the interview or not. Similarly the evidence ofcross examination ofShri Balbir Singh Slathi reveals that perhaps he has no knowledge regarding the interview held in the year 1985. However it is proved from the oral testimony of workman Shri Mahesh Nayak and list ofcandidates called for interview that workman Shri Mahesh Nayak appeared in the interview held in 1985. The from the oral and documentary evidence on record . Against the above , the learned counsel for the management submitted that due to exigencies , Bina Branch ofStateBank ofIndiahad taken services ofworkman Shri Mahesh Nayak ondifferent dates , he was engaged on daily wages and not against any vacant post . That he was engaged to attend casual work which was sometimes available for full days and sometimes for few hours . Workman Shri Mahesh Nayak in his evidence of cross - examination deposed the details ofhis work done in the Bank as shown in Exhibit M -1 . According to Exhibit M - 1 , he worked for 92 days in the year 1981 , 99 days in the year 1982, 68 days in the year 1983, 101 days in the year 1984, 102 days in the year 1985 and 87 days in the year 1986. Thus according to own evidence of workman Shri Mahesh Nayak , he worked intermittently for 549 days in total at Bina Branch ofState Bank of India . The workman Shri Mahesh Nayak in his evidence ofcross examination deposed that Bank usedto employ him when his services were needed . This witness deposed that he was not given any appointment order . Duringthe course ofevidence of his cross examination, he expressed his ignorance , ifhe was employed on daily wages . Management's witness G.N. Vachhani, then posted as Dy . Manager, Industrial Branch, State Bank of India , Gwalior deposed that he was posted at Branch office Bina Branch w.e.f. 21-7-86 to 1-7-89 . Management's another witness Shri Balbir Singh Slathi deposed that he is posted as cashier atBina Branch of State Bank of India , Bina since 1980 . Both these witnesses of the management deposed that workman Shri Mahesh Nayak was engaged on dailywages at Bina Branch of State Bank of India . They further deposed that the details of statement of working days of workman is given in Exhibit M- 1 . Thus according to evidence of workman as well as management's witness , Shri Mahesh Nayak worked intermittently for a total number of549 days w.e.f. 1981 till he was refused to work . Both the above named management's witnesses have deposed that engagement of Shri Mahesh Nayak was purely on daily wages and the same was not against any vacant post . That he was a casual employee and was not appointed on any post. It is to be noted that Shri Mahesh deposed in his evidence ofcross examination that he has no knowledge , if his engagement was on daily wages and admitted that the Bankused to engage him when his services were needed. Shri Balbir Singh , Management's witness deposed that engagement of Shri Mahesh was sometimes for full days and sometimes for few hours . It is proved from the above evidence of both the management's witnesses and the workman that Shri Mahesh Nayak was engaged as daily wager intermittently from 1981 till he was refused to work in the year 1986 at Bina Branch of State Bank of India . He was engaged only when his services were needed. That he was not employed or appointed on a vacant post according to recruitment rules . It is not proved from the evidence on record that Shri Mahesh Nayak served the Bank 851 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

9. Now it is to be considered if the workman is entitled tobackwages. Nothing has been averred in the statement ofclaim andrejoinder filed by the workman that he had not been gainfully employed since the other successful candidates in the interview were appointed. I, therefore, found myselfunable to award back wages and benefits to theworkman.!

10. Inview of the above, the reference deserves to bedecided in favour of workman Shri Mahesh Nayak and against the management with costs.

11.The reference is decided in favour ofShri Mahesh Nayak and against the management ofState Bank of India withcosts holding that removing him from service is illegal and unjustified because ofhis being succeeded in interview held in the year 1985 for the post ofMessenger and he was wronglyand illegally declaredunsuccessfal in the aforesaid interview. Therefore, the management is directed to regularize the services of workman Shri Mahesh Nayak and to appoint him as messenger in the State Bank of India under the Regional Office at Moti Market, Gwalioron the basisof interview held in the year 1985. The reference is answered accordingly.

12. Let the copies of the award bo sont to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules.

C. M. SINGH, PepaidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 442.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सस्कार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कार्यकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय आकारलेोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इरनाकूलम के पटसंदर्भ संख्या 309/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय ने 28-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/291/1999-आई- आरी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2009 management has filed true- copy ofletter No. RM/II/ S.Sub/ 347 dated 19-2-86 . It appears to be a letter informing the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bina byRegional Manager that Shri Mahesh Nayak was not found suitable inthe interview held on 13-10-85. The management has also filed the list of candidates appeared in interview on 13-10-85 . The management has also filed the list of candidates appeared in interview on 13-10-85 and the marks obtained by them along with remarks . It is no doubt, a photocopybut has been attested by the notary, Gwalior. It reveals thatworkman Shri Mahesh Nayak secured 48 marks outof 100 in the aforesaid interview. The remark column in front ofthe name of workman Mahesh Nayak is hazy. It appears to be erased. The reason for his non-selection is noted in this column as " overage at the time of initial appointment". It shall be worthwhile to note here that the candidates who secure less mark than workman Shri Mahesh Nayak were selected in the interview and were found suitable for appointment . It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that according to the extract from the State Bank of India regarding service conditions of award staff eligibility for recruitment in subordinate cadre, requires that the candidate's minimum age must be 18 years and the maximum age must be 26years. It is admitted case of the parties that first ofall , the workman was employed by Bina Branch ofState Bank ofIndia in the month ofApril 1981. Para-2 of the terms of settlement reveals that it was agreed upon between the parties that a temporary employee ofoverage , relaxation in age will be given, if he was found within the age limit prescribed for recruitment in subordinate cadre at the time of initial temporary appointment. The workman has filed truecopyofBoard of Secondary Education , MP, Bhopal , Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination Marks Sheet 1978. In this certificate , the date ofbirth of workman isrecorded as 2-10-1956, which clearly means that at the timeof initial temporary appointment, the workman was aged about 25 years and 6 months . He was rejected in the interview on the alleged ground of being overaged at the time of initial appointment is clearly wrong and unjustified. It means he was not at all overaged at the time of intial temporary appointment and only on this ground that he was overagedat the time ofinitial temporary appointment, hecouldnot be rejected in the interview rather he deserves tobe succeeded in that interview. It is, therefore, concluded that workman Shri Mahesh Nayak must have been found suitable in interview by the Interview Board and his rejection on the ground that he was overaged at the time of initial temporary appointment is without any basis and liable to

bequashed.

S.O. 442. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 309/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cam- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofState Bank of India, and their workmen , received by the Contral Government on28-1-2009 .

[No. L-12012/291/1999-IRD-13]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Offioет 8. Inview of the above, the workman is entitled for appointment as messenger in the State Bank of Indiaunder theRegional Office at Moti Market, Gwalior.

852

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA2 , 1930

ANNEXURE

to the charges . Hence the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits .

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri P. L. Norbert,B.A. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer

Monday, the 22nd day of December, 2008/ 1st Pausa 1930)

1. D. No. 309/2006

(I. D. No. 73/1999 ofLabour Court , Ernakulam

...Workman

T. R. Sethumadhavan, C/ o . T. R. Malathi, SBI, LIC Building , M.G. Road , Kochi.

Adv . Sri . K. A. Abraham .

TheAssistant General Manager , Region- II , State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Ernakulam - 682011 .

...Management

By Adv . Sri . George Thomas .

This case coming up for hearing on 16-12-2008, this Tribunal -cum - Labour Court on 22-12-2008 passed the following:

AWARD

4. According to the management the workman misappropriated money entrusted to him for remittance by customers . The enquiry was conducted following the procedure and complying with principles ofnatural justice. The workman was defended by a defence representative . He was given copies of all documents relied on by the management . A list of witnesses was also given to him . The sole witness cited on management side did not turn up to give evidence due to pressure of official work and the request ofthe management for time was not allowed by the Enquiry Officer. Customers were not willing to come forward to give evidence . On the defence side nobody was examined. But documents produced by the delinquent were marked . The Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of charges 1 and 3 based on records . The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings and after hearing the workman on the proposed punishment, the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed. The appeal filed by the workman was dismissed . The punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the offence. For similar misconduct the workman was punished on a previous occasion barring his increments . Therefore , he is not entitled for any relief.

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is:

5. Inthe light ofthe above contentions the following points arise for consideration:

1. Is the enquiry valid?

2. Are the findings sustainable?

3. Is the punishment proper?

"Whether the action of management of State Bank of India in dismissing the service of Shri T. R. Sethumadhavan Clerk, Chowannur branch. w.e.f. 10-2-1998 for certain alleged charges isjustified. Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MW 1 and the documentary evidence of Ext. M 1 enquiry file on the side of the management and no evidence on the side of workman.

6. Point No. 1:- At the time of argument the learned counsel for the workman did not press this issue and hence Ido not propose to go into the issue regarding validity and propriety of enquiry .

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:- Sri.T. R. Sethumadhavan was a Clerk of State Bank of India, ChowannurBranch . He was charge- sheeted for committing irregularities and manipulation in the accounts ofcustomers and misappropriation of money and absence from duty without permission and without leave . On the said allegations an enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty of charges 1 and 3. Based on the findings of Enquiry Officer and concurring with the findings the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service as per order dated 10-2-1998 . Though he filed an appeal, he did not succeed. Hence the workman has raised the dispute .

7. Point No. 2 :--Five charges, were levelled against the workman . The first four charges relate to misappropriation of money of one customer and late remittance of the amounts entrusted by three other customers . The 5th charge is unauthorised absence . The Enquiry Officer found charges 1 and 3 as proved. That finding alone is under challenge .

3.Accordingto the workman the enquiry is defective and invalid for violation ofthe principles of natural justice and non examination of complainant or any witness on the side of the management. The documents produced are unauthenticated copies and are not proved properly . The workman was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity. There are no materials to hold the workman guilty. The findings are perverse . The Enquiry Officer was not impartial. At any rate the punishment is shockingly disproportionate

8.The first charge is that customer , Shri R.V. Siddhi had sent his son on 29-05-1995 to bank for remitting Rs . 1000 in his SB account . The workman was then sitting near the "May I help you " counter . The workman filled up the pay- in -slip, obtained the signature ofaccount holder's son on the pay- in-slip , accepted cash of Rs.1,000, made 853 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ] .

entry in the pass book, made entry in the ledger account and returned the pass book to account holder's son. However he did not record the remittance in other books of accounts and cashier's receipt scroll . The Branch Manager on verification of accounts came across the discrepancy and questioned the workman.

there is no reason to disbelieve the fact that the entry in the Pass Book of S.B. A/c . No. 4/1933 dt . 15-5-1995 was not made by the CSE . Since the Pass Book entry and the Cashier's receipt scroll (No. 22) of Chowannur Branch dt. 9-6-1995 clearly establishes that by all accounts the CSEhad received the amount (Rs . 5000) on 15-5-1995 and in token thereof made an entry in the relative Pass Book (PEX- 14) because the CSE cannot be considered as a person unmindful ofwhat he does . Thus I conclude that this charge stands PROVED" .

9. The third charge is that the workman had received Rs.5,000 from Smt . Lizi Jos for remittance on 15-05-1995 into her SB account . The workman made entry in the pass book. But the amount was not accounted in the bank on the same day, but only on 9-6-1995.

10. In the enquiry 19 documents are seen presented by the management and marked as Exts . PEX- 1 to 19. However nobody was examined on management side . On the defence side 7 documents were allowed to be introduced. Out ofwhich documents No. 4, 5, 6 and 7were not available with the defence and they were to be produced by the management and the enquiry officer had directed themanagement to make those documents available to the defence. However all the seven documents were marked as Exts.DEX- 1 to 7 as soon as the defence mentioned the documents tobe marked. No witness was examined on the defence side also . The finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard to charges 1 and 3 are as follows :

"CHARGE No. 1

It is a cryptic finding. With regard to charge No. 1 the management mainly relied on the ledger sheet pertaining to the SB account of Sri . R.V. Siddi (PEX -5 ) , Pass Book (PEX- 7) , SB day book (PEX- 1 ) , Cashier's receipt Scroll (PEX- 6) and reply of the delinquent to the charge sheet (DEX-3) .Regarding charge No.3 the management relied on the pass book of Smt. Lizi Jos (PEX - 14) , Cashier's receipt scroll (PEX- 19) and ledger sheet of SB account (PEX- 12 ) . But it is to be noted that nobody was examined on management side to identify the handwriting of relevant entries in the books of accounts and pass books of customers . On the basis of the records it was not proper ... for the enquiry officer to presume and assume that relevant entries were made or omitted to be made by the workman ,..... The workman , according to the management, was sitting near the "May I help You" counter. It is for the management to show that the person sitting in the " May I help you" counter had tomake entries in different books of accounts or they were to be made by some other concerned clerks, The fact that the workman did not object to the marking of management documents does not mean that the charges are admitted by him. It is not seen from the proceedings that the Enquiry Officer had asked the workman whether he had any objection in marking the documents . The Enquiry Officer cannot don the robe of the prosecution and prove the prosecution case . The burden is on the prosecutiontoprove the allegations levelled againstthe delinquent with sufficient materials . It is not enough to throw somedocuments before the Enquiry Officer and shift the burden to him to prove the charges . Precisely that has happened in this case. The sole prosecution witness, a' Senior Officer of the bank did not turn up on the allotted day for tendering evidence , on the ground that he was officially busy. But the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and concluded the proceedings. However the connecting link is missing . Nobody has identified the handwriting of the relevant entries in the pass book and other books ofaccounts. The Enquiry Officer cannot step, into the shoes of prosecution witness and identify the handwriting in different records.

ThePresenting Officer has come to the conclusion that the Charge stands proved on the basis of the evidences . The D.R. disputes that the CSE was not "attending" to the "May I help you " counter , whereas as per the charge sheet he was " sitting " near the said counter. While the DR states that the handwriting of the CSE was not established , the Enquiry Officer is of the view that since the documents presented by the Prosecution and Exhibits are not disputed by the defence and the fact that the CSE in his reply to the " Charges sheet" (D. EX- 3 ) has not disputed the preparation of the voucher and the entry inthe Pass Book, the circumstantial evidence goes against the CSE. Further , the DR's contention that there was no complaint from the A/ c . holder's son does not carry conviction, particularly when the letter written by Sri.R.V.Siddi to AGM, SBI , Ernakulam (P EX. 18) was not disputed. In our dealings, the Bank cannot take a stand that it would act only when a complaint is received, knowing fullywell that an irregularity has been perpetrated. In this case, as the CSE is a person of sufficient experience as to theBank's working systems , his contention that he acted as is the practice at the Bank (D. EX. 3) cannot be accepted. Thus all considered, I am inclined to state notwithstanding thepoints which are more technical in nature - made by the DR, the charge against the CSE stands PROVED " .

"Charge3

11. TheDisciplinary Authority had differed with the finding with regard to charge No. 3 and held that charge No.1 alone stood proved and the remaining four charges were not proved. However the successor Disciplmary Authority reviewed the whole findings of predecessor Here again the Defence arguments are on the lines indicated against Charge 2 above. Hence by all accounts 854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC .3 (ii) ]

did not press this issue and took a step further admitting that the enquiry was properly conducted and the workman does not pursue his plea regarding validity of enquiry. In view ofthis a finding regarding the said issue is uncalled for. The management cannot insist that, notwithstanding the admission of the workman , there should be a finding against the management with respect to the procedural aspects of enquiry.

14. As regards the right of the management to adduce either fresh evidence or additional evidence I don't think the submission of the learned counsel is correct . However the learned counsel for the management took me through some of the decisions ofHon'ble High Court of Kerala as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court to say that there is no legal barin permitting the management to adduce evidence and provethe charges before the court, provided there is a plea in the written statement to that effect. But none of the decisions cited by the learned counsel has expressed such aview. On the contrary it is amply clear from the decisions that either when the enquiry is defective or when there is no enquiry at all, it is open to the management to seek permission of the court for adducing evidence in justification ofthe action taken against the workman. This is clear from the first case itself cited by the learned counsel and reported in Poikattusserri K. S. Sangam Ltd. v. Dy. Labour Commissioner 1988 ( 1 ) K.LL.T. 879. In Raveendra Kamath v . Dholakia 1992 ( 1 ) KLT 573 once again the position is clarified. The relevant portion of para 5 reads :-

disciplinary authority and held that charges 1 and 3 stood proved. The predecessor Disciplinary Authority (Regional Manager) recorded his findings and order of punishment in continuation of the enquiry proceedings . The punishment proposed was stoppage of three increments for aperiod ofthree years with cumulative effect . Before imposing the punishment quite surprisingly another disciplinary authority took charge and on the guise of complying with the procedural formality of furishing a copyofenquiry report to the delinquent reviewed the order ofpredecessorDisciplinary Authority differing with the findings and proposed punishment. But before differing with the findings of the first Disciplinary Authority no notice was given to the workman informing him that he was goingtodiffer with the findings ofthe first Disciplinary Authority. However it is seen from the records that a copy ofreport was already given before the first Disciplinary Authority passed the order . Therefore the intention ofthe management was not really to comply with the procedural formalityor to set right the defects in the procedure, but to throw the workman out of service somehow . The 2nd DisciplinaryAuthority had no authority to review the order of 1st Disciplinary Authority suo motu . The management adopted an indifferent attitude in the disciplinary action . There was no earnest effort to see that the charges are proved.An enquiry for the sake of an enquiry alone was in the contemplation of the management. But it is unknown to labour jurisprudence that two successive Disciplinary Authorities passing two different orders in respect of the same disciplinary proceedings and imposing dissimilar penalties on the same delinquent without hearing the delinquent. The whole disciplinary action is shrouded in mystery. The management was not serious in prosecuting the delinquent as the sole witness cited by the management was not examined. There is total absence of evidence to bring the delinquent to book. It is not enough to produce some documents and sit back , without proving their relevancy to the charges and relation to the delinquent . The findings ofenquiry Officer and Disciplinary authority are therefore unsustainable .

... In the context of $ .11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the matter has been advertedto in detailbythe Supreme Court and the High Courts in various decisions . The gravamen of the complaint is that the management did not ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate the charge before the Labour Court. But it has to be remembered that the Labour Court, in exercising thejurisdiction under S. 11 -A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, has to be satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified before interfering with the same . In that behalf the Labour Court will have to find preliminarily whether the enquiry was fair and proper and the findings are tainted or perverse or not . Only if these findings are in favour of the worker, the question or the stage arises as to whether the employer could adduce evidence for the first time before the Labour Courtjustifying the order of discharge or dismissal . Unless that stage is reached, the further questions as to whether it is for the employer to ask for an opportunity to lead evidence and even so what stage of the proceedings such a request should be made will arise..

12. However the learned counsel for the management vehemently canvassed for the position that throughout the length and breadth of the pleadings of the claimant, the validity and propriety of enquiry are questioned. Therefore it is necessary to consider that aspect first. That apart there is a plea in the written statement of the management to permit the management to adduce additional evidence to prove the charges before the court . There is no legal bar in providing a chance to the management to prove the charges in case the court finds that the findings of the EnquiryOfficer cannot be upheld.

InCooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1900 it is held that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a 13. It is true that in the claim statement the validity of enquiry is questioned by the workman . But when the matter came up for hearing the learned counsel for the workman 855 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

be given an opportunity to adduce evidence before the court and prove the charges without relying too much on technical considerations.

preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated theprinciples ofnatural justice . When there is no domestic enquiry ordefective enquiry is admitted by the employer , there will be no difficulty . But when the matter is in controversybetween the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether itwill adduce any evidence before the Labour Court.

Inworkmen ofF.T. & R.Co. v. The Management AIR 1973 S.C. 1227 it is held in para 33 as follows:

15. Therefore the correct procedure as laid down in the decisions referred supra is that when the enquiry is invalid or when no enquiry at all is conducted it is open to the employer to adduce evidence afresh before the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court and prove the charges afresh. That position has not arisen in this case because the validity of enquiry is admitted and conceded by the learned counsel for the workman. Hence even though there is a pleaby the management for adducing evidence it cannot be permitted and adjudication has to be made on the basis of the available evidence on record.

16. Point No. 3 :-The punishment imposed by the firstDisciplinaryAuthority is stoppage ofthree increments fora period of three years with cumulative effect. But the 2nd Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from servicewithout notice . The management has not been able tojustify the action of the 2nd Disciplinary Authority in sitting over the order of the first Disciplinary Authority. The learned counsel for the management was finding it extremelydifficultto explain this comic ofthe management . At any rate since I have held that the findings of Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authorities are unsustainable, it follows that no punishment can be imposed on the workman. Consequently he is to be taken back in service.

In the result an award is passed holding that the action of the management in dismissing the workman Sri T.R. Sethumadhavan from service is not legal and justifiable and he is entitled to be reinstated with backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typedbyher, corrected and passed by me on this the 22nd dayofDecember, 2008 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Appendix

Witness for the workman : Nil

Witness for the Management

MW1-12-5-2008

"Ifthere has been no enquiry held by the employer or if the enquiry is held to be defective , it is open to the employer even now to adduce evidence for the first time.... before the Tribunal justifying the order of discharge or dismissal. We are not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the workmen that the right of the employer to adduce evidence before the Tribunal for the first time recognisedby this Court in its various decisions , has been taken away. There is no indication in the section that the said right has been abrogated. If the intention of the legislature was to do away with such a right, which has been recognised over a long period of years , as will be noticed by the decisions referred to earlier, the section would have been differently worded. Admittedly there are no express words to that effect, and there is no indication that the section has impliedly changed the law in that respect. Therefore, the position is that even now the employer is entitled to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal even if he had held no enquiry or the enquiry held byhim is found to be defective. Of course , an opportunitywill have to be given to the workman to lead evidence contra. The stage at which the employer has to ask for such an opportunity, has been pointed out by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. 1972-1 Lab LJ 180-(AIR 1972 SC 1031) . No doubt, this procedure may betime consuming, elaborate and cumbersome .As pointed outbythis Court in the decisionjust referred to above , it is opento the Tribunal to deal with the validity ofthe domestic enquiry, if one has been held as a preliminary issue. If its finding on the subject is in favour of the management then there will be no occasion for additional evidence being citedby the management. But if the finding on this issue is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence justifying his action. This right in the management to sustain its order by adducing independent evidencebefore theTribunal, ifno enquiry has been held or if the enquiry is held to be defective, has been given judicial recognition over a long period of years . "

: Sri.T. N. Ramachandran Nair.

: Nil

Exhibit for the workman

Exhibit for the management Ext.M 1 - Enquiry File.

Thelastdecision relied on by the learned counsel is reported inWorkmen v. Motipur Sugar Factory AIR 1965 S.C. 1803. It is a 4 Judges Bench decision. In para- 12 it is observedthat when there is no enquiry at all or when the enquiry is irregular, invalid or improper the employer should [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

856

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2009

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows: - Sri G. Harikumar was a Clerk of Mavelikkara branch of Federal Bank . While so, on certain allegations of misconduct he was charge sheeted on 10-11-1995 . He was found guilty of the charges and was punished with stoppage of increment foraperiod ofone year with cumulative effect . Though he filed an appeal he did not succeed. Hence the industrial dispute was raised through union .

का.आ. 443.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार फेडरल बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, इरनाकूलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/217/1999- आई आर( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 28th January, 2009

3. It is contended by the union that the enquiry was conducted in gross violation of principles ofnatural justice and fairness . The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. Theworkman was victimised by the management . He is innocent . He is entitled to be exonerated from the charges.

S.O. 443. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam, as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Federal Bank Ltd. , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28-1-2009.

[No. L- 12012/217/ 1999 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri.P. L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Thursday the 8th day of January , 2009/24th Pausa 1930)

I.D. 76/2006

(I. D. 64/1999 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Union

: The General Secretary, Federal Bank Employees Union, Central Office,Alwaye- 683 101.

By Adv . Sri C. Anilkumar.

Management : The Chairman , Federal Bank Ltd. , HeadOffice,Alwaye -683 101 .

ByAdv. Sri Pathrose Mathai .

This case coming up for hearing on 02-01-2009, this Tribunal -cum- Labour Court on 08-01-2009 passed the following.

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act . The reference is :

4.According to the management the workman was inthe cash section during October 1995. He was not co- operative with his associates and the officers of the bank in the business . On 04-10-1995 he refused to receive bulk remittances from two account holders and directed themto the Manager . On the same day the workman deliberately delayed payments to members of the staff and payment to meet office expenditure . He made unnecessary and derogatory comments against the Senior Manager and other officers of the bank. He failed to attend the work of P&L subsidiary writing and P &L ledger posting from 04-10-1995 onwards . He was lethargic in getting the currency stitched on time and as a result the currency accumulated to the tune ofmore than Rs . 20 lakhs . On 13-10-1995 he was served with an officer order directing him to take the assistance of atemporary bank man for stitching the currency. But he refused to acknowledge the order by putting his signature . He committed mistakes in writing the transfer scroll . On30-10-1995 he was allotted the work ofdespatch section and inpreparing D.D. paid summary he committed mistakes . An officer ofthe bank pointed out the mistakes and asked him to correct them, but he did not follow the instructions and again wrote wrong figures . The intention of the workman was to put the officers of the bank in constant stress and strain. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and rules of procedure . Theworkman was defended by union Vice President. The workman was heard regarding findings and punishment. by the Disciplinary Authority . There is no attempt on the part of the management in victimising the workman . The Enquiry Officer , Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have considered the entire evidence and documents before entering into their conclusions regarding charges. The workman was given sufficient opportunity to defend. He had produced 35 documents , examined two witnesses and cross examined management witnesses . There is no reason to interfere either with the findings or punishment.

5. Inthe light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration :

"Whether the action of the management of Federal Bank in imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect imposed against the workman Sri G. Harikumar for alleged charges is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to?" 857

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1. Is the enquiry valid?

2.Are the findings sustainable?

The evidence consists ofExt. M 1 Enquiry File alone.

6. Point No.1: Though a contention is raised in the claim statement that the enquiry is vitiated for violation oftheprinciples ofnatural justice , it was not persued at the timeofhearing and hence I don't propose to recored a finding regarding the issue of validity of enquiry.

7. Point No. 2 : The workman was a Clerk of

Mavelikkara Branch. He was in the cash section at the relevant time . Nine charges were levelled against him. Out ofthem the Enquiry Officer found him guilty ofcharges 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and not guilty of charges 1 , 3 and 9. It is enough to deal with the charges which are found proved.

about the refusal of the workman to pay amounts due to staff on time. MW 1 has also given evidence in tune with the evidence of MW2 . Rs . 84.75 was to be paid to M/s. Prathibha Cool Bar on 04-10-1995 . The amount was to be received by Sri. Manoj of the cool bar . Ext.ME- 14 is a complaint of Sri .Manoj that he did not receive money on 04-10-1995 . Ext. ME- 15 is a letter written by one Sri .Raveendran Nair of M/s .Prathibha Cool Bar stating that themoneywas not received on 04-10-1995 though the bill was passedby the bank for payment. MW1 has stated that on 04-10-1995 even at 7 p.m. the cash was not tallied. There was a difference of Rs . 790/- and he had enquired with the workman whether payments to staff were made. As per instruction of the bank if excess amount is found while tallying the cash it should be credited to ' account payable account' . The cash was closed at 8.35 p.m. on 04- 10-1995.The workman did not report to the Manager or Sr. Manager about the excess amount . Had the payment due to Smt. Lathamma Cherian and M/s . Prathibha Cool Bar were made on 04-10-1995 itself there would not have been excess ofRs.790/- . Though on the defence side a temporary bank manofthe relevant time (DW1 ) was examined to support the caseofthe workman, the Enquiry Officer did not believe him as the incident had happened 11 months back and the witness had no special reason to remember whether cash was paid by the workman to Smt. Lathamma Cherian on 04-10-1995 itself. In addition DW1 had not seen Smt.Lathamma Cheriyan receiving the cash from the workman on 04-10-1995 . The union relied on Ext . DE-35 . It is a letter written on a plain paper by Sri.Manoj of M/ s.Prathibha Cool Bar. The contents of the letter is that he had received cash ofRs . 84.75 on 04-10-1995 itself, but after 5 p.m. But the Sr. Manager had got a blank paper signed by Sri.Manoj saying that since his payment was made after the office hours (5 p.m. ) it will be accounted onlyonthe nextday, i.e. , 05-10-1995 . In addition he disowns the statement in Ext.ME- 14 complaint. But it is to be noted that Ext.DE- 35 is written on a plain paper and addressed to none . Sri .Manoj is not examined on the defence side . Even ifExt. ME- 14 is discarded Ext. ME- 15 letter from Raveendran Nair of M/ s.Prathibha Cool Bar says that they did not receive the payment on 04-10-1995 . In the light of this evidence both documentary and oral, the Enquiry Officer foundthat payments to Smt . Lathamma Cherian (MW2) and M/s. Prathibha Cool Bar were made only on the next day. At the same time the workman neither remitted the excess amount of Rs . 790/- in the ' account payable account ' as per memo of instructions of the bank nor reported to the Manager or Senior Manager . The remaining payments were made on the same day, but late in the day and after repeated requests by the staff. Smt . Lathamma Cherian had to take her child to the hospital in the evening and for that purpose she had sought withdrawal of Rs . 700/- from her S.B. account. She did not wait after 5 p.m. as she had to go to hospital. These circumstances prompted the Enquiry Officer to findthat the workman is guilty ofcharge. No. 2.

8. Charge No.2 is that amounts sought to be withdrawn from the accounts of staff and a loan amount to an employee of the bank were not paid on time . Ext. El is the charge sheet . Exts . E 2 and E 3 are replies to the memo of charges . The worker has denied the charges except chargeNos . 7, 8 and 9 which according to him were bona fide mistakes . A security guard-cum -bank man ofthe Branch Sri .Bhaskaran had availed a gold loan of Rs . 1,500/ - which was sanctioned and was to be paid on 04-10-1995 .Another employee of the bank Sri . K. Sasikuttan had sought withdrawal of Rs . 290/- from his SB Account. Smt. Lathamma Cherian, an officer of the bank wanted to withdraw an amount of Rs . 700/- from her SB account. For the purpose ofpostage and stamp Rs . 350/- had to be disbursed. Towards office expense Rs . 84.75 had to be paid to M/s.Prathibha Cool Bar. The allegation is that these payments were delayed by the workman. The amounts due to Smt. Lathamma Cherian and M/ s . Prathibha Cool Bar were paid only on the next day on 05-10-1995 and the remaining three payments were made only after the office hours on 04-10-1995 and after repeated requests by the staff. It is alleged that the workman was adamant and refused to pay moneyuntil cash was tallied. In Exts . E2 and E3 replies the workman says that he had paid to all the staff and to M/s. Prathibha Cool Bar on 04-10-1995 itself, though some payments were made after 6 p.m. But the evidence on record is otherwise. The two payments to Smt. Lathamma Cherian and M/ s.Prathibha Cool Bar were made only on the next day on 05-10-1995 . Ext. ME- 13 is a complaint of Smt. Lathamma Cherian given to the Manager complaining about non - payment of money on the same day of withdrawal . MW2 is Srut . Lathamma Cherian. She has given evidence in support ofher complaint . The complaint is no doubtwritten in the handwriting ofSr. Manager MWI . It is , therefore, alleged by the union that Sr. Manager was trying tovictimise the workman by trying to get complaints from staff. But MW2 admits that though the complaint was written in the handwriting of Sr. Manager it was signed by her and the contents are true . Ext . ME1 is the report of Sr. Manager to the Personnel Department of the bank reportin 858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

the officers of the bank. When the workman was examined on the defence side he gave a casual answer regarding the mistakes . Considering the nature and circumstances under which the mistakes were committed and in view of the oral testimony ofMW 1 , the Sr. Manager it was found that they were done deliberately by the workman . I am not persuaded by any contra evidence to differ from the findings of the EnquiryOfficer .

9. The 4th charge is that the workman did not attend the work of P &L Subsidiary writing and P& L Ledger Postings from 04-10-1995 onwards even after directionby MW 1. At last the work had to be entrusted to another staff Smt.Maya Nair . Ext. ME- 25 is office order of work allotment w.e.f. 01-10-1995 . The workman was put in charge of cash section which includes work of P & L subsidiary writing and P&L ledger postings . Ext.ME- 16 is a report sent by MW1 to P & IR Department about the failure ofthe workinanto carry out the work allotted. The work entrusted to Smt. Maya Nair and completed by her was also reported byMW1 to P& IR department by Ext . ME-22 report . MW1 the Sr. Manager, MW2 Smt.Lathama Cherian ( an officer) and MW3 Branch Manager have supported this case of the management and they have identified the handwriting ofSmt. Maya Nair in the P& L ledger. The finding ofthe EnquiryOfficer regarding charge No.4 is based on the above evidence and requires no interference .

12. ChargeNo. 8 is that on 30-10-1995 while he was in the despatch section he had committed mistake in D.D. paid summary despite specific direction by officer , Smt. Lathamma Cherian to correct it . Ext. ME- 24 is D.D. paid summary of30-10-1995 . Afigure written by him waswrong and the mistake was pointed out by MW2 , Smt.Lathamma Cherian. Yet he did not correct it , but wrote another wrong figure .At last MW2 herself had to correct it so that the day book could be tallied . MW1 and 2 support the charge. In Ext. E2 reply to the memo of charges the workman says that itwas a bonafide mistake . Even if it was a bonafide mistake he should have complied with the direction of an officer , Smt. Lathamma Cherian and corrected the mistake . Hence , theEnquiry Officer has found him guilty ofthe charge and the finding is only to be upheld.

13. The Enquiry Officer had meticulously analysed the evidence on record and came to the conclusions . The findings are recorded based on evidence and they can neither be said to be perverse nor based on no materials .

14. The contention of the union is that on 04-10-1995 there were unusual transactions in the cash section . There were lot of remittances and payments on that day. Hence, the workman was not able to make payments to the staff promptly. However, he paid all the amounts on the same day. This is not true as per record.

10. Charge Nos . 5 and 6 are that currency to the tune ofover Rs. 20 lakhs was kept unstitched due to the adamant attitude of the workman and he refused to sign the office order issuedto him asking him to take the help ofa temporary bankman to carry out the work. According to the management a temporary bank man's help was provided. Butthe workman did not avail it. The currency remained unstitched from 09-10-1995 onwards . On 10-10-1995 Sr. Manager asked the workman to take the service ofthe permanent bank man to stitch the currency. But for the reason that the workman was not free he did not permit the permanent bank man to stitch the currency. Thus by 13-10-1995 unstitched currency accumulated to more than Rs . 20 lakhs . Exts . ME- 16 and 20 are reports sent by MW1 to P & IR department. MW1 to 3 support the case of the management. Ext. ME-21 is the office order issued to the workman regarding currency stitching. It is noted at the foot ofthe order that the workman had refused to sign the office order saying that he will sign the order only after a discussion in the afternoon. In Ext . E2 reply to the memo of charges the workman admits that it is risky to permit a temporary bank man to stitch the currency. Therefore , he had asked the Manager to issue an office order if the workmanwere to take the help ofa temporary bank man to stitch the currency . The workman had neither carried out the work nor was prepared to obey the direction of his superior . Thus the charges stand proved and requires no reconsideration .

15. The next contention of the union is that some unauthorised and imaginary cash transactions were going on at Branch Mavelikkara involving M/ s . Jemini Traders andBranch Mamkamkuzhy and when the workman refused to be a party to such transactions the Sr. Manager and other officials came up with false allegations to implicate him. But the answer of the management is that if at all such transactions were done it was with the approval of higher authorities and unless Mamkamkuzhy branch had consented to such transactions Mavelikkara branch could not have done it unilaterally . This contention of the workman was rejected by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that he failed to prove the allegation and consequent victimisation.

16. None of the contentions of the union are sustainable . There is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges. Any interference regarding the findings of Enquiry Officer is uncalled for in the circumstances .

11. Charge No.7 is that the workman had deliberately committed mistakes while writing the transfer scroll of 24-10-1995 . Ext. ME - 22 is a report sent by Sr. Manager regarding the misconduct ofthe workman to the head office. Ext. ME-26 is original transfer scroll of24-10-1995. Ext. ME- 23 iscorresponding offset credit slip. The explanation of the workman in his reply to the memo of charges is that theywere bonafide mistakes . But according to MW 1 they were deliberate mistakes committed to create hardship to

Inthe result an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management in imposing the punishment of stoppage 859 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

3/13, MathuraNagar , Aligarh (U.P.) 202001

(IntheMatter of Makkhan Singh) of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled for anyrelief.

AND

TheRegional-Manager

The award will come into force one month after its publicationin the official gazette.

Punjab National Bank

RegionalOffice, Teachers Colony, Bulandshahr (U.P. ) Dictated to the Per unal Assistant, transcribed and, typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 8th day of January,2009.

AWARD

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Dated: 7-1-2009

Appendix

Nil.

Witness for the Union

Witness for the Management Nil.

Nil.

Exhibitfor the Union

Exhibit for the Management

MI Enquiryfile.

नईदिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2009

1. By Order No. L- 12011/ 88/2002 IR(B - II) dated 09-09-2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause(d) ofsub section ( 1) and sub section(24) of Section 10ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred thisindustrial dispute between the General Secretary, UP BankWorkers Organization , 3/13 Mathura Nagar, Aligarh and the Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank , Bulandshahr for adjudication.

The reference under adjudication is as follow:-

का.आ 444. 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 , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 161/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of Panjab National Bank in Removing from service with Superannuation beneits and without disqualification from future re- employment ofSri Makkan Singh S/o Sri Hoti Lal w.e.f. 31-3-2000 isjust, fair and reasonable ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is he entitled to?"

[सं. एल. - 12011 /88/2002- आई आर( बी- II ) ] . राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009

2.Admitted facts of the parties are that Sh . Makkhan Singh, Teller was placed under suspension by Branch Office: Pahasu vide order dt. 30-6-98 . Subsequently, Sh. Makkhan Singh was served with the charge sheetdt. 8-9-98 alleging thathehad committed acts of gross misconduct within the meaning of Para 19.5 ( d), 19.5 (j ) , 19.5 (a) and 19.5 (c ) of Bipartite Settlement. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and-thereafter submitted his report on the basis of which the workman has been removed from service with superannuation benefits & without disqualification from future employment . The charge sheet is as follows:

S.O. 444. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 161 / 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Lucknow, 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 29-1-2009 .

Articles ofcharges against Sh . Makhan Singh , Teller (Under suspension) Branch Office: Pahasu .

[No. L- 12011/ 88/2002- IR (B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

Article-I

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : N. K. Purohit

I. D. No. 161/2002

(Ref. No. L- 12011/88/2002 IR (B- II) dt. 9-9-2002

532G1/09-8

You caused willful damage to the customer Sh. Tribhuvan Nath Sharma by defrauding Rs. 14000/- (Rs . Fourteen thousand only) from his SF account No. 1011 in 2 instances which is gross misconduct under para 19.5(d) ofBipartite Settlement as amended up to date. And you also acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank involving the bank in serious loss in terms of para 19.5(j ) . Article- II

BETWEEN

You engaged yourself in Dairy business outside the scope of your duty without the prior written permission of TheGeneral Secretary UP Bank Workers Organization 860

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/ PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

the bank which is gross misconduct under para 19.5 ( a) of Bipartite Settlement as amended up to date.

Article- III

You disobeyed the lawful and reasonable order of the management by not attending the duties at Branch Office: Khanpur which is gross misconduct under para 19.5 (e) ofBipartite Settlement as amended up to date.

Statement of imputation of charges against Sh . Makkhan Singh, Teller (under suspension) Branch Office: Pahasu.

Article-I

Charge-I

account for purchasing tickets for journey to be undertaken w.e.f. 26-7-1997. Neither you purchased any ticket nor went for LFC . In fact you utilized the proceeds of leave encashment for realization of cheque for Rs.15000/- (Ch . No. RNR 126011 dt . 5-6-1997) issued by you in favour ofSh. Madan Gopal . The suspense advance and encashment amount was adjusted by you on 29-9-1997 and 24-10-1997 . You again took an advance of Rs . 12500/- from suspense and got encashment of 30 days leave on 1-11-1997 , but again you did not proceed on LFC and suspense entry was adjusted by you on 14-2-1998 . The amount of leave encashment has not been deposited by you so far. Thus you misutilized the facility of LFC and utilized the bank's fund for some other purpose deliberately for self pecuniary gains and to cause serious loss to the Bank.

Charge -III

'A' : While working as Teller, you withdrew Rs. 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only ) from SF account No. 1011 (Name of the account holder Sh. Tribhuvan Nath Sharma) on 21-1-98 fraudulently by making forged signatures on the withdrawal slips .

'B ' Again on 7-2-98 you withdrew Rs . 7000/- ( Rupees Seven thousand only) from the same account mentioned above fraudulently by making forged signatures on the withdrawal slip , thereby defrauded the valuable customer of the Bank and tarnished the image of the bank while working at Branch Office : Pahasu .

Charge-II

You were assigned duties to assist in obtaining BC letters , recovery ofdues in irregular accounts and to do all other loan duties allotted you by BM in addition to the duties of Teller. But you did not perform your duties with full devotion and diligence particularly in the area of recovery of Bank dues in irregular accounts . In all the following accounts , you had a close proximity with the borrowers as they are your close relatives and friends . You did not put in your sincere and concerted efforts in the interest of the Bank for recovery of dues thereby causing pecuniary loss to the Bank:

You got 30 days - leave encashed on 11-7-1997 and took advance of Rs . 12000/- on 14-7-1997 from suspense

Relation

DOA

Present status Nature

SN Name ofBorrower

Amount ofloan

1 2

Brother

Written off T/L

14-10-88

5000

01 Rajveer Singh

-do-

T/L

07-08-91

10,000

02 -do-

24-11-94

Mother

T/L

9,000

Jaimanti Devi

O/ sRs . 3920 , Rs . 2742/ - 04

T/L

10000

15-02-88

Cousin

Written off Ramesh Chand

-do-

17-11-89

Uncle

T/L

5000

05 Mohar Singh

10000

01-07-74

Friend

T/L

Mohd . Aslam

O/ sRs . 11189/ +RI 339 (a/c Guaranteed by you)

Article-III

Artick- 11

Charge

Charge- I

You raised a loan of Rs . 14000/- from UP Sahkari Gramin Vikas Bank Ltd. , Pahasu , Distt . Bulandshahr on 29-3-93 ( in D 3/09 ) for the buffaloes to run dairy business without written permission from the Bank thereby engaging yourself in the business of dairy.

3. You were advised to report for duty at Branch Office: Khanpur vide our order dated 18-2-98 but you have notjoined Branch Office: Khanpur despite reminders dated 19-3-98, 23-3-98 , 2-4-98 , 25-498 , 1-5-98 , 16-5-98 and 5-6-98 which is willful disobedience of lawful and reasonable order oftheManagement .

861 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4.Your above acts are gross misconduct under para 19.5 (d) , 19.5 (j ) , 19.5 (a) and 19.5 (e) ofBipartite Settlement (as amended upto date) . You are therefore advised to submit your written statement of defence within 7 days (seven days) from the receipt of this charge sheet failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in your defenceand exparte decision will be taken against you and punishment in terms ofpara 19.6 ofBipartite Settlement (as amended upto date) will be imposed upon you .

5.The union in his statement of claim has questioned the finding of the domestic enquiry on the following grounds:

1. That during the enquiry proceedings , the report ofhand writing expert was produced but neither the expert was examined to prove his report nor worker was given an opportunity to cross - examine him and the Enquiry Officer has in his report, relied upon the said expert report.

6. The opposite party has submitted that all the documents which were filed by the Presenting Officer during the enquiry were duly proved and the copies of the same were also made available to the 'delinquent . There is no requirement to provide any document alongwith charge sheet. It is also submitted, that,strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his findings inthis report dated 22-11-99 after taking into consideration the material produced during the course of enquiry, proceedings . The Enquiry Officer has rejected the depositionmadeby Sh. Tribhuvan,Nath Sharma by giving valid reasons and the Enquiry Officer has relied upon all the material evidence produced before him while giving his findings in the report dated 22-11-99 . It is stated that , enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provision of the Bipartite Settlement and no known principle of natural justice has been violated, as alleged or otherwise. Ithas been denied that departmental enquiry was bad in any manner whatsoever .

7. In rejoinder, the union has reiterated its earlier averments made in their statement of claim . Since the departmental proceedings and findings were challenged by the union on behalf of the workman following two preliminary issues were framed on 13-11-03 ;

1. क्या जांच अधिकारी द्वारा न्याय के नैसर्गिक सिद्धांतों का पालन जांच कार्यवाही के दौरान किया गया

2. क्या जांच अधिकारी का निष्कर्ष दुराग्रह पूर्ण था । 2. That the account holder Sh. Tribhuvan Nath Sharma never complained regarding alleged forgery by the workman . Moreover, during the course of enquiry Sh . Tribhuvan Nath Sharma appeared before the Enquiry Officer and admitted that the alleged amount of Rs . 14,000/- has been withdrawn by him and he also submitted an affidavitduring the enquiry proceedings . In spite of above facts the Enquiry Officer did not find necessaryto examine the expert nor he asked the worker to file his report in rebuttal.

8. In respect of above preliminary issues the union filedaffidavit of the workman ( Al -50 . ) & in rebuttal the opposite party filed affidavit of Sri O.P. Sharma, Enquiry Officer(A2-53).

3. That the workman took an advance of Rs . 14,000/- from Co-operative Gramin Development Bank with due permission ofthe Bank, but during the course of enquiry the bank has not produced any evidence that the worker carried out dairy business . In fact the worker took loan for purchasing 2 buffalos on 29-3-93 but the bank has leveled the charge of running dairy after 5-1/2 years .

9. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the sides and material on record, while deciding the above preliminary issues in favour of the workman the following orderwas passed on 19-5-05 by the then Learned Presiding Officer.

"Departmental enquiry held by the management of theBank is improper and in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and therefore the same findings is set aside. The opposite party is directed to produce list of witness and evidence in form of affidavit by 28-7-05 ."

4. That the then Manager transfer the workman from Pahasu branch to Kanpur branch vide order dt. 18-2-98 , whereas he was not empowered to do so.Moreover there was no post of Teller in that branch . Later on the said order was cancelled on 24-6-98 but the then Manager made it a prestige point & due to ill will suspended the workman and charge sheeted him on fabulous and baseless grounds.

5. That no documents were supplied to him alongwith charge sheet in spite of request dated 15-9-98 and 7-11-98 .

10. In pursuant to the above order management examined S / Sh . R.K. Tandon (A.74) , O.P. Chawla/ (A- 75) and A. Kashyap (A- 76) as management witness to prove the charges leveled against the workman . In rebuttal the union has examined Sh . Makhan Singh workman and Sh . T.N. Sharma as witness .

11. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the record.

6. ThatEnquiryOfficer did not observe the principals ofnaturaljustice & without applying his mind the Enquiry Officer found the worker guilty against the facts on record .

862

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

12. Before going into the merit ofthe case, it is tobe consideredwhat constitute material on record under Section 11 -A of the I.D. Act, to prove charges levelled against the workman.

15. In view of the above legal position , the proceedings of the domestic enquiry including evidence recordedby the Enquiry Officer is to be ignored. To prove charges levelled against the workman and justify action taken against the workman the management can rely on the fresh evidence only i.e. evidence adduced subsequent to the order dt. 19-5-05 wherein the proceeding of the domestic enquiry has been declared vitiated due to violation ofprincipal of natural justice.

13.The Learned representative of the management has argued that the charges stands proved by the material on record including domestic enquiry proceedings, the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the fresh evidence led by the management , whereas learned representative of the workman has contended that only fresh evidence adduced by the management can be considered to see whether charges levelled against the workman are proved or not. He has relied on 1999 SCC (L&S) 302 Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & another .

16. It is pertinent to mention that the management has examined only three witness out of them evidence of Sh . Ashok Kashyap , Handwriting expert and Sh . R.K.Tandon is pertaining to charge ( i) under Art . I & evidence of Sh . O.P. Chawla is with regard to charge III- Art. under I. the management has not adduced any fresh evidence regarding charges under Art . 2, Art. 3 and charges II under Art . I. Thus , there is no matenal on record to establish above charges under Art . I charge ( ii) . Charges under Art . 2 and Art . 3 and the same stand not proved for want of any fresh evidence .

14. The proviso of Section 11 -A envisages that in any proceeding under this section the Tribunal shall rely on the material on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter . In Neeta Kaplish case Hon'bleApex court has held :

17. Now it is to be seen whether charge I underArt.I is proved on the basis of fresh evidence adduced by the management.

"It is fallacious argument that it was open to management to rely upon domestic enquiry proceedings , including the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer , and that management was under no obligation to lead further evidence, particularly as the management was of the view that the charges against appellant stood proved on the basis of evidence lead before the Enquiry Officer. It is also not correct to say enquiry proceedings constituted "material on record " under Section 11 - A and they could not be ignored.

18. The allegation in article I charge 1 in brief was that the workman Makhan Singh while working as Teller on 21-1-98, fraudulently withdrew Rs.7000 from SF account of Sri T.N. Sharma and again on 7-2-98 fraudulently withdrew Rs . 7000 from the same account by making forged signature on the withdrawal forms . In this respect Sh. R.K. Tandon has stated that account holder Sh . T.N. Sharma came to the branch and in his presence he made oral complaint to the Manager that there had been forged withdrawal ofRs . 14000 from his SF account by 2 fictitious withdrawal forms ofRs . 7000 each , but in cross examination he has admitted that no written complaint was made by Sh . T.N. Sharma account holder . He has stated that Sh . T.N. Sharma came to the branch sometime in the month ofMarch or April 1998 and he has also stated that he was not examined as witness in the domestic enquiry. The second witness examined by the bank is Sh . Ashok Kashyap hand writing expert who has deposed that the signature ofthe account holder Sh. T.N. Sharma on disputed withdrawal forms dt . 7-2-98 and 21-1-98 on the face as well as on the reverse are forged and the signature of the account holder Sh . T.N. Sharma on the disputed withdrawal form show a strong prima facie having been forged by Sh . Makhan Singh exTeller . Sh. Ashok Kashyap has confirmed and corroborated his reportdt. 4-9-98. and 5-9-99 on the abovematter .

Records pertaining domestic enquiry would not constitute " fresh evidence " as those proceedings have already been found by the Labour Court to be defective . Such record would also not constitute "material on record " within the meaning of Section 11 -A , as the enquiry proceedings on being found bad, have to be ignored altogether . The proceedings ofdomestic enquiry could be , and, were, in fact , relied uponby the management for a limited purpose of showing at the preliminary stage that the action taken against the appellant was just and proper and that full opportunity of hearing was given to her in consonance with the principles of natural justice. This contention has not been accepted by the Labour Court and the enquiry has been held to be bad . In viewofnature of objections raised by the appellant , the record of enquiry conducted by the management ceasedtobe"material on record" within the meaning of Section 11 -A and the only course open to the management was tojustify its action by leading fresh evidence before Labour Court . If such evidence has not been led , the management has to suffer the consequences."

19. In rebuttal , of the above evidence, the workman has examined Sh . T.N. Sharma the concerned account holderwho has deposed that he did not make any complaint orally or otherwise to the Branch Manager regarding any fraudulent payment from his account . He has further stated भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

that he himself signed disputed withdrawal forms and there was some difference in his signatures on these forms as his right arm was swollen due to infection and he had fever atthattime.

20. It is urged by the learned representative of the bank that statement of Sh . T.N. Sharma should not be relied upon because it unlikely that a person may remember such a old signature on withdrawal form with accuracy secondly the time gap between two withdrawal was 17 days which renders its unlikely that infection and fever continued for so long period. He has further urged that regarding his illness no documentary evidence has been produced and admission of difference in signatures is defacto an argument in favour of the allegation that the concerned signatures were not made by the account holder.

21. In rebuttal, the learned représentative of the workman has contended that when the account holder Sri T.N. Sharma has admitted that the amount ofRs . 14000 was withdrawn by him by alleged disputed withdrawal form and he has also admitted his signatures on above withdrawal form and then how signatures could be forged. The report of the hand writing expert is relevant only when the signatures are disputed. He has further contended that Sh. T.N. Sharma never complaint regarding his forged signatures . Sh O.P. Sharma who conducted the enquiry has also stated in is cross examination that Sh. T.N. Sarma had admitted in the enquiry that the amount was withdrawn by him by the disputed withdrawal forms. He has further admitted that account holder Sh . T.N. Sharma did not submit any written complaint in the above circumstances the bank has failed to prove article I charge I. He has placed reliance on 1979 Criminal Law Journal 889 in support of his contentions.

22. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the argument advanced and case law submitted by both the sides.

23. In the case law (2003 ) 5 SCC 424 cited by the learned representative of the management . Hon'ble Apex court has observed that in disciplinary proceedings and technical evidence and the doctrine of proof beyond doubt have no application. It is also observed that the evidence of hand writing expert need not invariably be corroborated and it is permissible for the court to compare the admitted writing with disputed writing and come to its own independent conclusion.

24. Above legal position is well settled, but in present case, the management has not even produced original documents alleged to be fictitious , to enable the Tribunal to compare the same with admitted signature for deriving any independent conclusion . Moreover, the account holder Sh. T.N. Sharma has testified on oath that he himself withdrew the disputed amount from his account and alleged fictitious withdrawal forms were signed by him. He has further stated that he had never made any

863 complaint orally or in writing to the Manager concerned regarding alleged fictitious withdrawal from his account . The management witness Sh . R.K. Tandon has admitted in his cross -examination that no written complaint was made by the Account holder Sh . T.N. Sharma for alleged forged withdrawal forms he has deposed that account holder Sh. T.N. Sharma came to the Tribunal sometime in the month of March or April 1998 and made oral complaint in his presence to the Manager that there had been withdrawal of Rs . 14000/-from his account by two fictitious withdrawal forms , but the then Manager Sh . O.P. Sharma to whom such complaint is said to be made, has not been examined by the management. Even in his earlier deposition made on 16-7-04, in support of the management case. On the preliminary issues , he has not stated anything about alleged oral complaint to him by the account holder Sh . T.N. Sharma.

25. In view ofthe above facts , when there is direct evidence ofthe account holder that alleged fictitious with- drawal forms bear his signatures, opinion of the handwriting expert that prima facie disputed signatures seems to be having beenwritten by Sh. Makkhan Singh cannot be relied upon . This view also finds support from the case law AIR 67 SC 1326 Fakhrudin vs. State of M.P. submitted by the learned representative of the workman wherein Hon'ble Apex court has held:

"Though there are various recognized modes to proving signature or hand writing expert but the direct evidence is preferable , direct evidence means the admission of the writer or the evidence ofwitness in whose presence the documents was written if this direct evidence is available then other evidence is not necessary. The report of hand writing expert is only a opine evidence" .

26. In such circumstances , the statement of account holder T.N. Sharma that he did not make any complaint to the manager regarding alleged fictitious withdrawal cannot be disbelieved. He has admitted his signature on the disputed documents . His evidence cannot be discarded merely on the hypothetical grounds pointed out by the learned representative of the management that he had deposed in favour of the workman or under influence either under pressure of the workman and it is unlikely that a person may remember such a old instance of signing withdrawal forms with accuracy and in view ofthe time gap of17 days between the two withdrawals , it is unlikely that infection and fever remained for such a long period.

27.The management has solely relied on the opinion ofhandwriting expert to prove the alleged charge (i) Article I, But, when the account holder himself has admitted his signature on the disputed withdrawal form and he has admitted that amount was withdrawn by him , the uncorroborated opinion of the hand writing expert cannot be relied upon. This view also finds support from 1979 864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

Cr.L.J. p. 889 cited by the learned representative of the workman. In the above case law the evidence of an accused in criminal case was based merely on alleged forged entry which appears that accused misappropriated certain sum . The evidence of the expert was disbelieved by Hon'ble Apex Court in appeal against the order of conviction. In above case the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed :

"The position is that the entire conviction rests on the uncorroborated testimony of the Expert P.W. Acharya . The High Court has clearly found that the expert had opined in case of even those person who admitted to have signed in token of the payment that the signatures of these witnesses were forge . This is a most extraordinary situation because when the witnesses testified on oath that they had signed the Register and the signatures shown to them were their own how could the expert say that the signatures were forged. At any rate the expert's opinion does not appear to be reliable for this reason . "

28. Although , evidence of hand writing expert need not invariably be corroborated but in instant case , facts are peculiar. The Account holder from whose account amount of Rs . 14000/- has been alleged to be withdrawn by the workman by forging his signature , has himself admitted that alleged fictitious withdrawal form bear his signature and amount was withdrawn by him . The hand writing expert has not given any opinion regarding dissimilarity of signatures of the Account holder after comparing his admitted signature with disputed signature . He has only compared admitted signature of the workman with disputed signatures and opined that prima facie disputed signatures seems to be in writing of the workman .

29. In above facts and circumstances , in the light of observation of the Hon'ble Apex court in the aforesaid case , uncorroborated opinion of the hand writing expert cannot be relied upon . There is no other documentary or oral evidence on the record to establish that the workman has forged the disputed documents. Hence , charge ( II ) under Article I stands not proved .

30. The allegation under charge ( III ) of Article I are that the workman did not put his sincere concerted efforts in the interest of the bank for recovery of dues from Sh . Rajveer Singh Jaimanti Devi , Ramesh Chand, Mohar Singh and Mohd Aslam who were his closed relatives and friends and thereby he acted prejudicial to the bank involving the bank loss in terms of para 19.5 (j) ofthe Bipartite Settlement . It is pertinent to mention that the charge ( II ) under Article I was not found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer in his report but the management in order prove above charge has examined Sh . O.P. Chawla . He has stated in his statement on oath that the workman Sh . Makkhan Singh , Teller was

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] working in Branch Office Pahasu Distt . Bulandshar during his tenure as Manager from 28-7-95 to 10-7-97. His statementdt . 24-2-98 has been made part of his affidavit as Annexure ' A' wherein he has given his statement in form of reply to queries put to him . In reply to the query whether there was any role of Sh . Makkhan Singh in issuing recovey certificated filed T/L ledgers where as no recovery certificate had been actually filed till 9-7-97 and R/ C kept in abeyance due to workman Sh . Makkhan Singh , he has given reply as under ;

" I do not know about the role of Sh . Makkhan Singh till 28-7-95 , my joining at the branch , but after that all notings as regards R/C filed were being made by Loans department . Regarding previous noting i.e. of 20-9-92 , I do not know. Since the borrower's approached through Sh . Makkhan Singh for not issuing of R/ Cs and that they will adjust/ regularize the a / cs , R/ Cs wee earlier not issued but later on when the a/ cs were not adjusted, the RCs were finally issued on 9-7- 97."

31. In cross - examination on the affidavit , he was unable to give any particulars of the loan mention in Annexure ' A ' . He has further stated in his cross- examination that Sh . Rajveer Singh , Jaimanti Devi , Ramesh Chand , Mohar Singh and Mohd . Aslam made a request to him for not issuing recovery certificate . Sh . O.P. Chawla has not alleged in his statement that noting pertaining to recovery certificate were waived and letter obliterated by the workman Sh . Makkhan Singh . The management has failed to establish the charge ( III ) under Article I leveled against the workman on the basis of the above witness. Hence the charge ( 11) under Article I also stands not proved .

32. In view of the above findings on the charges leveled against the workman , all the charges under Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3 stand not proved and the workman isentitled for exoneration from the charges leveled against him . The action of the opposite party in removing the workman from service with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future re - employment.w.e.f. 31-2-2000 vide impugned order is not just fair and reasonable and workman is entitled for reinstatement . As regards back wages no precise formula has been laid down . It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view the principle of justice , equity and good conscience . In present case , the workman was removed from service in the year 2000 without disqualification from future re-employment. It is well settled principle that burden ofproofhaving regard to the principle analogous to Section 106 ofthe Evidence Act , that he was not gainfully employed was on the workman . But the workman has not discharged his burden that he had not been gainfully employed after termination ofhis service . Therefore keeping in view all the 865

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Management

facts & circumstances of this case, the ends ofjustice will be served, ifthe workman is reinstated with 50% back wages &with continuity in service from the date of his removal .

: The Regional Officer, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Pallimukhu , Kochi -682016 .

ByAdv. V.V. Sidharthan

This case coming up for hearing on 03-11-2008 , this. Tribunal-cum- Labour Court on 07-11-2008 passed the following:

33. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated in favour of the workman to the effect that removal from service of Sh . Makkhan Singh workman was neither in order nor justified. He is entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages , with continuity and with all consequential service benefits .

AWARD

34. Award as above . LUCKNOW

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act. The reference is:-

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bankof India in dismissing the services ofSh . M. M. Nandakumar , w.e.f. 08-12-1995 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what relief the said workman is entitled?" का.आ 445. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 283/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल. - 12012/176/1997-आई आर( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2009

S.O. 445. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 283/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrialdispute between the management of the Regional Office Central Bank of India, Regional and their workmen, receivedbythe Central Government on29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12012/ 176/ 1997- IR (B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows :- Sri . M. M. Nandakumar was a Teller of Central Bank of India, Alwaye branch. Hewas served with a charge sheet on the allegation thathe hadmisappropriated money ofcustomers , 'borrowed money from customers in excess of his means to repay , issued cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in his account, allowed over draft to customers at concessional rate of interest without authorisation, misused overdraft facility given to him and abused a sub - staff of the bank in filthy language . An enquiry was conducted on the said charges and he was found guilty of charges 3,9 and 10 and partly guilty of charges 2 and 5 and not guilty ofcharges 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8. He was given a copy ofthe report ofEnquiry along with the dissenting note ofthe disciplinary authority calling for his representation. After receipt of the representation , the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of Enquiry Officer on certain charges . The disciplinary authority found charges 1 , 2, 4 , 6, 7, 9 and 10 fully proved and imposed punishment of dismissal in respect ofcharges 1 to 3 and discharge in respect of charge No.10 and stoppage ofone increment with cumulative effect inrespect ofcharge No.9 and warning in respect of charge Nos .4, 6 and 7.

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present : Shri.P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 7th day ofNovember ,

2008/16th Karthika 1930)

I.D. 283/2006

(I. D. 03/1998 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

: The President,

Union

Central Bank of India StaffUnion,

(Kerala) ,41/1757, Paramara Shopping Centre, Kochi -682001 ..

3. The union which has espoused the cause of the workman has challenged the findings as well as the punishment. The union questioned the validity of enquiry as a preliminary issue . That aspect was heard and considered in a preliminary order passed on 20-10-2008 and found that the enquiry is valid. Hence those contentions pertaining to validity of enquiry are not re- iterated. However according to the union the findings are recorded without properly assessing the evidence . The disciplinary authority deviated from the findings of Enquiry Officer on certain charges without properly analysing the evidence and without substantiating the findings with reasons . The workman was not given personal hearing before differing with the findings ofEnquiry Officer. The mitigating circumstances of the workman were not taken By Adv. Sri . H.B. Shenoy 866

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

account of Sri . O. K. Gopi by forging the customer's signature in withdrawal forms and misappropriating the money.

into consideration by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment . At any rate the punishment of dismissal is illegal and disproportionate. The workman is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits .

4. The management contends , apart from the procedural aspects of enquiry, that the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the materials on record and analyzing the evidence came to the conclusion that the workman is guilty of certain charges . The Disciplinary Authority informed the workman that he intended to differ with certain findings ofEnquiry Officer and if the workman wanted to make any representation he could do so within 15 days of the receipt of the communication of the Disciplinary Authority and the enquiry report . After recording dissenting findings the workman was intimated regarding the findings and called for representation of the workman regarding the findings ofEnquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority. After considering the representation of the workman and enquiry materials the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the workman was guilty of charges 1 , 2 , 4, 6,7, 9 and 10. Thereafter the workman was heard regarding proposed punishment and then imposed the punishment. The workman filed an appeal . The appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. The workman then preferred a mercy petition before the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank . But it was dismissed. The punishment is in no way excessive . The misconduct committed by the workman are grave in nature . The workman is not entitled for any relief.

8. The 2nd charge is that the workman with an ulterior motive to suppress forgery of signature In withdrawal slips and misappropriation of money, omitted to record the four withdrawals in the pass book ofthe customer Sri . O.K.Gopi . These acts made mention in charges 1 and 2 are alleged to be acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank under Clause 19.5(j ) of First Bipartite Settlement . The contention ofthe learned counsel for the union that charges 1 and 2 are to be clubbed together and cannot be split is not sound . One is forgery and misappropriation of money and the other charge is deliberate omission to record withdrawals in the pass book of the customer with a view to avoid the notice of the customer . Both acts are independent and distinct . One may not make sufficient entries in the books of account, yet may not misappropriate the money. In that case there is no misconduct of misappropriation . At the same time he commits the misconduct of suppressing real facts and defrauding the customer . It is an act affecting bank-customer relationship and is prejudicial to the interest of the bank . Clause 19.9 of the Bipartite Settlement refers only to imposition of punishment more than once in respect of the same charge . Since the charges 1 and 2 are separate and distinct , it is not in violation of Clause 19.9 of the Bipartite Settlement. Assuming that charges 1 and 2 are clubbed together even then the result of penalty cannot be different (being dismissal) , ifthe finding is against the charge sheeted employee.

5. Inthe light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration:

1. Are the findings of Enquiry Officer and the dissenting findings of Disciplinary Authority sustainable?

2. Is the punishment Proper?

The evidence consists ofthe oral testimony of MWI and documentary evidence of Exts .Ml to M -70 .

6. Point No.1: At the very outset the learned counsel for the union submitted that the disciplinary authority is not justified in deviating from the findings of Enquiry Officerwithout giving cogent reasons and without hearing the workman. According to the learned counsel even if the entire materials on record are weighed , no serious misconduct can be made out . Hence there is nojustification inimposing major penalty ofdismissal . The learned counsel submitted that charges 1 and 2 together make just one misconduct and they cannot be split up and such procedure is against Clause 19.9 of First Bipartite Settlement . He submitted that the 3rd charge cannot stand as there is no complaint from the account holder and no evidence to substantiate the charge . According to him charge No.10 is not treated seriously even by the disciplinary authority and the punishment of discharge alone is imposed . Hence he would contend that the penalty of dismissal is illegal .

7. Charge No. 1 is that the workman had fraudulently withdrawn Rs.3,000 each on four occasions from the

9. I will now come to the findings with regard to charges 1 and 2. Charge No.1 is that workman had forged the signature of customer Sri . O. K. Gopi in withdrawal forms and misappropriated Rs . 12,000 at different intervals . The finding of the Enquiry Officer is that the workman is not guilty of charge No.1 . But the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with him . The reasons that prompted the Enquiry Officer to hold that the workman is not guilty of charge No.1 is that the admitted signature of account holder Gopi themselves differ from his specimen signature and therefore there is no sanctity in saying that the signature in the disputed withdrawal slips (4 in number ) are different from the specimen signature. According to the Enquiry Officer the admitted signatures are not uniform . They varied from document to document . Hence it cannot be conclusively said that the signatures in withdrawal slips ( 4 in number) were subscribed by the workman forging the signature of the customer . Ext.ME- 52 is the specimen signature of the account holder . Ext. ME -47 to 50 are the four withdrawal slips . The signatures are no doubt entirely different from Ext. ME-52 specimen signature . The workman signs by writing his initial O.K. followed by the first letter of his name Gopi . These three letters are written in running hand with a line below and two dots underneath the line . It is important to note that a specimen signature is subscribed carefully by an account holder when he opens an account . But depending upon the number of transactions in the 867 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

workman himselfby forging the signature of the customer and the money was misappropriated by him. The fact that thecustomer does not want to proceed with the complainant does not mean that the workman has not committed the misconduct. The change in the attitude of the customer is a subsequent development prompted by many reasons. But he set the all rolling and it is for the bank to continue the game. The contention of the union that the non examination of the account holder is fatal to the case ofthe management is equally untenable . Normally the bankwill not drag a customer to the ordeal of enquiry lest the relationship between the customer and the bank is strained. Hence non examination ofthe account holder cannot affect the findings provided there are enough materials on record tobring home the guilt of delinquent. Hence the findings ofdisciplinary authority that charge No.1 stands proved is onlytobe sustained while the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer to the contrary has to be reversed.

10. Charge No. 2 is that the workman deliberately omittedto record withdrawals in the pass book to mislead the customer. Ext. ME 53 is the pass book. It is seen that none ofthe four withdrawals dated 04-10-1993, 22-11-1993, 01-12-1993 and 17-12-1993 are recorded. Whereas they are shown in the ledger Ext. ME- 51 . It is not due to any over sight of the workman that this had happened, but it was a deliberate act to mislead the customer as well as defraud thebankas herein before mentioned. Hence the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the 2nd charge is proved should stand and the finding of Enquiry Officer that charge No. 2 is only partly proved is unsustainable.

11. Charge No. 3 is that the worker had passed a forged withdrawal for Rs. 3,000/-from the account of Mr. C. A. Assainar on 04-12-1993 . The Enquiry Officer has found theworkman guilty ofthe charge and the disciplinary authorityhas concurred with the finding.Ext. ME-54 is the withdrawal slip. It is supposed to be signed by the account holder. Onaperusal ofthe signature in Ext. ME-54 withExt. ME-5 (specimen signature ) anyone can say that both signatures are entirely different and there is no similarityat all. The workman , was the Teller at the relevant time . It was his responsibility to verify the signature in the slip before passing the withdrawal . There can be no doubt that he had not verified the signature . The case of the management is that the slip was prepared by the workman himself. Ifso, the intention was to swindle the money . It was contended bythe learnedcounsel for the union that the customer has not given any complaint to the management alleging shortage of deposit in his account. He was also not examined. Therefore according to the union there is no evidence to prove the charge. It is true that the customer has not complained. But the management came across the discrepancy in the account ofthe customer while verifying the account ofMr. Gopi and other transactions dealtwith by the workman. It is not necessary that there should be complaint by the customer to initiate action against an employee. When the forgery came to the notice of the management , they have initiated action. It is also not necessary to examine the customer if there is enough other evidence toprove the charge . Therefore the contention of account and the frequency of transactions sometimes instruments may be signed without due care and casually. Ext. ME-53 is the pass book of the account holder. Pages 1 to21 contains , at the top left hand corner, his signature . On asimple comparison ofthe signatures in Exts.ME-52and 53with the signatures in the ME-47 to 50 anyone can say thatthe signature in Ext.ME-47 to 50 are entirely different from the signatures in Exts . ME- 52 and 53. However the case ofthe union as well as the reasoning of the Enquiry Officerthat the admitted signatures ofthe account holder in Exts. DE-3 to 14 and Ext. ME-4do not tally with Ext. ME-52 specimen signature of the account holder is not correct. Slight variation is bound to be there in anyone's signature put at different periods . But the style ofwriting the signature in Exts . DE-3 to 14 is more or less similarto the specimensignature in Exts . ME-52. That is not the case with regardtothe signatures in Exts . ME-47 to 50 (disputed signatures) .The Enquiry Officer has not carefully compared the signatures in Exts.DE-3 to 14 with the specimen signature in Ext. ME-52. There was a complaint from the customer that there is shortage in his account and that he had not withdrawn Rs.12,000 on the alleged four dates. Ext. ME-53 pass book does not reflect the withdrawals on the allegeddates on 04-10-1993, 22-11-1993, 01-12-1993 and 17-12-1993. Ext. ME-45 is the complaint ofthe customer. Ext. ME-51 is the ledger copy ofthe account ofMr. Gopi for the period from 01-02-1993 to 25-01-1994. The four disputed withdrawals are recorded in.Ext. ME- 51 ledger. Subsequenttransactions done by Mr. Gopi are recorded in hispass book by the workman himself. Yet he did not think it necessary to record the four withdrawals in the pass book. He must have noticed the difference in the balance in the account when entries were made in the ledger on subsequent dates. Ext. ME-53 pass book ofMr. Gopi shows that he was in the habit of depositing small sums almost everydayandused to withdraw certain amounts at frequent intervals. The workman was a Teller. It was his duty to verify the signature ofthe account holder in the withdrawal slips before theywere passed for payment. He shouldhave compared signature with the specimen signature , Ext. ME-52 . The workman alone is responsible regarding the withdrawals. He should explain how it had happened. The accountholder had given Ext. ME-45 complaint to theBank Manager complaining shortage of Rs.12,000/- in his account. There was a discussion with the account holder in the presence of Bank Manager and other officers ofthe bank on 26-01-94 . Ext. ME-46 is minutes ofthe discussion. HoweverMr. Gopi in his letter sent to bank Ext.DE-19 (marked in Court as Ext. ME-68 ) though admits thatthere was adiscussion between him and the officers of the bank, he does not admit his statements in the minutes Ext. ME -46 . According to him he had given a complaint dated 25-01-1994 (Ext . ME-45) to the bank due to a misunder-standing created on account of absence of relevant entries in the pass book and now that he has received the entire amount deposited by him he does not wanttoproceedwith the complaint. Thus the complaint is admittedby Mr. Gopi. The documentary evidence Exts. ME45 to53 and the oral testimony ofMW- 1 and 3 leave no room for doubt that the withdrawals were done by the 868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] the learned counsel cannot stand. I have already found that the signature in Ext. ME- 54 is entirely different from the specimen signature Ext . ME- 5 and the workman being the Teller he has to explain how the withdrawal was permitted. In the absence of any convincing explanation and in the light of the evidence on record he alone can be held responsible.

12. Charge No. 4 is that the workman had borrowed large sums of money from bank's customers misusing his position as a bank employee . It is alleged that,

(1) He borrowed Rs . 5,000/- on 11-12-1993 from Mr. M. K. Abdul Khader , an account holder of the bank .

Mr. M.T. Joseph by the workman. She also says that using withdrawal slip dated 09-11-1993 for Rs . 3,500/-(Ext .ME- 10) the workman had withdrawn Rs . 3,500/- from the account of Mr. K.C.S. Menon . According to her this is also evidencedby Ext . ME-61 Miscellaneous payment register. Itis alleged that some money was borrowed from Mr. Gopi . According to the disciplinary authority the charge stands proved by Ext . ME- 46 minutes of discussion . But the contends ofExt. ME-46 is under challenge in view ofExt . ME-68 letter of Mr. Gopi . Whatever that be, the other borrowings from other account holders are proved and the disciplinary authority has rightly found that the workman incurred debts in excess of his means to repay .

(2) He borrowed Rs . 2,000/- on 22-11-1993from Mr. C. P. Menon , another customer of the bank .

(3) A sum ofRs . 2,000/- was borrowed on 21-10-1993 from Mr. Pradeep Kumar T. , an account holder .

13. Charge No.5 is that the workman was habitually irregular in attendance . This charge is found partly proved bothbyEnquiry Officer and by the Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary authority did not impose any separate punishment forthis charge.

(4) Rs . 6,260/- was borrowed on 09-11-1993 from Mr. M.T. Joseph .

(5) On 09-11-1993 Rs . 3,500/- was borrowed by the worker from Mr. K.C.S. Menon, an account holder .

(6) He also borrowed large sums of money on various dates from customer Mr. O.K. Gopi .

14. Charge No.6 is that the workman had issued several cheques without maintaining enough balance in his account and as a result the cheques were returned for insufficient balance . The enquiry Officer found that the management had established dishonour of six cheques for want offunds in workman's account. However according to the Enquiry Officer there is no evidence to show that the dishonour of cheques had tarnished the image of the bank. Hence it is found by the Enquiry Officer that the charge is not proved . Ext . ME -24 is outward cheque return register. It shows that six cheques were returned unpaid. Ext. ME- 25 ledger extract of the account of the worker shows that on the dates when cheques were presented for payment enough balance was not there in his account to honour the cheques and so the cheques were returned . MW- 1 and 2 support the case of management. It is on the basis of this evidence that the disciplinary authority differed with the finding ofEnquiry Officer and held that the charge is proved and awarded the punishment ofwarning . There is no reason todeviate from the findings of the disciplinary authority.

This conduct of the worker is alleged to be a minor misconduct under Clause 19.7 ( 1) of Bipartite Settlement . The Enquiry Officer found that charge is not proved. According to him the customer who was examined on the defence side as DW- 1 had stated that he had entrusted the withdrawal slip after signing it to the workman as he was in a hurry to go . The amount withdrawn was received subsequently from the workman . Hence he has no grievance . Similarly some of the other alleged lenders too have the same stand. There is only oral evidence of the Bank Manager and Accountant in support of the charge. However the disciplinary authority differed with the finding ofEnquiry Officer and held that the charge is proved . Ext . ME-6 iswithdrawal slip for Rs.5000/- signed by Mr. M. K. Abdul Khader. On the reverse side the workman has signed . Thisis admitted by DW 1 , the account holder himself. The person who signed on the reverse side of the slip has received the money. MW - 1 Mrs. Anna Koshy, who was the sub -accountant of H.S.S. department has given evidence that the amount as per Ext. ME-6 was received by the workman . She also stated that a businessman like Mr. Abdul Khader would not present a withdrawal slip without signing on its reverse side . He knows the consequence of not signing on the reverse side of the withdrawal slip . The intention is clear that the amount was meant for the workman. Similarly according to MW - 1 Ext . ME- 7 withdrawal slip for Rs . 2,000/- signedby Mr. С.Р. Menon was entrusted to the workman , who signed on its reverse side and received the payment . MW - 5 Mrs. N.Krishnaveni . Clerk of the bank has deposed that as per Ext. ME 61 Miscellaneous payment register of the date 09-11-1993 a cheque for Rs . 6,260/- (Ext .ME- 9 ) was encashed and withdrawn from the account of

15. Charge No. 7 is that the workman had issued as many as 10 cheques without providing enough balance in his account to meet those cheques and as a result the. cheques could be honoured only after remittance of cash by the workman in his account . Details of cheques with numbers, dates , date of payment and the amount are mentioned in the charge sheet , Ext . ME-3 . According to the management the workman borrowed indiscriminately without ascertaining his capacity for repayment and incurred debts in excess of his means to repay . The Enquiry Officer found that though the cheques were honoured only after remittance of the cash into the account by the workman none of the cheques were returned for want of funds .Hence theEnquiry Officer concluded that the workman could meet hiscommitments and so the charge is not proved. However the disciplinary authority differed with the finding . Ext . ME-25 is ledger extract of the account of the workman. It shows that the remittances were made into the account of the workman on nine occasions by Exts . ME-26, 27 , 28, 29, 30, 55, 56, 57 and 58 credit slips . The amounts thus remitted 869 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

were the same as in the cheques . MW- 1 says that it is after remittances of the amounts that the cheques could be honouredbythe bank. The disciplinary authority has found that most of the cheques were for small sums and even those cheques could not be honoured for want of sufficient funds until remittances were made by the workman. Hence the disciplinary authority found that the workman was not able to repay the debts and he had borrowed money in excess of his capacity to repay and has committed misconduct under Clause 19.7 ( 1 ) of the First Bipartite Settlement for which he was punished with warning . I find no reason todeviate from the finding of the disciplinary authority.

16. Charge No. 8 is that the workman misused the overdraft facility sanctioned to him at concessional rate of interest being a bank employee and had drawn money exceeding the limit. The Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority found that the charge is not proved and therefore this court need not record any finding regarding charge No.8 .

that though both pages are dated 17-06-1994 they were receivedby thebank on 24-06-1994. The first page ofExt . ME- 60 is seen concluded with the concluding word sincerely and signature and the name of the author underneath. The 2nd page is also concluded with the word sincerely with signature and name. Both are written with two inks . In the first page of Ext. ME-60 MW- 4 has mentioned that he was abused by the workman on 15-06-1994 . But the words of abuse are not quoted . They are mentioned in page 2 of Ext. ME- 60. Probably to supplement the first page ofExt. ME- 60 that the 2nd page was added later. Whatever be the correctness of Ext: ME 60 the BankManager MW3 has testified that the workman abused the armed guard while the former was in the cabin of the Bank Manager . There is no reason to disbelieve a responsible officer like the Bank Manager especiallywhen there is no ill will towards the workman. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the finding that he is guilty imposed punishment ofdischarge from service . There are no convincing reason to take a different view regarding chargeNo. 10.

In the light of the reasons stated above I hold that the findings ofthe disciplinary authority that charges 1 , 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 stand proved, charge No.5 partly proved and charge No. 8 is not proved , are only to be confirmed.

19. Point No. 2 : The punishment imposed are:

Charge No. (1 ) : Dismissal from service without notice under Clause 19.6( a) of First Bipartite Settlement.

(2) : -do-

(3) : -do-

(4) : Warning under Clause 19.8 (a ) .

(5) : No penalty.

(6) Warning under Clause 19.8 ( a) .

(7) : -do-

(8) : No penalty.

(9): Stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect under Clause 19.6(d) .

(10) : Discharge from Bank's service under Clause 19.6(e).

17. Charge No.9 is that the workman extended overdraft facility in H.S.S. accounts to four account holders irregularly and unauthorisedly and his acts are prejudicial tothe interest ofthe bank. The Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority have found that the workman had no powers to allow account holders to overdraw amounts beyond the limit. He should have taken approval ofthe concerned officer . Ext. ME-37 is the ledger folio of accountofMr. S.P. Iyer. Ext. ME-36 is a selfcheque issued by Sr. S.P. Iyer and was debited in the account on 23-08-1993, as there was no credit balance in his account. So also as per Ext. ME- 38 cheque an amount of Rs.2000 was overdrawn by Sri . C.K. Gopalakrishnan from his account 2080. It can be seen from Ext. ME- 39 ledger sheet . Similarly from the account ofSri . P.A. Muhammed Rs.6,000 was overdrawn by Ext . ME- 40 withdrawal slip on 04-10-1993 and is evidenced by Ext. ME-41 ledger folio. Similarly Sri . Pradeep Kumar overdrew Rs . 17,000 from his H.S.S. account No , 4735 as per cheque dated 20-11-1993 (Ext. ME-42). This is seen from Ext . ME-43 ledger folio. Since the overdraft in excess of the limit was allowed by the workman without approval it is an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank under Clause 19.5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement. The learned counsel for the union has not been able topoint out any infirmity in the finding.

20. The penalty ofdismissal is imposed in respect of the gross misconduct. It is pleaded in para 15 of the claim statement by the union that the workman has an unblemished service of 22 years in the bank, out ofwhich hewas aTeller for more than 10 years . His remaining service period as in 1995 is 16 years . He has a family consisting of widowed mother , wife and two school going female children who all depend on him . His sole source of income was from the bank . He has no other employment . The family background and the mitigating circumstances cannot lightenthe seriousness of the misconduct which are many. The workman was holding a responsible post of Teller , who is expected to have utmost honesty and integrity. The irregularities and misconduct committed by him cannot be condoned by a banking institution which is functioning onthe strength of the confidence and trust of the public . The learned counsel for the management on the basis of 18. Charge No. 10 is that the workman had abused the armed guard ofbank on 15-06-1994 in the presence of theBankManager while in the cabin ofthe Manager. It is alleged to be a gross misconduct under Clause 19.5 (c) of theBipartite Settlement. Both the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary officer found the workman guilty of the charge . But according to the learned counsel for the union the workman had not used any filthy language as alleged in the charge. Hewas provoked by the armed guard and there was some exchange of words between them and nothing more. Ext. ME- 60 is a complaint given by armed guard (MW4)to theBank Manager. The complaint is purported tohave two pages . But on perusal ofExt . ME-60 it is seen 870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

M-10 Photocopy ofWithdrawal slip dated 21-10-1993 for Rs . 2000 of HSS A/c . No.4735 of Mr. Pradeep Kumar (ME-8) .

M- 11- Photocopy of Cheque No.43089 dated 09-11-1993 for Rs . 6260 of A/c . No.6053 of Mr. M. T. Joseph (ME- 9).

M-12 Photocopy ofWithdrawal slip of Rs.3,500 dated 09-11-1993 of A/ c . No. 7100 of Mr. K. C. S. Menon (ME-10).

the decision in SBI v. S.N. Goyal (2008 ) 8 SCC 92 submitted that once the enquiry is found proper it is not for the court tointerferewith the punishment. In para 23 of the judgment it is held that when enquiry is found fair and valid it is not proper for the court to interfere with the punishment . In SouthIndianBank Limited v. Krishna Kumar 2006 ( 1 ) KLT S.N. 17 it is held that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 11 -A of Industrial Disputes Act is not a jurisdiction ofsympathy and it is only when the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct that the labour court can interfere with the punishment.

M-13 Photocopy of Muster Roll for the period November, 1992 of Alwaye Branch of clerical staff(ME-11 ) .

M-14

21. In the light ofthe above observation as well as in the face of too many major misconduct affecting the reputation ofthe bank and touching the trust of the public in the bank, I think no interference in the punishment is called for in this case .

Photocopy of Muster Roll for the period December, 1992 of Alwaye Branch of clerical staff (ME- 12).

M-15 Photocopy of Muster Roll for January, 1993 of AlwayeBranchofclerical staff (ME- 13 ).

M- 16

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in dismissing Sri.M.M. Nandakumar from the service of the bank is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any relief.

Photocopy of Muster Roll for February, 1993 ofAlwaye Branch ofclerical staff (ME- 14) .

M-17

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Photocopy of Muster Roll for March , 1993 of Alwaye Branch ofclerical staff (ME- 15) .

M-18- Photocopy of Muster Roll for April , 1993 of Alwaye Branch of clerical staff (ME- 16).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 7thday of November, 2008 .

M-19

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Photocopy of Muster Roll for May, 1993 of AlwayeBranch ofclerical staff (ME - 17) .

Appendix

M-20

Nil

Witness for the Union

Photocopy of Muster Roll for June , 1993 of AlwayeBranchofclerical staff (ME - 18) .

Witness for the Management

M-21

MWI 10-12-2003

Shri . K. Sankarayyar

Photocopy of Muster Roll for July, 1993 of AlwayeBranch ofclerical staff (ME- 19) .

Nil.

Exhibit for the Union

M-22

Exhibits for the Management

Photocopy ofMuster Roll for August, 1993 of Alwaye Branch ofclerical staff (ME- 20).

M-23

M- 1 Enquiry File.

Photocopy ofMuster Roll for September, 1993 ofAlwayeBranch of clerical staff (ME - 21 ) .

M-2

M-24 Photocopy ofMuster Roll for January, 1994 of AlwayeBranch ofclerical staff (ME- 22) .

File containing documents of enquiry , proceedings of Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.

M-3

M-25 Leave record of Mr. Nandakumar of Alwaye Branch for 1992, 1993 & 1994 (ΜΕ-23).

Photocopy ofMemo No. CRO : PRS : 94-95/842 dated 22-06-1994 (ΜΕ- 1 ).

M-4

M-26

Photocopy ofMemo No. CRO: PRS : 94-95/ 1196 dated 25-07-1994 (ΜΕ-2).

Outward cheque return register of Alwaye Branch Pages 14 & 15,20-21,32 & 33,34 & 35 (ME-24).

M-5

M-27

Photocopy of Charge sheet No. CRO: PRS : 94-95/ 1556 dated 24-08-1994 (ME- 3 ) .

M-6

Ledger extract ofa O/D A/c of Mr. Nandakumar covering the period September 7 , 1991 to 25-02-1994 (ME-25).

Photocopy ofWithdrawal slip dated 03-01-1994 forRs . 300 of HSS 6237 ofO.K.Gopi (ME-4).

M-28

M-7

Remittance chalan for Rs . 700 dated 31-07-1993 ofO/D . A/ c . of Mr. Nanda kumar (ME- 26) .

Photostat copy of specimen signature card of Account No. 6277 of S.A. Assainar (ME-5) .

M-29

M-8

Photocopy of remittance chalan for Rs . 700 dated 10-08-1993 of O/D . A/ c . of Mr. Nanda kumar (ME-27).

Photocopy ofWithdrawal slip dated 11-12-1993 for Rs . 5000 of HSS A/c . 576 of Mr. Μ . Κ . Abdulkhader(ME -6) .

M-9

M-30

Photocopy ofWithdrawal slip dated 22-11-1993 for Rs . 2000 of HSS 1769 of Mr. C. P: Menon (ME- 7) .

Photocopyofremittance chalan for Rs.700 dated 05-11-1993 of O/D. A/ c . of Mr. Nandakumar (ME-28).

871

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

M-50- Photocopy of withdrawal slip dated 22-11-1993 ofHSS A/ c . 6237 of Mr. O.K. Gopi . (ME-48 ).

M-31 Photocopy of remittance chalan for Rs.250/- dated 04-01-1994 of O/D . A/c . of Mr. Nandakumar (ME-29).

M-51 Photocopy ofwithdrawal slip dated 01-12-1993. ofHSS A/c . 6237 ofMr. O.K. Gopi . (ME-49) .

M-32 Photocopy of remittance chalan for Rs. 10500/- dated06-01-1994 of Mr. Nandakumar (ME-30). M-52 Photocopy ofwithdrawal slip dated 17-12-1993 ofHSS A/ c . 6237 ofMr. O.K. Gopi . (ME- 50).

M-33 Photocopyofcheque No. 691 for Rs .700/-drawn byMr. Nandakumar (ME- 31) .

M-53 Photocopy ofledger extract ofHSS A/c . 6237 of O.K. Gopi of the period from 04-10-1993 to 10.01.1994 (ME-51 ).

M-34 Photocopy ofcheque No. 694 for Rs.700/-drawn byMr. Nandakumar (ME- 32).

M-54 Photocopy of specimen signature card of HSS 6237 ofMr. O.K. Gopi . (ME- 52).

M-35 Photocopy of cheque No. 1337 for Rs.250/- drawnbyMr. Nandakumar (ME- 33) .

M-55 Photocopy of Pass book of HSS 6237, of Mr. O.K. Gopi (ME-53).

M-36 Photocopy of cheque No. 1514 for Rs . 10,500/- drawnbyMr. Nandakumar (ME- 34).

M-56 Photocopy of withdrawal slip dated 04-12-1993 for Rs . 3,000/-ofHSS 6277 ( ME-54) .

M-57 Photocopy of remittance chalan 05-07-1993 for OD A/c. ofMr. Nandakumar (ME -55) .

M-37 Photocopy of Regional Office sanction No.CRO: ADV : 9293/216 dated 01-06-1992 for Rs.7,600/- in favour of Mr. Nandakumar (ME-35).

M-58 Photocopy of remittance chalan dated 08-07-1993 of OD A/c . of Mr. Nandakumar (ME- 56).

M-38 Photocopy of cheque No.040053 dated 23-08-1993 of Account No.1034 of S. P. Iyer (ME-36).

M-39 Photocopyof ledger extract ofA/c. 1034 covering the period 23-08-1993 (ΜΕ-37).

M-59 Photocopy of remittance chalan dated 08-09-1993 of OD A/ c . of Mr. Nandakumar (ME- 57).

M-40 Photocopy ofcheque No.42831 dated 25-10-1993 ofAccount No.2080 of Shri . C.K. Gopalakrishnan Nair for Rs.2000/- (ΜΕ-38 ).

M-60 Photocopy of remittance chalan dated 02-11-1993 of OD, A/ c . of Mr. Nandakumar (ME-58).

M-41 Photocopy of ledger extract ofHSS 2080 ofShri . C. K. Gopalakrishnan covering the period 25-10-1993 (ME-39).

M-61 Photocopy of Teller payment register 04-10-1993 , 22-11-1993 , 01-12-1993 and 17-12-1993 (ME- 59) .

M-42 Photocopy ofwithdrawal slip dated 04-10-1993 ofHSS 5497 of Mr. P.A. Mohammed(ME-40) .

M-62 Letter dated 07-06-1994 from Mr. Chithran (ME-60).

M-43 Photocopy of ledger extract of HSS 5497 of Mr.P.A. Mohammed (ME-41 ).

M-63 Copy ofcashpayment register dated 09-11-1993. ofAlwaye Branch (ME-61 ).

: M-64 Photocopy ofoffice order book 1993-1994, Pages 40,41,42 and44 (DE- 1).

M-44 Photocopy of cheque No. 25060 dated 20-11-1993 ofAccount 4735 ofMr.Pradeepkumar (ME-42).

M-65 Photocopy of the relevant pages of the TOD register(DE- 2).

M-45 Photocopy of ledger extract of HSS 4735 (ME-43).

M-66- Photocopy of Head Office Circular No.CO : 93-94: 355 dated 26-11-1993 (DE- 17).

M-46 Photocopy of ledger extract of 6277 of C.A.Assainar of the period from 24-05-1993 to 12-03-1994 (ME-44).

M-67 Photocopy ofHead Office Circular No.CO/88/ 396dated04-08-1988 (DE- 18) .

M-47 Photocopy of statement of Mr. Gopi dated 25-01-1994 (ME-45).

M-68 Photocopy of letter of O.K. Gopi dated 16-02-1994 (DE- 19) .

M-48 Photocopy of statement of Mr.Gopi dated 26-01-1994(ME -46).

M-69 Photocopy of cash payment register of Central Bank ofIndia, Alwaye Branch dated 09-11-1993 (DE-20). :

M-70 Photocopy of muster roll of officers and sub staff forthe month ofJanuary 1994 (DE-21 ) .

10 Photocopy ofwithdrawal slip dated 04-10-1993 ofHSS A/ c . 6237 for Rs . 3000/-of Mr. O.K.Gopi . ME-47).

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

M.Jan.

For the 1st Party-Management नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2009

No. 2

Shri Sanatan Das

Forthe 2nd Party-Himself-the workman.

AWARD

का. आ 446. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, नाबारद के प्रबंध तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/ 185/2005 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour , in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub - sec- tion ( 1) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have referred the following disputes for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 12011 / 185/ 2005- IR(B - II ), dated 17-05-2006.

New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009

"Whether the action of the Management of NABARD in terminating the services of Shri Sanatan Das, Electrician , by way ofrefusing employment even after rendering continuous service of 15 years and without complying Section - 25 (F) of the I.D. Act, 1947 islegal andjustified ? Ifnot, what reliefthe work- man is entitled to ?"

S.O. 446. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.10/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of NABARD and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12011 / 185 /2005 - IR ( B- II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

2. Alleging to have been illegally terminated , the workman raised an Industrial Dispute against the Manage- ment resulting in the present reference . In his Claim State- ment filed before the Tribunal it is alleged by the disputant that the Management of NABARD having employed him initially on 1-10-1990 as an Electrician placed him subse- quently under different contractors and ultimately termi- nated him through the contractor M/s . Well Tech (Man- agement No. 2) ignoring the fact that by then he had al- readyworked for more than 14 years .

PRESENT

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra , Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. -cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar

Industrial Dispute Case No. 10/2006

Date of Passing Award- 14th November , 2008

BETWEEN

1. The Management of the Chief General Manager, NABARD , Plot No. 2/1 , Civic Centre , Nayapalli , Bhubaneswar , Orissa .

2. The Proprietor , M/ s . Well Tech , Plot No. 3564, Palasuni (NH Side), Rasulgarh , Bhubaneswar, Orissa .

1st Party -Managements .

3. In reply to the above stand of the workman both the Managements filed their Written Statement separately. To speak in short , the Management No. 1 (NABARD) took the stand that the workman was never engaged by that Management and that if at all he had worked as an Electri- cian he must have been engaged by some contractors who used to take such contract from time to time for electrical work . The Management No. 2 M/ s . Well Tech took the stand that having taken the contract from Management No. 2 to attend to petty electrical work as and when re- quired , he engaged the disputant as a sub- contractor to look after the above needs of Management No. I in consid- eration of a fixed sum . But as he did not attend to the requirements of the Management sincerely and refused to go to other site , his dues were paid off on full and final settlement and was discharged from the obligation of be- ing called a sub -contractor .

And

Their Workman Shri Sanatan Das , Plot No. LIG- 6 / 1 , BDA Colony, Phase - I , Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar, Orissa .

4. Thus on the basis of the above pleadings of both theManagements that the workman was not a paid worker under any of them but was merely a sub- contractor of Management No.2, the folowing issuess were framed:

2nd Party- Workman .

ISSUES

APPEARANCES

A.V. Shimpi , D.G.M..

1. Whether the workman was employed as a Electri- cian by the NABARD for a period of 15 years con- tinuously?

Forthe Ist Party -Management No. 1 873 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

2. Whether the workman was engaged as a sub -con- tractor by M/ s . Well Tech, a contractor of NABARD ?

reference does not specify the name of the employers on the date of termination/retrenchment the same would be bad for vagueness . Therefore , for not specifying the date of termination of the disputant in the present reference is otherwise held to be bad in the eye of law.

3. Whether the termination of workman was made by NABARD and if so , whether the same was legal and justified?

4. Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

10. However, in my view of the matter the disputant for the discussions made earlier , is not entitled for any relief and, accordingly, the reference is answered exparte against him with no relief.

11. The reference is answered accordingly.

5. For remaining absent and not taking any steps either himself or through any authorized representative, the workman was set ex parte and the evidence of both the Managements was recorded and documents produced by them were marked as Ext. 1 , 1/1 and Ext. -2.

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer IssueNo. 1 to 4

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY - UNION ,

6.All these issues are taken up together as they are inter-linked.

The 2nd Party-Union has not examined a Single Witness . LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARY -WORKMAN.

The 2nd Party -Union has not exhibited a single document . LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALFOF THE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENTNO.2

From the evidence adduced by the Managements it appears that the workman was never engaged as an Elec- trician by Management No.1 . The claim statement of the workman on the other hand indicates that he was working under different contractor and, therefore , it can not be be- lieved that he could have been terminated by that .Man- agementNo.1 .

M.W. -I - Shri A.V. Shimpi

M.W. -2 -Shri M. Jan.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENT NOS.1 & 2

Ext.- 1 Details ofpayment made toM/ s . Well Tech. Ext. - 1 /1 Details of TDS for the year 2004-2005.

Ext. -2- Payment voucher.

नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 447.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , मुंबई सं 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/172/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 7.The evidence ofManagement No. 2 shows that he had taken a contract from Management No.1 for time to timemaintenance ofthe Electric fittings of various residen- tial quarters of Management No. I during 2003 to 2005 and thathe was possessed an electrical contract license granted by Chief Electrical Inspector , Government of Orissa . But he had not obtained any license under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act since he was running with his contractory business engaged two paid employees only. His evidence further shows that after taking the con- tract from Management No. 1 for maintenance of Electrical fittings and appliances of various residential quarters , he entrusted the said work to the workman , as his sub-con- tractor for an agreed sum of Rs . 2000 per month . One such payment voucher produced by the Management marked as Ext. -2 shows that in fact , the disputant was working as a sub -contractor of Management No. 2 and that he has al- ready been paid his dues on 10-3-2005 in full satisfaction ofhis claim .

. [सं. एल-12012/100/1999- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th January , 2009 8. Thus in these premises , especially in the absence of any cogent evidence produced by the disputant it can- not be said that the disputant was an employee of Man- agement No. 2 and that he was terminated illegally by the said Management in violation of Section 25 -F ofthe Indus- trial Disputes Act.

S.O. 447. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.2/ 172/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12012/100/1999- IR (B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer 9. Furthermore it should not be lost sight of the fact that while making a reference the Government should be- stow great care so as to obviate refrrences which are base- less and do not represent the actual dispute between the parties. It should , therefore carefully formulate the points ofdispute clearly to avoid ambiguity or prejudice or ad- vantage to one or the other party . Therefore , if an order of 874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/172 of 1999

Employers in Relation to the Management of Central Bank ofIndia

The Regional Manager ,

CBI, Regional Office,

FirstParty ChandekarMukhi , Nariman Point , Mumbai 400 021 .

V/s.

Their Workmen

Central Bank Employees Association

Second Party TheGeneral Secretary, CBEA, Central Bank Bldg . No. 2, East Wing, 4th floor; Hutatma Chowk , M.G. Road, Mumbai 400 023 .

APPEARANCE

: Mr. L.L. D'souza, Representative FortheEmployer

For the Workmen : Mr. A.P. Kulkarni , Advocate .

Date ofreserving the Award : 12-6-2008.

Dateofpassing the Award: 16-12-2008 .

AWARD- PART II

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under :

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 12012/ 100/ 1999 IR( B - II ) , dated 23rd August, 1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action ofthe Central Bank of India by inflicting the punishment for stopping of one incre- ment for one year besides permanent withdrawal of the Special Assistance Allowance of Shri P.K. Kulkarni is justified ? If not , then to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. Workman Shri P.K. Kulkarni was working as Special Assistant in the Central Bank of India , Churchgate Branch in the year 1994. The Central Bank Employees Association vide Statement of Claim ( Exhibit -4) contended that workman had an unblemished service record . He was issued charge sheet dated 17th August , 1994 alleging that on 10-2-1994 he afforded a fictitious credit entry ofRs.500 in his Overdraft Account No.300382 to facilitate payment of cheque No. 81304 for Rs.244.75 Ps . Which entry was subsequently

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

reversed as contra entry on the same day and that on 11-2-1994 he posted a fictitious credit entry of Rs.6,000 in his Overdraft Act. No.300383 which amount was transferred on 11-2-1996 to his O.D. A/ c . No.300382 to reduce the outstanding debit balance from 25,107.75 to Rs . 19,107.75 in order to enable him to withdraw cash of Rs.1000 by cheque No.81306 for Rs.264 and cheque Nos . 81302 and 81303 for Rs.2,100 each, further alleging that the fictitious entry of Rs, .6,000was reversed by him on 22-2-1994 by manipulating the same on back dated transactions of 11-2-1994 and that he prepared the relative supporting vouchers of the said entries in his own handwriting . It is contended that Mr.R.N. Iyer conducted the inquiry of the charges as above and that he held charges not proved, vide his finding and report dated 21-4-1994 . It is pleaded that , the inquiry officer pointed out that , the entries were nothing but merely certain operational mistake and that bank did not suffer any loss because of the over- draft accounts . He further found that , the said entries were not made with animus . However , inspite of this clear cut findings of having workman not guilty the Displinary Authority vide their Memo dated 29th April, 1995 disagreeing with the findings held that, the charges as alleged are proved and consequently sought explanation of workman and that, by the letter dated 15th July, 1995 imposed punishment on the workman as reduction to a lower scale in the scale of pay by one year and withdrawal of his special allowance under the Bipartite settlement . It is contended appeal against the same was rejected on 15th January , 1996. It is contended the punishment imposed was against the four corners of law and therefore the action of the Management is illegal . It is contended that , the findings of the Disciplinary Authority arenot based on the evidence before him and consequently Union contended to set aside the order of punishment imposed by the Management , and consequently relief of payment ofnatural increment , special allowance be awarded .

3.Management Central Bank of India opposed the claim ofthe Union by filing Written Statement ( Exhibit 5) contending that , the findings recorded by the inquiry officer were not as per the record and the evidence, and therefore Disciplinary Authority did not concur with the findings and therefore directed the workman to make his submissions and that considering his submissions dated 26th May, 1995 and the inquiry proceedings the, Disciplinary Authority , bythe order dated 15th July , 1995 imposed the punishments reproduced supra. It is contended that , charges alleged and proved against the workman were serious enough to merit the punishment of dismissal from service , however , with a view to give opportunity to reform and correct himself, a lenient view was taken on imposing punishment by way of reduction is contended that , the findings of the DisciplinaryAuthority are based on the evidence before it and that, the action was totally justified.

4. On the basis of the pleadings my Ld. Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 8 and decided Part I Award on the 875 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

point of findings, holding the findings of the Disciplinary Authority not based on the evidence , by order dated 31-1-2002.

5. Then remaining Issues i.e. issue of action of Management in effecting punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year and permanently withdrawal of Special Assistance Allowance whether is justified is taken into consider which I answer as follows:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

3.Whether the action of the Management in inflicting the punishment of stopping of one increment for one year besides Permanent withdrawal ofthe Special . Assistants ' Allowance ofthe workman is justified?

2nd Party entitled to

4.Ifnot, what reliefthe work- man is entitled to?

increment and permanent Special Assistants Allowance of his post.

ISSUE NO . 2 &3:

OverDraft Account No.382 showed a debit balance of Rs.24,863 . He states that, said entry was fictitious credit entry. He states that , on the same date a fictitious credit entry ofRs.500 was made by the concerned workman in his said account to facilitate him to upgrade the said amount to Rs.25,000 to enable him to utilize the said amount . Aş a result ofthat, he was able to show balance of Rs.25, 107.25 in his Over Draft Account No.382 . He was also having another Over Draft Account No.383 . It shows that, there is also a fictitious credit entry ofRs.6000 . He made that , entry to enable him to show over draft limit of that account . In fact said amount was not deposited but he shown fictitious entry ofRs.55,895.75 in the account No.383 and made some fictitious entries in the said over draft accounts . The concerned Workman made said fictitious entries in theOver Draft account without the permission of the authorities . Even he admitted having made those entries and as such charges lèveled against the concerned workman were proved. Enquiry Officer has wrongly observed that, the charges leveled against the concerned Workman are not proved. In the cross this witness states that , he feels there is provision of such multiple punishment . He admits that, Mr.Iyer was the Enquiry Officer who concluded in the enquiry holding that the concerned workman not guilty of the charges. He states that, he differed from the findings of the Enquiry Officer Mr. Iyer . He states that, he has not mentioned anything about reply given by the concerned workman to the charge sheet . He admits that, he has not quoted any evidence of the Management while changing the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer . He admits that, no fresh material was brought on record by the Management when hetook decision on the finding given by the Enquiry Officer . He states that, he has not considered the evidence of the witnesses . He states that, he applied his mind on the charges leveled against the concerned workman and gave finding accordingly . He admits that , no additional material wasbrought before him by the Bank to reverse the finding of the Enquiry Officer . He admits that, no additional evidence was led by the Bank at the time of giving finding by me. He admits that, the nothing was intimated to the concerned workman while issuing notice by him and the point on which he was to decide the finding of the Enquiry Officer. He admits that, no any criminal proceedings were initiated against the concerned workman . He states that , he has not mentioned in his finding about the loss suffered by theBank as a result of the 2nd Party. He states that, he has casted burden on the charge sheeted employee to disprove the charges leveled against him. On that, the concerned workman filed affidavit at Exhibit 55 and tried to explain how decision given by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. by Mr. Kapoor is not just and proper and how his finding is perverse? He admits that, he was having two Over Draft Accounts viz. 382 and 383. He states that, the limit ofO.D. A/c . No.382 was Rs.50,000 and Over Draft limit ofO.D. A/cNo.383 was Rs.25,000 . He states that, the Enquiry Officer has considered the evidence and observed that, he was not 6. In support of the action taken by the 1st Party and as per the directions of my Predecessor, 1st Party was asked to justify the action of stoppage of one increment for one year and permanently withdrawal of Special Assistants' Allowance , 1st Party examined Salish Chander Kapoor at Exhibit 53 who states that, the Disciplinary Authoritywho took decision on the findings of the Enquiry Officerobserving finding given by the Enquiry Officerwere not correct. Disciplinary Authority changed the finding of the EnquiryOfficer, holding concerned workman was guilty ofthe charges leveled against him and the finding given bythe Enquiry Officer were not correct finding . He gave punishment ofstoppage of one increment and for one year and permanently withdrawal of Special Assistance Allowance which 2nd Party was gettir.g . He states that, the concerned workman was issued Charge sheet dated 17thAugust, 1994 for the misconduct as mentioned in the said charge sheet . He states that, the concerned workman participated in the Enquiry which was concluded after giving him full opportunity and that, the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justiceand the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. He states that, he did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer . He states that, concerned workman while working as a ALPM Operator at Churchgate Branch hadmade fictitious credit entry of Rs.500 in his Over Draft Account No.382. Said over draft account was havingD.P. limitof Rs:25,000 . He states that, from the said account on 11-12-2002 and on 10-2-1994 the concerned Workman's 876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/ PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] guilty of the charges . He states that , Mr. Kapoor on his own took decision in holding him guilty without any additional evidence .According to 2nd Party, in fact Mr. Kapoor was not having any reason not to concur with the finding of the enquiry and set aside the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer and give finding andtake different opinion than taken by the EnquiryOfficer . On that 2nd Party closed evidence by filing closing purshis at Exhibit 56 .

7. 1st Party submitted written arguments at Exhibit 57 with citations and that of 2nd Party by filing written argumentsat Exhibit 59 with citations .

8. Question before us is whether the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority , Mr. Kapoor , of changing decision on inquiry finding and stopping one increment for one year and withdrawing permanently Special Assistance Allowance is just and proper?

9. The charge of misusing over draft facility is leveled against the concerned workman. It is admitted position that , the concerned workman was having over draft Account Nos . 382 and 383 with the over draft limit of Rs.25,000 and Rs.50,000 respectively . Evidence of the Enquiry Officer who acquitted the concerned workman from the charges is only on record. Mr. lyer was the Enquiry Officer , Management filed it at Exhibit 9. Said Mr. Iyer gave finding on Charge No.1 that the transaction at the most can be error than a deliberate act of effecting said credit entry and that, it is not proved . He observed that , Charge No.2 was in the nature of the mistake committed by the concerned workman and not in the nature of misconduct . He also observed that , there was no motive behind this transaction . He states that, he visited on very day the Bank to verify the entries of reversing the amount in so far as in respect of charge No.2 was unintentional . These reasons given by the Enquiry Officer were not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. It is observed by Disciplinary Authority that, the findings given by the Enquiry officer on Charge No.1 was not genuine one and disagreed with said reasons . It is to be noted that, the Enquiry Officer has discussed the material on record and documents after going through all these where he found the concerned workman not guilty of the charges leveled against him . There was charge ofmaking fictitious entry of Rs . 500 in O.D. Account No.3892/383 ofthe concerned workman . He also discussed Charge No.2 coupled with the evidence on record and observed that the transactions record tally with the Cash Book. Even it is not explained by the Disciplinary Authority, as to why, he is differing from the finding of the Enquiry Officer? No reason is given by the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer .

11. When that is the situation , case ofthe 2nd Party isthat , Disciplinary Authority has no right to change the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer and differ from the finding of the Enquiry Officer and punish him as per its own ideas and whims . It is also alleged that , the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority is arbitrary and for the same act the concerned workman cannot be punished twice . According to 2nd Party he cannot be punished twice as by per the decisions number of Courts including Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma vis . Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh published in AIR 1988 SC page 1673. Even decision given by Apex Court in case of A.L. Kalra Vs. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. Published in 1984( 11 ) LLJ page 186 and the decision given by our Hon'ble High Court in case of Food Corporation of India Employees Association in ( West Zone & anr . Published in 2007 IICLR page 453 , decision ofour Hon'ble Court givenin case of Bank of Baroda, Bombay, Vs. Subash Prabhakar Kamath and anr. published in 1988 FLR page 577 and the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Prabudha Roy Vs. Punjab National Bank & ors . Published in 1999 II CLR page 353 , ofRajasthan High Court in case of Kamruddin Pathan Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation published in 1988 (1 ) CLR page 310, decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Purnendu Narayan Chakraborty vs. The Hon'ble Chief Justice High Court published in 1990 ( II ) LLJ page 116, in the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court indeciding the case of M.C. Jain Vs. The Chairman & Managing Director, Cement Corporation of India Ltd. published in 1991 LAB I.C. 1438 , on the decision given by Andhra Pradesh High Court in case ofDepot, Manager , A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. N. Ramulu & ors published in 1996 11 CLR page 666. It is also stated by the 2nd Party that , if the Disciplinary Authority want that , EnquiryOfficer must consider evidence which is on record, if evidence on record is not considered and the finding givenby the Disciplinary Authority differ from the finding givenby the Enquiry Officer is not substantial . For that, he relied on the decision given in Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State ofMaharashtra and anr . published 1999 II CLR page 971 and on the decision of Apex Court in case of Puniab National Bank & anr . Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra published in AIR 1988 SC page 2713 , on the decision of Apex Court in case of S.B.I. & ors. Vs. Arvind K. Shukla published in 2001 II CLR page 300, on the decision of our Hon'ble High Court in case of Food Corporation of India Employees Association , West Zone & anr . Vs Food Corporation of India& ors . Published in 2007 11 CLR page 453 and on the decision given by Apex Court while deciding the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and ors . Vs. P. Palanivelan published in 2006 (109) FLR page807.

10. So this is the evidence brought on record which is before us and the same was considered by the Disciplinary Authority which according to Ist Party permit Disciplinary Authority to draw different opinion than what was drawn by the Enquiry Officer .

12. 1st Party's Advocate submitted that , the Disciplinary Authority can interfere into the matter freshly and independently on the finding given by the Enquiry 877 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

(b) 1st Party is directed to release stopped one increment , aswell as release the Special Assistance Allowances available to the concerned workman from the date of stoppage of it which was banned as a result ofaction. taken by the 1st Party.

: A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2009

Officer and even double punishment can be given as happened in the instant case . For that, he placed reliance on thedecision given by our Hon'ble High Court in case of Hindoostan Spinning & Weaving Mills, Mumbai Vs. Hindoostan Crown Mills Siddhihivinak Kamgar Karamchari Sangathana published in 2008- I- LLJ page 243. He also placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in case of RegionalManager, U.P.S.R.T.C. , Etawah & ors . Vs. Motilal &ors. and on thedecision of the Apex Court given in case of Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce published in 2007 ( 1 ) LL.N page 780.

का. आ. 448. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बोबकार्डस लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुंबई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/34/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 /45/2003- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009

13. Disciplinary Authority admits that, he considered the only evidence which was placed before the Enquiry Officer. He also states that, he has not given reasons as to whyhe is differing from the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer. Onthe contrary Enquiry Officer stated that, those were not genuine mistakes but said mistakes were not in the nature of "misconduct" for which 2nd Party cannot be punished aspunished by the Disciplinary Authority. Even Enquiry Officer considered the evidence placed before him and observed that, the transactions involved in the proceedings was done without any motive . These were done just to make the entry. It also observed that, these were done in the nature ofmistake and not in the nature of misconduct and no any other meaning can be drawn from said act of the concerned workman than nature of mistake and it cannot be pointed out as nature of mistake and nature of mistake is not proved, definitely Bipatriate Settlement does not permit to punish the employee like this .

S.O. 448. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No:2/34/ 2003) of the Central Government Indus .Tribunal -Cum - Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BOBCARDS Ltd. , Mumbai and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12011 /45/2003 - IR(B - II )] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 , MUMBAI

PRESENT

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT - 2/34 of 2003

Employers in Relation to the Management of M/ s. BOBCARD Ltd.

TheManaging Director , M/ s. BOBCARD Ltd.

1stFloor , Shahid Bhagat Singh Road , Colaba, Mumbai 400 001.

... First Party 14. According to me the finding given by the DisciplinaryAuthority reversing the finding ofthe Enquiry Officerhas no ground. Disciplinary Authority has not given any reason as to why it is differing from the finding of the EnquiryOfficer. When that is the position and considering the charges leveled against the concerned workman and the finding given by the Enquiry Officer , I am of the view that , the concerned Workman cannot be punished as punished by stopping one increment and withdrawing permanently Special Assistance Allowance facility which is available to him. According to me concerned Workman is entitled for the reliefs as charges leveled against the concerned workman does not fall within the meaning of "misconduct" which is contemplated in para 9( 5 ) (j ) of Bipartitte Settlement and for that , he cannot be punished as punished . So I answer this Issue to that effect . Even decision of punishment taken regarding concerned workman of stoppage of one increment for one year and withdrawing permanently the facility of Special Assistance Allowances requires to be set aside with directions to 1st Partyto pay the same to the concerned workman from this date. Hence, the order.

V/s.

ORDER

Their Workmen

(a) Reference is allowed;

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/ PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

The General Secretary,

Bank ofBaroda Employees ' Union ,

Goa. C/ o . Bank ofBaroda

.....Second Party

Margo,Goa

APPEARANCE

FortheEmployer : Mr. L.L. D'souza, Representative

For the Workman : Mr. M.B. Anchan , Advocate .

Date ofreserving the Award: 17-6-2008.

Date ofpassing the Award : 17-12-2008 .

AWARD

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under :

ment he is not the ' appropriate Government ' . It is stated that, the Reference is not maintainable . It is stated that, the Company is engaged in the business of credit card activi- ties and holds a licence ofNon - banking Finance Company from the Reserve Bank of India . It stated that , the Com- pany is neither controlled industry as specified by the Cen- tral Government and nor it carried on by/or under the au- thority ofthe Central Government . It is stated that , the 1 st Party is registered under the provisions ofthe Indian Com- panies Act, 1956. It is further stated that , it has its own Memorandum & Articles of Association which confers extensive powers to the Directors of the Company to de- cide and direct as to how the Company should function . The Directors are also vested with powers to delegate their powers , authorities and discretion to any person . Accord- ing to 1 st Party, it is a separate legal entity it has its own constitution, powers and functioning is regulated by its Memorandum & Articles of Association . It is stated that , the 1st Party can sue and can be sued in its own name and hence the appropriate Government with regard to it would be the State Government and not the Central Government .

TheGovernment of India Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 12011 /45 /2003 - IR(B - II ), dated 12th June , 2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s . BOBCARDSLtd. , Mumbai in not regularizing the service of Shri Pradeep Shirodhkar, Peon of Margo Branch is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

4. It is further stated that, the Union has no locus- standi to raise the dispute regarding the concerned work- man. Concerned Workman is the only member of the Union . Since Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute about the concerned workman it is stated that, Reference is not tenable and it cannot be an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is further stated that , the concerned Workman was engaged on daily wages . He was not appointed by giving appointment order. He cannot claim regularization in the establishment of the 1st Party . It is stated that , though the concernedworkman worked for more than 240 days as a temporary employee , he cannot claim permanency, since the concerned workman was , appointed as a casual/tem- porary workman . It is denied that , the he can get benefit because initially staff deputed by Bank of Baroda to work withthe 1st Party. So it is submitted that , the claim made by the Union deserves to be rejected.

5. Rejoinder is filed by the Union at Exhibit 17 stat- ing that, Reference is maintainable since Central Govern- ment is the appropriate Government and this Tribunal has jurisdiction . It is further stated that , now Recruitment Rules are framed by the 1st Party. Even wages in the pay scale is given to the employees . 2nd Party can get wages in the scale of Rs.2000-4000 and he can be regularized in thees- tablishment of the 1st Party.

6. In view ofthe above pleadings , Issues were framed at Exhibit 20 which 1 answer as follows:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

Yes 2. Claim Statement is filed by the General Secretary ofthe Union at Exhibit 8 making out the case that, the con- cerned Workman joined 1st Party as a temporary Peon in April , 1995 on daily wage ofRs.50 . Said daily wages were increased to Rs . 110 per day. Said was being paid to him on weekly basis at the end ofthe week . Though he worked as a Peon continuously from April , 1995 for more than 240 days, he was not confirmed. According to the Union , he was entitled for regularization in the employment of the 1st Party but he was not regularized . He made several requests to the 1st Party for his regularization orally as well as in writing by making correspondence from April , 1998 and July, 2000. Since Bank has not regularized him , Union ap- proached Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) in September , 2000 and requested to regularized the concerned workman. In the course of the conciliation proceedings Management , i.e. Ist Party, assured that, if it is permitted, it will regularize the concerned workman as and when re- cruitment policy is framed . Since the Management did not frame the recruitment rules , Union approached the Assis- tantLabour Commissioner (Central) , Vasco da Gama ,Goa and thereafter it framed its recruitment rules and it is alledged that, even then the concerned Workman is not rergularized. So, it is prayed that , he be regularized and benefits of regu- lar employee be given to the concerned workman .

1. Is reference maintainable in the present form?

No 3. This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing written statement at Exhibit 15 stating that, the Central Govern-

2. Whether First Party prove 879

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

that, StateGovernment is its appropriateGovernment?

Yes

3. IsSecond Party entitled for regularization inthe service of the First Party?

4.What order?

Asperorder below.

REASONS:

ISSUE NO . 1 :

appear as a witness has not uttered a single word that Union was not having sufficient number of workmen they are espousing the cause of the workman. He simply stated that,he met theManagement in his general capacity. Under those circumstances it was observed that, it is not an industrial dispute. However, before us is a different case . Union states that, there was no practice ofpassing such a resolution. It is the case of the Union that, dispute was also before the Conciliation Officer and Management i.e. Vice President vide his letter dated 8-1-2001 assured to consider the claim of the 2nd Party to regularize him in the employment ofthe 1st Party as and when recruitment rules/ policy is framed and at that time he will be engaged in existing terms . That means by share undertaking dated . 8-1-2001 which is not disputed by the 1st Party, 1st Party has almost admitted that, the concerned workman is working with it and it can regularize him as and when it frame recruitment policy. The record and proceedings reveal that, by letter dated 2-12-2002 Managing Director informed that, itwill not be possible for it to regularize the concerned Workman, copy ofthe same is produced by the Union with its written arguments at Exhibit 33. When this situation reveals that, there was a dispute before the Labour Commission (Central ) Goa, and both were present there, it appears that, at that time, status of the Union was not challengedbeforeConciliation Officer. It also reveals that, the Vice President of the 1st Party undertook to consider claim ofthe Union to regularize Shirodkar ie. the concerned workman in the employment after framing the recruitment policy and undertook that, Shirodkar will be continued on the existing terms . Accordingto me, said is more than sufficient than what is expected in the above 2 rulings, on "espouser of the cause by the Union" . Besides regarding theground for which reference is sent by Labour Ministry, Government of India, is not under dispute . Ist Party is not challenging theworking ofthe concerned workman with it as a casual worker and even it is not challenging, therewas ademand to regularize him . When there was a demand to regularize him and when Vice President of the Ist Party undertookto regularize him after freaming ofthe recruitment policy, in my considered view, the stand, mken by the ist Party that, Union has no proper representation to espouse the cause does not come in its way. So I observe that, reference is maintainable since Union has reason to espouse the cause of the concerned workman and I answer this point to that effect.

ISSUE NO . 2 :

7. 1st Party states that, reference is not maintainable as Union has no authority and locus standi to espouse the cause of Pradeep Shirodkar . According to 1st Party, the concerned Workman , Pradeep Shirodkar, is the onlymem- ber ofthe Union from the establishment of 1st Party. There is no resolution in the Union. It has no cause to espouse the point to regularize concerned workman in the employ- ment ofthe Ist Party. Said Union has no proper support of the members ofthe Union. It cannot espouse the cause of the concerned workman. For that , 1st Party's Advocate placedreliance on the citation published in 2007 LLRpage 386where Delhi High Court in the case ofM/s . Hotel Samrat VsGovernment of NCT. observed that, there was no evidence apart from the statement of the Secretary of the Union before the Tribunal that, he approached the Concili- ationOfficer to press for the cause. He also placed reliance on the citation published in 1975 Lab.I.C, page 1153 where Calcutta High Court in case of Deepak Industries Ltd. & anr . Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors . observed that, mere fact that , the said Union is registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, is not conclusive proof to accept that, the workmen have given authority to the said Union to press for the cause . He also placed reliance on the citation published in 1970 Lab . LC page 574 where Apex Court while deciding the case of Workmen of Indian Express Newspaper Private Ltd. Vs. The Management of Indian Express News Paper Pvt . Ltd. where it was observed that, when single permanent employee of the Management is a member of the Union , it does not give power to saidUnion to espouse cause for such an employee. Whereas stand of the 2nd Party is that, there is no procedure to pass a reso- lution. Before the Labour Commissioner , Managing Direc- tor of the Ist Party vide letter dated 2-12-2002/ 8-1-2001 assured to consider the claim of the concerned Workman to regularize his employment . According to Union, that acceptance itself is sufficient to conclude that, Union was having sufficient background, to espouse the cause and on that Union can espouse the cause of the concerned workman .

9. 1st Party further take a stand that, the State Government is the appropriate Government and not the Central Government. Whereas stand of the Union is that, the Central Government is the appropriate Government and not the State Government . Again for that, 1st Party placed reliance on the citation published in 1970 Lab.I.C. page 213 ofApex Court in case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union Vs State of Bihar & ors . and citation published in 8. The citations on which the Ist Party relied were citations published in 2007 LLR page 386 Delhi High Court while deciding the case ofManagement of Messers Hotel Samrat vs. Government of NCT & Ors . observed that espousal can be expressed in many ways . Union who 880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

concerned workman is working with 1st Party from April , 1995. Admittedly he worked for more than 240 days . Admittedly he worked without any interruption from 1995 which reveals that, there is permanent type of work . There is no complaint about his work . Only thing is that he worked on daily wages . Even letter of the 1st Party written to the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Vascodagama dated 8-1-2001 reveals that , the concerned workman is working there in sub - staff cadre and 1st Party assured that itwill regularize after framing of recruitment rules . When that, is the material on record about the services of the concerned workman which reveals he is working there from 1995 on daily wages and when work is available in my considered view, there cannot be any hitch in the way of the 1st Partyto regularize him in the employment.

11. Besides it is not the case of the 1st Party that, he is not its employee and it is not the case of the Ist Party that, it cannot provide work to him . On the contrary record reveals that, there are number of employees who have same recruitment rules and it also framed service rules of employees working with 1st Party who are governed by the said rules . When that is the position and when work is available in my considered view , there cannotbe any obstruction in the way of the concerned workman to regularize him in the establishment of the ist Party.

12. It is not the case of the Ist Party that, there is no work for the concerned workman . Moreover it is not the case ofthe 1st Party that, he is surplus or that , work cannot be made available . Even it is not the case of the Ist Party that, he is called as and when work is available . On the contrary record reveals that , he is working continuously from 1995 and till he is in the employment of the 1st Party as a temporary employee . When he is a temporary employee and work is there then question arises why he cannot be regularized?

13. If we consider all this coupled with the case made out by both , I am of the opinion that, the concerned workman requires to be regularized on his post of Peon and must get benefits of regular employee .

14. So in view of the discussions made above , I conclude that, reference of the Union require to allow . Hence, the order .

ORDER

(a) Reference is allowed ,

(b) 1st Party is directed to regularise the concerned workman i.e. Pradeep Shirodkar as a regular employee of it and give him the status , monetary and all other benefits of a permanent employee from the date of this order ,

1989 ( 58) FLR page 161 of our Hon'ble High Court in case ofBombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association vs Manager Telephone Nigam Ltd. By these rulings 1st Party try to point out that, there must be deep and pervasive control and supervision of the Central Government when Central Government is the appropriate Government . It is also tried to point out that , even if shares were exclusively owned by the Government of India, it does not qualify the Company as an Agent of the Central Government though it isthe public company and even ifshares are exclusively owned by the Central Government it cannot be reckoned in the definition ofthe Central Government i.e. appropriate Government . But here evidence brought on record is rather different than the evidence which was brought on record in that case . Said is Credit Company. It is doing business ofcredit card centers in India and abroad through the Bank ofBaroda. It isdoing a non -Banking business . It is working under regulations of Reserve Bank of India . Reserve Bank of India is controlling authority . When Reserve Bank of India is the controlling authority , it is definitely under the control of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. It has no connection or regulation with the State Government . In these premises I am of the opinion that , 1st Party who is doing such activities in providing finance to the needy persons under the rules and regulations of the Reserve Bank of India which is purely run on the guidelines of Government of India cannot be called as a subsidiary of any State but is a Company of the Government of India on which Government of India can have control . As far as claim ofthe first Party is concerned, it is not disputed that , it is running activities like Bank ofBaroda, yet it cannot be called a Bank but its activities are controlled by the Government of India since Bank of Baroda is a nationalized Bank. Bank ofBaroda is a nationalized Bank doing Banking business in the name of BOBCARDS LTD . When it is a subsidiary Company which is doing its activities under the rules of Bank of Baroda and when Reserve Bank of India has control over activities of Bank of Baroda and its activities , in my considered view , said a Company cannot called State Company but it should be recognized as a Company under the control of the Government of India. When it is coming under the control of the Government of India, ' Central Government ' is the ' appropriate authority' . Moreover it is not pointed out by the Ist Party how activities and conduct of the 1st Party can be controlled activities under State Government ? Definitely activities and conduct of 1st Party cannot be activities of the State Government as 1sí Party is doing its activities in the name of M/ s . BOB CARD Ltd. which is a subsidiary Company of Bank of Baroda, a Nationalised Bank . So I conclude that , Central Government is the appropriate Government and not State Government. Accordingly I answer this Issue in negative.

ISSUE NO. 3:

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Bombay

17th December, 2008

10. Union pray that, the concerned Workman be regularized in the employment of the ist Party .Admittedly [ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नईदिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ 449. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो 'केन्द्रीय सरकार को29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/129/2003-आई आर( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009 S.O. 449. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofCanara Bank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12012/ 129/2003 - IR (B- II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE SRI RG SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN ATI CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 31 of2003

BETWEEN

Ravindra Kumar son of Sri Sobaran Singh

House No. 5/385A Naala Vansh Khar Nai Ki Mandi Agra

And

TheDeputyGeneral Manager Canara Bank CircleOffice VipinKhand GomtiNagar

Lucknow.

AWARD

1. CentralGovernment vide notification No. L- 12012/ 129/2003- IR(B-2) dated 29-9-2003 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

2.Whether the action ofthe Branch Manager , Canara Bank, Agra, in terminating the services of Sri Ravindra Kumar son of Sri Sobaran Singh with effect from 16-10-2002 is legal and justified? If not to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled?

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the workman was employed by the management with effect from 18-4-92 on consolidated salary of Rs.300/- per month. It is the further case ofthe applicant that he was continuing

881

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

in the service of the opposite party and in the year 2002 was receiving salary at Rs.650/- per month when the opposite partyterminated his services . It is also the case of the workman that he performed all the work of class IV employee. He has further asserted that he was attending the bank at 9.30 a.m. and did sweeping and dusting of counters and also tables besides placing ledger from one seat to another seat . The workman was also requined to work on holidays and Sundays . It is also pleaded by the workman that the opposite party used to pay him wages through loose vouchers and that he was not given regular pay inclusive ofother allowances for which he was assured bythe officers ofthe branch . It is also alleged that despite rendering for more than 240 days of continuous service , theopposite party did not offer the workman notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation nor following the provisions of 25G and 25H of the Act at the time of dispensation of his service on 16-10-2002. At any rate the action of the opposite party is unjustified and unfair and is liable to set aside . The werkman is thus entitled for his reinstatement inthe service ofthe bank with full back wages, continuityof service and all other consequential benefits .

4.On the other hand the claim of the workman has beenrefuted bythe opposite party on a number of ground viz. , that the claimant had never been appointed by the opposite partybank nor had rendered continuous service during the period 18-04-92 till 2002 nor the opposite party over paid him any fixed salary; that it is admitted by the bank that the claimant was engaged on requirement basis and to meet exigencies to procure water for coolers and to serve water for the staff and for the customers ofthe branch; that the claimant was engaged intermittently during the summer season only and thus his engagement was purely forspecific period which automatically came to end by efflux of time; that since the workman has never been subjected to regular selection process framed by the bank, therefore , question of termination of his service does not arise at all ; that it has also been pleaded by the opposite party that the claimant in all during the period 1992 to 2002 had worked intermittently for 183 days; that the engagement of the workman came to end by efflux oftime and that the claim of the claimant also attracts provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act and lastly it is submitted that the claim ofthe claimant is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be rejected.

5.After exchange of pleadings between the parties contesting parties led oral as well as documentary evidence, whereas workman has examined himself as W.W.1 management examined its witness as M.W.1 in support of their claims and counter claims .

6. I have heard the arguments of the representatives of the parties at length and have also gone through record ofthe case carefully.

7. At the outset it may be pointed out that a bare perusal of the claim statement of the claimant would go to [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

882

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2009

show that he has not mentioned any provision of service rules under which he was engaged by the opposite party.

का.आ 450.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 /114/2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009

S.O.450.-In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12011 /114/2005 -IR (B- II ) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWANATI CAMPUS UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR 8. It is settled legal position that unless until breach of service rules are pleaded to the extent that the said provisions are against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provisions of the Act ipso facto would not come into play. In the instant case it has been pleaded and proved by the witness of the opposite party that there are set recruitment rules and the workman was never subjectedto such rules, therefore , the claim ofthe claimant fully falls outside the ambit and scope of the term retrenchment as defined under the provisions of the Act. From the evidence of the workman it is quite obvious that he has palpably failed to prove his claim against the opposite party to the effect that the opposite party at any point of time had appointed him in terms of service rules and when the claimant had never been appointed in the service of the opposite party question of termination ofhis service by the opposite party does not arise at all. In Industrial Jurisprudence the provisions of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947, are not akin to Bible or Ramayana which could be made applicable in all situation as finds place in the instant case . Therefore, the tribunal feels no hesitation inholding that it is not a case of retrenchment ofthe service ofthe workman , he cannot be held entitled for protection ofother provisions of the Act as claimed by him .

Industrial Dispute No. 35 of2005

Inthe matter of dispute between

9. In view of what has been indicated above there remains hardly any need to deal other points raised by the workman in his statement of claim as the same would be nothing but a futile exercise on the part of the Tribunal .

SriSKKool 34/106 Chawal Mandi Chowk Kanpur. And

TheGeneralManager HRM & GA Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre C-26G Block Baroda KurlaComplex Bandra (E) Mumbai.

10. Lastly it is held that the workman has not been able to prove his claim before this tribunal by adducing acceptable evidence . He has also failed to establish the fact that he at any point of time had rendered continuous service of240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of the alleged termination of his service . Therefore, the claim ofthe workman fails and he cannot be held entitled forthe reliefas claimed by him .

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL New Delhi , vide notification , No. 12011 / 114/2005 - IR( B-II) dated 19-09-2005, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2.Whether the action of the management ofBank of Baroda in denying pension and encashment of leave to Sri SK Kool is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled.

11. Representative for the opposite party has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in FLR 2002(93 ) 1979 The Range Forest Officer and ST Hadmini ; 2001 LLR 243 ofHon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Lochan Prasad versus Executive Engineer PWD Nirman Khand Bareli and another. The tribunal has given its anxious consideration to the laws cited above and finds that the law cited above apply with full swings to the facts and circumstances of the case.

12. In view of foregoing discussions , it is held that the workman cannot be held entitled for any reliefandthe reference is bound to be answered against him.

13. Reference is therefore answered accordingly .

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

3. In short the case of the workman is that he was served with a charge sheet dated 20-11-2001 by the disciplinary authority of the bank while he was in service of the bank. The allegations of charges were admitted by the workman in reply to it, therefore , the bank in exercise of powers conferred upon it under para 12( e) of the Bipartite 883 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6.Apart from it management has accused the workman on a number ofcounts but the tribunal do not think it proper to detail the same as the controversy involved in the case for decision is as to whether in the light of the orders of the disciplinary authority workman is entitled for superannuation benefits as claimed by him or not.

7.After exchange of pleadings between the parties both contesting parties filed documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective case .

8. Tribunal has heard the arguments at length advanced before the representative for the contesting parties and have also perused the records of the case and relevant rules governing the grant of superannuation benefits in the light of the orders dated 19-09-03.

Settlement that is service conditions decided not to hold any further inquiry into the charges and the enquiry officer after considering the admission of the misconduct by the workman concerned held the charges as proved and submitted its finding before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after considering the admission of the misconduct tendered by the workman and also considering the fact that the charges stands proved against the workman decided to propose to impose the punishment vide order 24-7-03 to the effect the workman's removal from service with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and without disqualifications from future employment. And ultimately the said proposed punishment was finally imposed upon the workman. It is also the case ofthe workman that thereafter the workman approached the bank for release of his pensionary benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund and pension but the opposite party bank instead of allowing him the above benefits simply allowed to him the amount of gratuity, employees contribution towards provident fund and for the remaining terminal benefits the opposite party bank after receiving repeated reminders in this regard informed the workman that the order passed by the disciplinary authority removing Mr. Kool from service with superannuation benefits is subject to rules governing the payment of superannuation . As per Pension Rules Persons removed from service forfeits his claim for pension. It is also the case of the workman that he is a pension optee under Bank ofBaroda (Employees ) Pension Regulations 1995, andas per memorandum ofsettlement dated 10-04-02 on disciplinary action, the workman is entitled for superannuation benefits being pension optee . It is also pleaded by the workman that in case an employee is refused for grant ofpension in such case he is entitled for CPF but as would be clear from the pleadings of the parties the workman has not been paid his CPF after . passing of the order dated 19-09-93 , whereby the proposed punishment was confirmed by the disciplinary authority.

4. In this way the workman is entitled for superannuation benefits under the orders dated 19-09-03 passed by the disciplinary authority.

9.The first and foremost point which is required to consider in the instant case is as to whether the concerned workman is entitled for his superannuation benefits in view of final orders dated 19-09-03 passed by the disciplinary authority and the effect of the Bank of Baroda (Employees ) Pension Regulations, 1995 in the light ofMemorandum of Settlernent dated 10-04-02 on Disciplinary action . The tribunal have considered the provisions ofboth the service conditions and after going through the same the tribunal is of firm opinion that the provisions of Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995, have no overriding effect over the settlement arrived at between the Banking Industry and Indian Bank's Association on 10-04-02 , by name viz. Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-04-02 on the subject of settlement on disciplinary action which clearly provides that an employee of the bank can be removed from service of the bank on proved misconduct with superannuation benefits as wotild be due otherwise and without disqualification from future employment. It is also established from the record of the file . that the disciplinary authority has passed Thil orders against the workman removing him from the service of the bank with superannuation benefits as would be admissible to him otherwise and without disqualification from future employment. It is settled legal position that under disciplinary rules orders of the disciplinary authority are final and binding on employee and employer unless modifiedby the appellate authority and incase it is modified by the appellate authority, the same too becomes binding on both the sides .

10. From the records of the case it is quite clear that there is no evidence worth the name that the workman has ever challenged the orders of the disciplinary authority passed on 19-09-03, by way of preferring any appeal or that the orders of the disciplinary authority had at any point of time modified by the appellate authority and therefore the order of the disciplinary cannot be disturbed atall for any reasons without following the prescribed rules made in this behalf.

11. It may also be pointed out here that the representative for the management has not been able to satisfy the tribunal on the point as under which authority 5. The opposite party on the other hand has contestedthe claim of the workman only on one point that the workman. is not entitled for superannuation benefits under the orders ofthe disciplinary authority in accordance with the provisions ofBank of Baroda (Employees ) Pension Regulations , 1995, according to provisions 21 of the same which empowers to forfeit pension of such an employee of the bank who has been removed from banks service on proved misconduct. On the basis of above pleadings the opposite party has prayed that the claim ofthe workman is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected in view ofthe provisions of Bank of Baroda (Employees ) Pension Regulations 1995.

884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

or provisions governing the service rules , orders have been passed by the authority other than the disciplinary authority denying superannuation benefits to the workman.

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT NO . 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case I.D. No 25/2001

TheGeneral Secretary, All India Allahabad Bank Employees Steering Committee C/ o Sh . S.C. Dewan , UCO Bank Employees' Association, C/ o House No. 49. Sector 15 -A, Chandigarh.

-Applicant

Versus

The Regional Manager , Allahabad Bank, Sector 17-B . Chandigarh.

12. Therefore, in view ofthe facts and circumstances and settled legal position, the tribunal feels no hesitation in holding that the action of the opposite party -bank in denying superannuation benefits to the workman is neither legal norjustified . Accordingly , it is held that he workman is entitled for his superannuation benefits under the final orders ofthe disciplinary authority passed on 19-9-03 and any other order passed by some other officer denying superannuation benefits stands set aside . Accordingly, the workman is held entitled for all termination benefits like pension, leave encashment, gratuity and commutation of pension subject to adjustment of any amount paid under these heads to the workman .

-Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: None

For the management : Shri B.K.Bagri AWARD

Passed on : 11-11-08

13. Therefore, as the workman is a retired person from the services of the bank, it is directed that the bank should settle the terminal dues of the workman on account of his superannuation from bank's service within three months from the date of publication of the award failing which the workman shall be entitled for pendentelite compound interest at the market rate over the amount became due to the workman.

Central Government vide notification No. L - 12011 / 41/97-(B- II) , dated 10-1-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

14. Reference is, therefore , answered accordingly in favour of the workman and against the opposite party- bank in the above terms.

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2009

"Whether the action ofthe management of Allahabad Bank represented through the Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank , Chandigarh in denying payment of salary to Sh . V.S. Chawla for the period 1-7-95 to 2-11-95 treating the period as unauthorized absence and deferring the increment by four months is just and legal? Ifnot , to what relief is the workman entitled to?"

का.आ 451. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , चंडीगढ , नं 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/41/1997- आई आर( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th January , 2009

2.None is present on behalf ofthe workman. Learned counsel for the management is present . Workman has not ensuring his presence . The reference was referred by the Central Government in the year 2001. Despite opportunities have been given to the workman but he is not availing the opportunity of being heard . It is already 1.15 pm . At this stage , I have no option otherwise then to dismiss the claim of workman in reference for non -prosecution and return the reference to the Central Govt. as such . Accordingly , the reference is returned as such . Let the Central Government be informed . File be consigned

Chandigarh

11-11-08

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2009

S.O. 451. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 29-1-2009 .

[No. L- 12011 /41 / 1997- IR (B -II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

का.आ 452. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 113/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12011/37/2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्कअधिकारी NewDelhi, the 29th January, 2009

S.O. 452. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 113/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of AllahabadBank, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12011 /37/2000- IR (B- II ) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOURCOURT NO. IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

Date: 25-11-2008 I.D. No. 113/2000

In the matter ofdispute between:

TheGeneral Secretary,

All IndiaAllahabad Bank Employees ' Union ,

AllahabadBank, Baroda House, NewDelhi .

...Workman

Versus

TheGeneral Manager (P &A) ,

AllahabadBank,

HeadOffice 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta-700001 .

...Management

AWARD

885 The workman is not attending the court for the last so many dates of hearing . It apears that he is no longer interested in the outcome ofthis I.D. In this situation No DisputeAward is passed in this Case . File be consigned to record room.

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ 453.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 195/1997 - आई आर ( बी- H) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009

S.O. 453. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 29-1-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 195 / 1997 -IR(B- II ) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. 1, CHANDIGARH

Case I.D. No. 13/98

Sh. Nandi Ram, S /o Sh . Harmal Dass, R/o G-42, Pultary Area, Nilokheri , Distt : Karnal- 132001 .

...Applicant

Versus

The Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, 564-R, Model Town, Near N.D.R.I. , Karnal , Haryana- 132001.

...Respondent APPEARANCES

: Sh . M.L. Basoor .

For the workman

CentralGovernment, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 12011 /37/2000- IR(B- II) dated 17-10-2000 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether by the transfer of Sh . S.K. Bawa, All India Tresurers ofAll India Allahabad Bank employees ' Association, bythe Management ofAllahabadBank allegedly against the provisions ofMemorandum of Settlement dated 3-3-1980, was there any violation ofpara 535 of Sastry Award ? If so , what relief the union is entitled to?"

: Sh. Parmod Jain .

Forthe management

AWARD

Passed on: 17-10-2008

Government of India vide Notification No. L- 12012/ 195/9- /IR (B - II ) dated 6-1-1998 referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal:

886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

SEC . 3 (ii) ]

[PART II- "Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services ofSh . Nandi Ram Sub-staff w.e.f. 27-9-95 is legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat relief the said workman is entitled . "

without holding an enquiry as prescribed under the departmental rules . This law is laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in several pronouncements . In Inderpal Gupta Vs. Model Inter College , Thora FJR 1984 Supreme Court 431, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:

" It is well settled that if the order of termination of the service of an employee, including a probationer , carries a stigma , it has to fall to the ground unless it is preceded by an enquiry as contemplated in law. Therefore , where a person was appointed as a probationer and his services were terminated simpliciter under the condition of service by a letter to the effect that in view of the resolution of the managing committee of the institution he was informed that his services were terminated , but a reading of the letter of termination of service and the resolution ofthe managing committee which formed part of that letter clearly showed that it was merely camouflage for an order imposing the penalty of termination of service on the ground of misconduct clearly indicating that they bear a mark disgrace or infamy and that the employee was visited with evil consequences , the Lower Court erred in holding that the order of termination was an innocuous one and did not carry any stigma , and the employee should bedeclared to be continuing in service . " Onperusal of the pleadings and other materials on record , the grievances of the workman are that he applied through Employment Exchange, Nilokheri for the post of Sub -Staff in Bank of Baroda, Karnal . Being successful, he was appointed as Sub- Staff (Peon) by the bank vide appointment letter dated 27-3-95 . He joined the services of the bank on 31-3-95 . As per terms and conditions of the appointment letter he was on probation for six months and his appointment was subjected to the verification of his antecedents . Vide letter dated 27-9-95 , his services were terminated on the ground that the qualification of the workman was not within the prescribed eligibility criteria for the post of Sub - Staff cadre in the bank and he concealed the actual qualification and have kept the bank in dark about the actual qualification possessed . No other ground for termination was mentioned in the termination letter . The workman raised an industrial dispute against his termination from the services and on failure of conciliation proceedings ; the same was referred to this Tribunal for judicial adjudication . The main contention of the workman before this Tribunal is that his termination was illegal as no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of being heard was given to him. It has also been contended by the workman that the order of termination was passed after expiry ofprobation period.

The same view has been expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs. Mehbood Alam Laskar 2008( I ) SCT 668 .

Onthe other hand, the contention ofthe management ofrespondent bank is that during probation period it is the right of the bank to terminate the services of the workman ifthe workman is not a suitable candidate for the bank.

Thus , ifthe order terminating the services during the probation period is or stigmatic nature , the workman cannot be terminated without holding an enquiry for misconduct which amounts to stigma as per the rules of the department .

The main question for determination before this Tribunal is whether a workman can be terminated during period of probation without holding an enquiry?

Now, the question before this Tribunal is whether veritication of the eligible qualifications by the prescribed authority during the probation period will amount to enquiry for misconduct ? In this case, after the appointment ofthe workman during the probation period, the prescribed authority has conducted a preliminary enquiry without issuing any notice to the workman asking relevant documents from the Principal of the College from which the workman submitted the certificate for qualification along with his application for the services. On disclosure by the Principal that the workman has higher qualification , the prescribed authority terminated his services. This Tribunal has to decide whether such termination on the ground for non-disclosure of authentic qualification will amount to misconduct?

So far as the completion of probation period is concerned, I am ofthe view that even after the termination of probation period a workman cannot claim to be the permanent employee unless and until specific order is not passed by the prescribed authority on the basis of his work and conduct during the probation period . So this plea, is not available to the workman that his probation period was over and he could not have been terminated on the very ground . There is no specific order of the management of the bank to grant the permanent status of extension of probation period on record. When a workman is on probation , his services are subject to termination by the management. The workman can be terminated at any time without conducting enquiry if the management is not satisfied with the work, conduct and behavior of the workman and his services are no more required . Where the order of the termination during probation period is of stigmatic in nature , the services cannot be terminated

Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court inState of Punjab and Others vs. Sukhwinder Singh AIR- 2005 Supreme Court 2960 , while deciding the law laid down on the question of misconduct and simplicitor dismissal of a temporary employee from the services during probation period held that even if some kind of preliminary enquiry or 887 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

fact finding enquiry, is held in which the employee is not afforded an opportunity of hearing, the order of discharge of a probationer cannot be treated as an order of punishment as the appointing authority has to necessarily ascertain all the relevant facts before taking a decision whether the probationer should be retained in service or not.

he is not found suitable for the post, the master reserves a right to dispense with his services without anything more during or at the end of the prescribed period, which is styled as period of probation . The mere holding of preliminary enquiry would not make an otherwise innocuous order of discharge for terminaton of service punitive in nature . "

Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sukhwinder Singh's Case (supra) in para 18 held as under :

Onperusal ofentire materials on records, it is evident thatwhile applying for the service workman showed his qualification as middle pass meaning thereby 8th pass . He also submitted the certificate of 8th class pass which is on record as Annexure M-5 . The copy of concerned rules governing the recruitment of Sub - Staff is on record and rule 20.8 is relevant regarding the qualification for the post ofPeons . This rule specifically mentioned that candidate should have 7th standard but he should not have passed 9th standard. Thus , concerned rules bars the appointment ofa person who is 9th standard pass to the post of Peon . In Annexure M - 1 which is the application form of the workman, he has shown his qualifications as Middle Pass but after his appointment when antecedents, were verified by the prescribed authority from the College the college issued the certificate that Sh. Nandi Ram, passed 9th Class in the year 1985 under Roll No. 9143.

The college issued the certificate that Sh. Nandi Ram passed 9th Class in the year 1985 under Roll No. 9143 and was promoted to class 10th and his name was cut off from the rolt of class 10th on account of his long absence . The genuineness ofthis certificate is admitted by the workman . Thus, toget verified , the antecedents of the workman who has been appointed for the post of peon on probation within a period of probation in the right of the prescribed authority with a view to ensure whether the workman.is suitable for the bank or not ? It cannot be termed as punishment of misconduct. It was a contractual liability between the employer and the employee and the workman succeeded in getting the job in violation of the terms of proposal and if during probation porind the preseribed, authority has passed a simplicitor order that for want of disclosing the correct qualification he is terminated from the services, it cannot at all be termed the punishment of misconduct as per law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Sukhwinder Singh's Case (supra) and Ajit Singh's case (supra) . As the order of termination dated 27-9-05 is not ofstigmatic nature and cannot be termed as punishment on misconduct, the prescribed authority has rightly discharged the workman from service during the probation period on exercise of their rights theyhave as an extiployer.

" Itmust be borne in mind that no employee whether a probationer or temporary will be discharged or reverted, arbitrarily, without any rhyme or reason. Where a superior officer, in order to satisfy himself whether the employee concerned should be continued in service or not make inquiries for this purpose, it would be wrong to hold that the inquiry which was held, was really intended for the purpose ofimposing punishment. Ifin every case where some kind of fact - finding inquiry is made, wherein the employee is either given an opportunity to explain or the inquiry is held behind his back, it is held that the order of discharge or termination from service is punitive in nature, even it bona fide attempt by the. superior officer to decide whether the employee concerned should be retained in service or not would run the risk on being dubbed as an order of punishment . The decision to discharge a probationer during the period of probation or the order to terminate the service of a temporary employee is taken by the appointing authority or administative heads of various departments , who are not judicially. trained people. The superior authorities of the departments have to take work from an employee and they are the best people to judge whether an employee should be continued in service and made a permanent employee or not having regard to his Performance, conduct and overall suitability for the job . As mentioned earlier a probationer is on test and a tempotary employee has no right to the post. Ifmere holding of an inquiry to ascertain the relevant facts forarriving at a decision on objective considerations whether to continue the employee in service or to make him permanent is treated as an inquiry for the purpose of imposing punishment and an order of discharge or termination of service as a result thereof "punitive character , " the fundamental difference: between a probationer or a temporary employee and a permanent employee would be completely obliterated, which wouldbe wholly wrong."

In Ajit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another AIR 1983 Supreme Court 494, Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the probation period gives time and opportunity to the employer to watch the work ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant and if

It is true that in written statement and affidavit the management has written that not disclosing the real qualification is fraud against the employer and learned counsel has argued that order of termination is passed on the basis offraud committed by the workman with the bank and such termination order cannot stand without a proper 888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

VERSUS

The Assistant General Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank, G.T. Road, Jalandhar

......Respondent

For the Workman

Sh . R.K. Singh Parmar, Secretary, Punjab , INTUC

For the Management

Sh. J.S. Advocate

enquiry. I am unable to accept the contention ofthe learned counsel because written statements and affidavits are filed by the management much after the passing of the order of discharge from service during probation period and this Tribunal has to gather the intention of management while passing the order of discharge and not thereafter , Accordingly, the term that workman committed the fraud with the bank will not be having any adverse effect on the intention of management while passing the order of discharge dated 27-9-95 .

AWARD

The following reference was received from Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide No.L- 12012/ 140/97/IR (B- II ) , Dated 28-11-1997by the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh and on the creation ofthis Tribunal the same was received by transfer on 19-9-2005 , which reads as under:

On the basis of the above observation , I am of the view that the management of bank of Baroda has rightly terminated the services of Sh. Nandi Ram in exercise of their right to discharge any workman during probation period on ground of suitability . Workman is not entitled to any relief. Let Central Government be informed. File be consigned.

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Jaspal Singh w.e.f. 21-9-96 is legal and justified . If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date ? "

का.आ. 454. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं 2 ,चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1052/2K5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -12012/ 140/1997- आई आर(बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009

As per record of the file , on the receipt of notice of reference the parties appeared . The workman appeared through representative whereas the Management appeared through counsel . The workman filed his statement of claim to which the Management replied . The workman placed on record copies of some documents besides his affidavit . TheManagement tendered the affidavit of Mr. Balkar Singh , their Personnel and Industrial Relation Officer . Later on they substituted their witness and tendered the affidavit of Jaspal Singh Johar. They tendered certified true copiés of the vouchers by which the payment was made to the workman by the Management .

S.O. 454. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1052/ 2K5 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial Dispute between the management ofPunjab & Sind Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 29-1-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 140/1997- IR (B- II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh

Case L. D. No : 1052/2k5

Registered on : 11-12-1997

Date ofDecision: 12-11-2008

Stated in short the claim of the workman is that he was employed by the Management as Peon on 8-2-1995 and he served them upto 21-9-1996 on which day the Management terminated his services by an oral order . The action of the Management was illegal since they did not issue him notice before terminating his services nor paid him the retrenchment compensation although he had put in more than 240 days service in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his disengagement . They further violated the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act , in short "Act" , in failing to prepare a seniority list. They further failed in their duty in not deducting the Provident Fund from the workman . They also regularized the services of thejuniors of the workman in service and even recruited fresh hands without providing the workman an opportunity towork. The work which was being done by the workman was of regular nature and thus the workman was entitled forregularization .

Jaspal Singh Son of Manohar Singh, C/o R.K. Singh Parmar, QNo. 35-G, Nangal Township , Ropar

Petitioner

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman. They have denied that the workman was engaged $89 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

include Sundays and Bank Holidays . He further stated that since the work was not available , therefore , the workman wasrelieved. He further adinitted that the Management did not prepare the seniority list before terminating the services of the workman . He was not called for work after his termination nor he was given notice before his disengagement as the same was necessary to be issued to a casual worker . He was also not entitled to any compensation.

as a Peon . According to them the workman was engaged as a casual labour on daily wages due to exigency of service, as and when need arose . He was never appointed nor was considered for temporaryjob. He had also not worked as a Peon and in no case he served the Management for complete 240 days in continuity. They have denied that the services ofthe workman were terminated by them and stated that since there was no work available for a casual labour, therefore, the services of the workman were not engaged. Asper the record the workman had served in the office of Management at G.T. Road, Phagwara from 8-2-1985 to 15-2-1985 then 19-2-1985 to 17-8-1985. He had worked in the Lajpat Nagar Branch, Jalandhar from 24-4-1986 to 5-7- 1986, from 13-2-1989 to 2-5-1989 for 79 days and from 5-5- 1989 to 20-6-1989 . Thus he did not perform duties continuously for 240 days in any consecutive year . He was not entitled to notional breaks since he was engaged on daily wage basis . Their further claim is that seniority in the Bank is maintained at the State level in terms of settlement with the majority Unions of the Bank Employees and the workman being a casual labour on daily wage basis , he was not holding neither any post nor any recruitment process for engaging casual labour was undertaken by the Management. Thus there was no question of maintaining the seniority list. Their further claim is that the workman had not worked for 240 days continuously; therefore, he is not entitled to the protection under the Act . They have further denied that the workman was engaged as a Peon against some vacant post therefore , he was not entitled to regularization.

The workman appeared as a witness and proved his affidavit exhibit WWI . He also relied upon documents marked as A to G. In cross -examination he admitted that he was first engaged at Phagwara Branch where he served for six months continuously. He claimed that he had served the Management in Lajpat Nagar Branch, where he was recruited in the year 1993. He claimed that he was given appointment letter for working in Lajpat Nagar Branch which he does not possess . He , however, admitted that the vacancy was not notified in the Newspaper nor he had submitted written application for appointment . He further admitted that he was not getting salary on monthly basis although earlier in the year 1985 he was paid the salary on monthly basis and that he had served the Management continuously from 1993 to 1996 without any break. That he was getting wages @ Rs . 35/- per day. That he was relieved on 29-9-1986 and after his disengagement one Chaman Lal was engaged.

The perusal ofthe record shows that the parties are not at variance on facts to a large extent. The Management hasplaced on record certified copies ofvouchers and their witness admitted that those vouchers pertained to the payment made to the workman by the Management, The Management in their written statement claimed that the workman had served the Management from 2/1985 to 6/ 1989 intermittently but as per the vouchers placed on record by them it is clear that the workman had served the Management up to the year 1996. Thus , the claim of the workman that he had served the Management up to 9/1996 issupported by the documents placed on record by the Management. The witness of the Management J.S. Johar admitted that the workman was not paid for the Sundays and National Holidays. As per the vouchers produced by them the workman had been paid for 237 days for the period from 7-10-1995 to 31-8-1996 . They have withheld the vouchers for September , 1995. The withholding of the record by the Management goes against them as the presumption is that if produced the same would have gone against them . Even otherwise , as per the record produced the workman had served the Management for 237 days 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services which did not include the Bank Holidays, National Holidays and the Sundays . These also do not include the working days for which the workman was paid during the month of September 1995. The Law is settled that a workman is entitled to the Sundays and other paid holidays for the purpose of completion of 240 days . In this regard I am supported by the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as AIR- 1986 S.C. ( 458 ) . The vouchers produced by the Management does not show as to from whichdate towhich date he was paid the wages . Sometimes he was paid for 5 days and sometimes for 3 days , 4 days and 6 days . There is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the workman had served the Management for 240 days before his disengagement and that the Management neither issued notice to the workman before the termination ofhis services nor paid him the wages for the notice period. He was also not paid the retrenchment compensation. The Management, therefore, violated the provisions of Section 25- F oftheAct . As admitted by them they did not prepare the seniority listbefore the termination of the services of the workman . They have also failed to rebut the claim of the workman that the Management had engaged Chaman Lal after the termination of the services of the workman.

TheManagement examined Shri Jaspal Singh Johar as their witness who prove his Affidavit MW - 1 and stated that as per record the workman had served the Management as Casual Labourer . He could not say whether the workman had served as Peon on regular basis from 1985 to 1993. Не admitted that the Management had placed on record 43 vouchers and the working days shown therein do not 890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009

S.O. 455. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of LIC of India , and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 29-1-2009 .

TheManagement, therefore , violated the provisions ofthe Act as they did not issue notice to him before the termination of his services nor paid him the wages for the notice period. They also did not pay him the retrenchment compensation although it is proved that the workman served the Management for 240 days preceding the date of termination of his services . The order of termination of services oftheworkman was , therefore, bad in law and the same is quashed.

[No. L- 17012/33 /2001 - IR (B -II )]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R.G SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN ATI CAMPUS UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 2002 BETWEEN

Sri Vishwanath Dubey

San of late RamcharanDubey Resident of 1/15 Chander Nagar Dubey Bhawan Rajmarg Orai U.P. And The Divisional Manager LIC of India Divisional Office ,

16/98 Mahatama Gandhi Marg Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification No.L- 17012/33 /2001 /IR- B - II dated 21-1-2002, has referred the following dispute far adjudication to this tribunal

The question now comes for consideration is as to what relief the workman is entitled to . As per his own statement the workman was not engaged after following the procedure required for recruitment. He admitted that there was no advertisement notice nor he had submitted written application for appointment. He also did not produce his appointment letter although he claimed that the same was issued. Thus, his engagement was not by a regular process of recruitment and can rightly be described as back-door entry . He is , therefore , not entitled for reinstatement . There is , however , evidence to show that he had served the Management for more than 10 years . The Management should have considered this fact and given him due compensation. By their conduct , the workman suffered and has prosecuted his claim for more than 13 years . Considering all these facts I am ofthe opinion that the workman is entitled to compensation which should also include the amount for the sufferings he and his family hasundergone because ofthe conduct ofthe Management . Since the order of his disengagement has been quashed he is also entitled to the back wages . Taking all these facts into consideration, I order the Management to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - ( Rupees one lakh only) as lump sum compensation to the workman . They are directed to paythis amount to the workman within three months after the publication of award failing which the workman shall alsobe entitled to interest on the said amount @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of Award . The reference is answered in these terms . Let a copy of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and filebe sent to record after due compilation .

2. Whether the action af the management of LIC of India in terminating the services af Sri Vishwanath Dubey with effect from 30-11-1995 is legal and justified? Ifnot to. what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 455.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल आई सी आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

3.Briefly stated facts of the case are that the workman is serving continuously under the opposite party with effect from 19-9-1961 and the applicant was appointed by the opposite party at the post of Development Officer. Being a vigil employee the applicant used to take part in trade union activities on account of which some employees of the opposite party were having animosity against the applicant an under conspiracy succeeded in getting transferred the applicant from Kanpur to Orai and under the orders dated 16-08-80 passed by the opposite party the co -employees get success when the services of the applicant were terminated . The applicant represented the matter against illegal termination and when under campelling circumstances the applicant approached [सं. एल -17012/33/2001 - आई आर( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 891 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

receipt favouring Sri Chawla @ Rs.750 per month to enable hint to claim rebate in respect of house rent paid, in his Income Tax Return by way of alfurement. It has further been pleaded that the applicant taimed 100 % rebate in income tax calculations by cheating and déductions made by the office by showing an amount of Rs.26000 to have been deposited by him in the above NSSaccount on 13-3- 92whereas actually no amount was deposited by the applicant in the post office in the financial year 1991-92 . In view of above, the applicant has cheated and defrauded the opposite party as well as Income Tax Authorities for his vested interest and has deprived the Government of India from its substantial revenue collection under the head ofIncome Tax. Whatever justification has been shown by the applicant are absolutely incorrect and the applicant cannot claim to be absolved from the serious nature of misconduct committed by him on the basis of agent's action and his above misconduct has been futly proved during the inquiry. On the basis of the action on the part of the applicant he was issued charge sheet dated 23-06-94, which was not replied by the workman within stipulatod period therefore it was decided to hold inquiry against the... workman by appointing independent inquiry officer who conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice and as per the LIC of India Staff Regulation , 1960. Füll opportunity was given to the workman for his defense and he availed the same he was also provided full opportunity for producing documents in his defense by .. the enquiry officer and was also granted permission to inspect documents, therefore, there is no illegality, in the conduct of inquiry and the enquiry officer hels rightly proved the charges against the workman and also that the workman has rightly been awarded punishment of termination from the service ofthe LIC of India with effect from 30-11-95.

5.After exchange of pleadings, between the parties both contesting party apart from filing ofthe documentary evidence have led oral evidence as well . Whereas the workman examined himself as WW.1 . management examined its witness as M.W.1 ..

appropriate foram of court of law, the opposite party reinstated the applicant in the service at the post of Assistant and not as, Development Officer . The applicant joined the post at Orai on 20-2-81 Applicant further alleges that he purchased NSC through an agent which was .. infarmed by the applicant to the opposite party for sending the details af NSC to Income Tax Department . After some days it was noticed by the applicant that the pass book related with NSC is forged one . Applicant contacted with the agent and extended threat that the matter will be reported to the police authorities there upon the agent informed the applicant that the amount of the applicant would be adjusted by him in near future . When the matter relating to the applicant was investigated by the opposite party it revealed that not only the case ofthe applicant was detected likewise other cases relating to other employees were detected . Due to gridge on the part of the officers of the opposite party, the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 23-6-94 . Without awaiting the reply of the applicant against the charge sheet, opposite party initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant by appointing Sri S. C. Saxena, as enquiry officer who was having grudge against the applicant since the time when the applicant was posted as Development Office at Branch Office Orai ofthe opposite party where Sri Saxena was his branch manager . It is also pleaded that the rules of natural justice has not been following during the course of inquiry proceedings in as much as the applicant vide application dated 1-03-95 sought certain documents from the inquiry officer which were declined by the opposite party vide letter dated 10-3-95. Even the applicant was not provided reasonable opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses, enquiry officer used to write the answer of the management witnesses in twisted form. The applicant summoned Sri A. K. Shukla as defense witness but the opposite party under threat did not call defense witness and lastly it has been pleaded that during the inquiry charges have not been proved , therefore , he is liable to be reinstated in the services of the opposite party with full back wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits attached with the post .

6. The Tribunal has heard the arguments of the contesting parties at length and has also given its anxious consideration carefully to the records of the case .

7. First ofall it will be seen as if the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is vitiated or not.

8: The tribunal does not find any force in the contention ofthe authorized representative for the workman that the workman was deprived of reasonable opportunity inhis defence or he was not permitted to cross examine the witnesses produced by the management . After going through the proceedings of the inquiry tribunal find that the workman was given full opportunity by the enquiry in his defence. So far arguments that the application of the 4. The opposite party contested the claim of the workman on a number of grounds denying the pleadings raised by the workman. On merit it has been pleaded that the workman opened a NSS Account no. 1100632 in the postoffice Orai on 6-3-91 and deposited only Rs.1000 in the aforesaid account. The workman changed Rs.1000 into Rs .40000 by tempering in the NSS pass book and claimed 100% rebate for Rs 40000 instead of Rs . , 1000 which was actually deposited by him in the NSS Account in the tax calculation and its deductions made by branch office Orai in respect of his earning during the financial year 1990-91 and on the basis of tempered pass book he got the entry verified in the earning record sheet maintained by the office by the then AAO and in turn issued a fake rent 892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii )]

effect from 30-11-95 is legal just and fair and the workman is held entitled to no relief.

13. Reference is therefore , answered in negative against the workman and in positive in favour of the management.

14. Reference is answered accordingly.

R. G. SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 456. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण ऐरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । workman summoning certain documents was not allowed bythe enquiry is devoid of merit as from the record ofthe inquiry proceedings it stands fully proved that the enquiry officer has allowed the workman to inspect the documents called for by him. Records ofenquiry proceedings further goes to establish the fact that he was allowed ample opportunity to examine the management witnesses. It is not the obligation either of the enquiry officer or the presenting officer to summon witness of workman . Ifat all the workman was interested to produce any witness in his support during the course of enquiry he was free to do so but at any rate he cannot be allowed to blame the enquiry officer on any count if he failed to produce his witness in the inquiry. Rather it was his obligation to produced best defence by producing witnesses at his own cost. Management / employer are not supposed to fill up the lacuna left by the workman himself for his defence. Therefore on the basis of opinion expressed above , it is held that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is just, fair and legal .

[सं. एल-12012/117/2005- आई आर( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th January, 2009

S.O. 456. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bahk, and their workmeti , feceived by the Central Government on 29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12012/ 117/2005 - IR(B- II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer 9. Next it willbe considered as ifthe report ofenquiry officer suffers from infirmities and is liable to set aside . Tribunal has also considered this aspect of the matter in depth and has come to the definite conclusion that the enquiry officer has recorded a very rational finding after considering the entire material and evidence ofthe parties available on record of the enquiry and is of definite conclusion that the finding ofthe enquiry officer is perfectly legal and valid and cannot he held to be vitiated. Having concluded that neither the enquiry proceedings are vitiated nor the finding of the enquiry officer , therefore , the same remains intact.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri . P.L.Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 26th day of December , 2008/ 5th Pausa, 1930

I.D. 12 of2006

Workman

10. Lastly it will be seen if the punishment awarded to the workman by the opposite party is shockingly disproportionate or not . On this point it is settled legal position that where proceedings of enquiry and findings ofthe enquiry officer is found legal and valid, courts/tribunal are not competentto interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority. Therefore under these circumstances the provisions of section 11 -Aof the Act are not applicable in such cases .

Shri.K.M.Martin , Kanassery House , C / o.A.A.Ibrahimkutty, Arimbassery, House, Thrikkakara P.O. , Kochi .

By Adv. C.S.Ajith Prakash .

Management

: The Deputy General Manager, Indian Bank, Circle Office, 3575, 38/ 1672- B & C, Chittoor Road, Pullepady, Ernakulam .

ByAdv.Sri.S.Easwaran .

11. At any rate the misconduct committed by the workman is of grave nature and also amounts to loss of confidence on his. part . If such persons are allowed to be retained in the services of the opposite party which is a financial institution confidence reposed by the public would certainly be shakened. Therefore , from this point of view tribunal is of the firm opinion that the punishment awarded to the workman is perfectly just, legal and appropriate and need no interference on the part of the Tribunal .

This case coming up for final hearing on 17-12-2008 , this Tribunal on 26-12-2008 passed the following.

AWARD

12. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that the action of the management ofLife Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the services of the workman with

This is a reference made under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act. The reference is:

893 [ भাগ Ⅱ- অण्ड 3 ( 11) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

4. Is he entitled to the protection under Section 25F of I.D. Act?

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in illegal termination by way ofretrenchment of workman Shri.K.M.Martin is correct or not? If not what relief the workman is entitled?"

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WW I anddocumentary evidence ofExts. W1 to 1.1 on the side of theworkman and Court Exhibits Xl toX3 and no evidence on the side of the management.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- According to the claimant Sri.K.M.Martin he was appointed by the management bank as temporarydriverto ChiefManager of Ernakulam Main Branch on 3-3-1991 . Thoreafter he was appointed as driver to Deputy General Manager In Zonal Office, Pullepady , Ernakulam on 24-11-1992. His salary was revised by bank from time to time. While so, he made representations for regularising his service. Instead of considering his representation favourably the management terminated him from service w.o.f. 1-6-2005 . The workman was working in the bank for 14years.The car he was driving belonged to the bank. The car was driven for official purposes of the officer concerned . The worker was paid by the bank. He was also engaged by the bank for discharging the duties ofPeons whenever they were on leave . Thus there is employer- employee relationship between the parties . As per circular dated 14-11-1995 ofthe bank, personal drivers of officers canbe considered for appointment as regular sub - staff. The workman has worked continuously for more than 240 days every year . However without notice or retrenchment compensation the management terminated the service of the workman, He claims that he is entitled for reinstatement and regularisation.

3. According to the management the claimant was never appointed by the management bank and he is not a workman within the definition of S.2(s) of I.D. Act.Hence the reference is not maintainable . He was appointed as personal driver by ChiefManager ofErnakulam Main Branch in his personal capacity. The bank has not terminated his service. There is no relationship of master and servant between the parties . As per guidelines issued by Ministry of Finance dated 30-09-1978 Sub -staff ofthe bank can be recruited only through employment exchange . As per order of Ministry of Finance dated 23-06-1997 personal drivers ofexecutives ofPublic Sector Banks are not employees of the bank and they are not eligible for absorption. The personal drivers of high level officers are paid salaryby theofficerswho engage personal drivers and such payment is re - imbursedby the bank to the officers . The bankhas no administrative or disciplinary control over him. The claimant has not furnished details of continuous work of240 days . Hence he cannot claim protection of I.D. Act. He is not entitled to any relief.

4. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration:

1. Is he an employee of the bank?

2. Is the claimant entitled for regularisation ?

5. Point No.1:- It is the contention ofthe claimant thathe is an employee of the bank and he was appointed by thebank as a temporary driver to Chief Manager initially and then DGM. But in the box he admits that he did not receive any appointment order ( WW1 ) . His contention in the claim statement goes against his contention in his representations submitted to the management requesting for regularisation (Exts . W-9 and 11 ) wherein the only contention is that he was a personal driver of the officers and has no case that he was appointed by the bank as a temporary driver or otherwise . Thus the contention ofthe claimant in claim statement and representations are inconsistent. He has no definite stand. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that even if he was engaged as personal driver initially he was treated by the management as an employee of the bank and he was paid by the bank. He was discharging the official duties of a driverbytaking the officers to different places for official purposes. The car was owned by the bank. The repairs and maintenance of the car were carried out through him . Payments to automobile workshop and spare parts shop were made through him , Besides he was utilised as a Peon whenever any peon was on leave . He was working like a regular employee. But he was denied benefits of a regular employee. To prove that he was paid by the bank he has produced certain vouchers and called for three vouchers from the bank. They are Exts . W2 to 4, 10 and Xl to X3 . Exts.W2 vouchers are in respect of batta paid for taking Zonal Manager to Kunnamkulam , Guruvayoor and Kodungallur and labour charges paid for changing dynama of the car . The vouchers are signed by the claimant acknowledging receipt of the amount. Ext .W3 are vouchers showing payment for repair to the official car and batta given to the claimant for taking DGM to Perumbavoor in the year 2000. Ext . W 4 is another voucher signed by the claimant on 28-02-2005 acknowledging receipt ofbatta for trip toGuruvayoor with DGM. Ext .WI0 are 3 vouchers of 2000 regarding payment of courier service charges paid through the claimant and payment of salary to the workman by way of re- imbursement to DGM . Ext.Xl is voucher showing payment made through the claimant for serving tea in DGM's cabin in 2005. Ext . X2 is another voucher regardingbattapaid to the claimant in 2005 for taking DGM toGuruvayoor .Ext.X3 is voucher of2002 regarding payment made to the claimant for trip to Airport. Besides two bills are producedby the claimant, Exts .W / and 8 which are billsof2005 for purchase of spare parts ofthe car. The bill was prepared by the Merchant , Marikar Indüstries and 3. Ishe entitled for reinstatement ?

894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )]

orally that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days prior to his termination . In view of the established facts and in the absence of rebuttal evidence (no evidence atall) on the part of the bank the case of the worker was accepted. But so far as the instant case is concerned , the facts and evidence are different . He joined service as personal driver of the Executive (Exts . W9 & 11 ) . His case in the chief examination is that his last drawn salary is Rs.2750 and the same was paid by the bank . Vouchers Exts.W2 to 4 and XI to X3 are in respect of payment of batta paid to the workman for taking executive to different places and repair charges of vehicle. Ext . W- 10 contain a debit stip relating to reimbursement of driver's salary of Rs. 2,100 to DGM. There is no record to show that salary was paid to the workman by the bank. The workman has no consistent case. In Exts. W9 & 11 he would say that he was a personal driver of the Executives . But in the claim statement his case is that he was appointed as a temporary driver to the Chief Mana er and subsequently transferred and appointed as driver to the Deputy General Manager . These contentions are mutually exclusive . There is no -appointment order and no records to that effect. On the other hand Ext .W6 certificate issued by Regional Manager shows that he was only a personal driver . So also there is no evidence regarding continuous service of 240 days . The bank has denied such continuous service in the written statement . Considering the above factual context the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the workman can have no application to the case on hand.

checked by the claimant. These vouchers and bills show that the claimant was paid batta for trip to different places with executives and bill amounts for purchasing spare parts and towards repair of the car by the bank. Vouchers are signed no doubt by the claimant and payment is no doubt made by the bark, but as batta for trip to different places with DGM . li is not disputed that high level officers of the bank are allowed to engage personal drivers and payments made by such officers to personal drivers , are re - imbursed by the bank. The vouchers do not disclose anything more than that. Assuming that they are direct payments made by the bank to the claimant still other than the vouchers mentioned above there are no other records to show that bank has any direct dealing or control or supervision over personal drivers of executives . The Executives who engage personal drivers are directly exercising control over such persons . There is no case for the workman that the bank has taken any disciplinary action against him so far. Moreover the case of the workman as disclosed in his representations Ext . W- 9 and 11 is that he was engaged only as a personal driver of Executives . Ext . W -6 certificate of Regional Manager is also to the same effect . It is only when the dispute was raised that an alternate contention is taken by the claimant that he was treated like an employee of the bank and hence there is master- servant relationship between the parties . It is only a subsequent thought with a view to stake a claim against the bank. He joined service as a personal driver with open eyes and there was no promise at the time of engaging that in course of time he will be made a regular employee of the bank . It is for the bank to consider him for regularisation iflaw permits and guidelines ofthe bank allow . There is no provision as per recruitment rules and guidelines of the bank to absorb personal drivers. The Government , by order dated 23-6-1997, has negatived the proposal of the bank and unions in the Bipartite Settlementto regularise personal drivers . The evidence reveals that he was only a personal driver of the executives , and not an employee of the bank .

6. The learned counsel for the claimant relied on the decision reported in Bank of Baroda v. Ghemarbhai Harjibhai Rabari 2005 ( 2 ). Supreme 628 to canvass for the position that in the absence of rebuttal evidence the case of the claimant has to be accepted . In the reported case the workman claimed to be a driver employed by the bank who had been working continuously for more than 240 days . The bank contended that he was never appointed by the bank but as per a scheme of the bank a car was allotted to anExecutive and it was the responsibility of the executive to appoint a driver for the vehicle . The salary paid by the executive concerned is reimbursed by the bank. Such a person is not an employee of the bank . It was held that the worker had produced three vouchers showing that he was paid wages by the bank and he had also relied on a register wherein his signature was obtained by the bank acknowledging the payment . He had also given evidence

7. Point No. 2 : The case of the claimant is that he was appointed as a temporary driver to the Chief Manager ofErnakulam Main Branch initially and thereafter to the Deputy General Manager of the Zonal office . But the management denies this contention of the claimant. According to the management he was only a personal driver ofthe officers of the bank . The claim for regularisation is made on the basis of a Bipartite Settlement dated 23-7-1994 and a circular ofthe bank dated 18-8-1994 ( Ext. WI ) . As per the circular personal drivers of officers who were working either on 23-7-1994 or prior to that and who had completed 5 years ' continuous service are to be considered for absorption as driver along with eligible regular sub - staffof the bank . It is contended by the learned counsel for the workman that since 1991 the workman was a personaldriver . He has completed more than 5 years ' continuous service and is eligible for regularisation . However the bank did not consider his representations , Exts . W- 9 and 11 but terminated him from service in the year 2005. In Exts .W-9 and 11 his contention is that he was appointed as a personal driver to Zonal Manager as well as Chief Manager of Ernakulam Branch and other officers . Ext . W- 6 is a certificate issued by Regional Manager certifying that the claimant had been working as personal driver of the Regional Manager for the last 5 years as on 27-5-2000 . Exts .W2 to 4 , W-10 and Xl to X3 are vouchers signed by the workman .

895 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21, 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

from service and therefore he cannot claim benefit of S.25 -FofI.D. Act . Since the claimant was not an employee ofthe bank but only a personal driver of Executives the claim for reinstatement also cannot stand.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service ofofthet workman Sri.K.M.Martin is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any retief. S

The award will corne into force 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 26th dayofDecember, 2008.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Appendix

Witness for the workman

WWL 6-11-2007 Sri . Martin K.M.

Witness for theManagement : Nil

Exhibit for the workman

18-8-1994 Letter from the Assistant General Manager (PL ) Madras to Zonal Manager, Ernakulam.

14-9-1999 Voucher of Indian Bank, Zonal Office.

W3 28-2-2005 Voucher of Indian Bank, Zonal Office.

W4 27-10-2000 Voucher of Indian Bank, Zonal Office.

W5 14-11-1995 Letter from the Assistant General Mahager Madras to the Zonal Manager, Ernakulam .

W6 27-5-2000 Certificate issued by Regional Manager, Ernakulam .

osicie ...

30-4-2005 Invoice of Marikkar Industries .

26-5-2005 Invoice of Marikkar Industries .

9-5-2000 Reminder letter by K. M. Martin tothe ZonalManager , Ernakulam.

Buttheyare ofthe year 1999, 2000, 2002 and 2005 only. No voucher prior to 1999 is before the court . Exts .W7 and 8 are bills of purchase of spare parts of the car issued in the name of Dy . General Manager and it was only checked by theworkman. They are also of the year 2005. There are no records produced or summoned to prove that prior to 1995 the claimant had worked whether as personal driver or in any other capacity. Therefore even ifExt . W-6 certificate issued by Regional Manager is accepted, he would have worked only from 27-5-1995 onwards . As per the Bipartite Settlements and circular (Ext. WI) and letter of Assistant General Manager (Personnel ) to Zonal Manager dated 14-11-1995 (Ext . WS ) the workman should have been working on or before 23-7-1994 in order to be eligible for consideration for absorption as a driver. Assuming for the sake of argument that the workman was a personal driver ofofficers sirice 3-3-1991 as claimed by him still as per the subsequent order of the government he is not eligible for absorption . The management has produced an order ofthe Ministry of Finance dated 23-6-1997 issued to the Chief Executives ofall Public Sector Banks regarding absorption ofpersonal drivers engaged by the Executives of the Bank. As per that order of the Government the personal drivers ofExecutives cannot be treated as employees of the bank, that they are paid by the executives out of the allowances granted by the bank to the executives, that there is no relationship between personal drivers and banks , that there is no question of absorption of such personal drivers in banks and drivers can be recruited only through regular recruitment channels . However cases in which appointment orders have been already issued, may not be re -opened. This order will supersede all previous orders in this regard. As per Ext .Wl circular of the bank the claimant should haveworked as personal driver either on23-7-1994 or prior to that . This position continued up to 23-6-1997 till the order of the government. Thereafter no personal drivers can be considered for absorption. The drivers can be appointed only through selection as per recruitment rules and norms . I have already mentioned, that there is no evidence to show that the claimant was in service as on 23-7-1994 or prior to that . He made representations for absorption only in 2000 and 2005 (Exts . W -9 and 11 ). In either case he is not eligible for regularisation as driver of the management.

W10 31-10-2000 Courier receipt-copy.

W11 23-05-2005 Representation submitted by workman to the Chairman and the Managing Director, Indian Bank.

Exhibit for the management: NIL

CourtExhibits.

X-I Voucher Receipt dated 10-5-2005.

X-2 Voucher Receipt dated28-2-2005.

: & Points 3 & 4 : There is a contention that the claimant has been working continuously for more than 240 days every year and he has completed 14 years of service. Unless the claimant proves continuous service of240days preceding retrenchment he cannot get the protection of S.25-F of I.D. Act. The burden is on him to prove the same. Other than the vouchers mentioned above there is no other record regarding continuous service of240 days . He was terminated from service on 1-6-2005 . For want of records it is not possible to say that he has worked continuously for 240 days in any year much less preceding his termination

X-3 Voucher Receipt dated 25-10-2002.

896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/ PHALGUNA 2, 1930

नई दिल्ली, 29 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 457. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार 508 , आर्मी बेस वर्कशॉप , इलाहाबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/9/98- आई आर ( डीयू) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th January , 2009

S.O. 457. In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the CentralGov- ernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of 508 , Army Base Workshop , Allahabad and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on29-01-2009.

[No. L- 14011 /9/98 - IR(DU) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. G SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN ATI CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 24 OF 1999

BETWEEN

General Secretary, Defence EME Employees Union , Allahabad, 586/74A/25 -B Dalel Ka Pura, Allahabad

AND

The Commandant & MD, 508 , ArmyBase Workshop , Allahabad Fort, Allahabad.

AWARD

1. Central Government vide notification No. L- 14011/9/ 98 - IR(DU) dated 4-2-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal- 2. Whether the action of the management of 508 , Army Base Workshop, Allahabad in awarding punishment to TN 4357 Sri Chunni Lal vide their order No. 21206/ 457-CL/Est. Ind . dated 31-12-96, is legal and justi- fied? If not to what relief the workman is entitled?

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]

3. It is unnecessary to given full facts of the case and to consider the merit of the case as in the instant case the union after availing of repeated opportu- nityhave palpably failed to adduce evidence in sup- port of his claim as a result of which the tribunal debarred the union from adducing evidence vide or- der dated 6-9-06. Therefore it is also unnecessary to discus the case of the management and evidence led by them as it is a case ofno evidence on behalf ofthe union raising the dispute. Therefore , the reference is bound to be answered against the union for want of evidence and proof.

4. For the reasons discussed above , it is held that the union raising the dispute is held entitled to no relief for want of evidence and proof.

5. Reference is answered accordingly in negative against the union .

R. G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 458. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-01-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/99/2007- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 29th January , 2009

S.O. 458. In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Gov- ernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Governinenton 29-1-2009.

[No. L- 12012/99/2007- IR (B -II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI R. G SHUKLA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN ATI CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 28/2008 BETWEEN

Sri Anil Kumar son ofSri Shanker Lal , R/ o Tedhi Pulia Behind Primary School , Balmiki Basti , Post Jamuna Kinara, Hathras Road , Agra . U.P.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( il) ]

897 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

AND

New Delhi , the 30th January , 2009

S.O. 459. In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- The Regional Manager , Central Bank of India, RegionalOfficer, SanjayPlace, Agra, U.P.

AWARD

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the CentralGov- ernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Patana as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute betweenthe management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and their workmen, received by Central Government on 30-01-2009.

1. CentralGovernment Ministry of Labour , New Delhi, videNotification No. L- 12012/99/2007 -IR-(B- II) dated 31-12-2007, has referred the following dispute for ad- judication to this tribnal-

[No. L-12012/73/2007-IR- (B- 1 )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA

Reference Case No. 28( C) of2007 , 2. Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Agra in terminating Sri Anil Kumar Sweeper, Central Bank of India, Sikandara, Branch Agra from the service with effect from 20-07-04, and at the same time appointing a junior person is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman con- cerned is entitled?

Between the management ofBihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, HeadOffice , Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger (Bihar) and their workman Shri Kundan Kumar Mishra, represented by Sri B. Prasad, President, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association, Exhibition Road , Patna .

Forthe managerment : Sri Shekhar Prasad Singh Sr. Manager(PAD), Management Representative.

For the Workman

3. Inthe instant case after receipt ofthe reference order from the Ministry registered notices were issued twice to the contesting parties from the tribunal but after availing of suffcient opportunities the workman neither put his appearance nor filed his written statement in support of his claim . Whereas the authorized representative put his appearance and filed letter of authority on behalf of the bank on 5-8-08 . It thus appears that the workman is not intersted in prosecuting his case and accordingly the reference is liable to be answered against the workman for want ofpleadings and proof.

Sri B. Prasad, President , Bihar Provincial GraminBank Employees Association , Exhibition Road, Patna.

Present

: Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated the20th January , 2009 .

4. In view of above, the tribunal has no option but to hold that the workman is not entitled for any relief for want of pleadings and proof and the reference is accordingly decided against the workman and in favour ofthe management, holding that their action in terminating the services of the workman with effect from 20-07-04 is legal and fair . Second part of the reference order is also held to be decided against the workman for the reasons given above .

5. Reference is answered accordingly.

R. G. SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2009

By adjudication order No. L- 12012/73/2007- IR( B - 1 ) dated 17-9-2007 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section (2 -A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter called ' the Act' for previty) referred the following dispute between the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Offce, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger (Bihar) (here- inafter called ' the Bank' for brevity) and their workman Sri Kundan Kumar Mishra (hereinafter called " the workman " for brevity) represented by the President, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association , Exhibition Road , Patna for adjudication on the following

का.आ. 459. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बिहार श्रेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में , औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-01-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/73/2007- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Sri Kundan Kumar Mishra without complying 898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] Section 25F of the I.D. Act and not reinstating and regulariging him in service, is fair, legal and justi- fied? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

NABARD about strength of manpower of the Bank and the circulars issued by NABARD in that connection is binding on the Bank management . Further , according to the management the appointment of any employee with- out following the procedures of appointment and without observing the rules of reservation is treated as back -door appointment and such employees . Further , the manage- ment contends that as per Circular No. DO -No . F4-27/75- ACdated the 26th November, 1975 no peon or his iquivalent by what ever designation called, would be employed by RR Banks . The services of the employees so appointed was directed to be dispensed with without delay . The representatives of Kshetriya Bank approched the head Office for employment of Sweepers and the matter was placed before the Board of Directors . The Board of Directors decided to authorise each branch to spend Rs . 2/- onlyfrom miscellaneous account every day on cleaning. It was also decided that a man can not work more then seven days and the person so engaged would not claim for ap- pointment on that basis. The part -time- sweeper - cum - mes- senger who were in service on 22-2-1991 and completed 240days continuous service thereafter were treated as regu- lar employees w.e.f. 2-2-1991 . The management further con- tends that this workman was engaged on daily wages with- out following the norms and procedures of appointment and his engagement was against the circulars of NABARD and Central Government as there was already permanent sub -staff in the catagory in the branch . There is no sanc- tioned post in the Bank as daily wagers do not come within the purview of Service Regulations of the Bank . Accord- ing the management this claimant is not a workman as defined u/s.2( S) of ' the Act ' and as such the reference itself is bad in law . The workman is also not the member of any union . The dispute raised by the claimant is also not an industrial dispute defined under Section2 (K) of the Act . According to the management Section 25F of the Act has no application in this case nor the management has com- mitted any unfair labour practice . According to the man- agement the purported workman is not entitled to any re- lief and the reference is fit to be decided in favour of the management .

4.Upon the pleadings of the parties and the terms of reference the following points arise out for decision : -

(i) Is the reference maintainable ?

2.The parties appeared on notice and filed the state- ment of claim and the written statement respectively . The contention of the workman is that he had been appointed on 1-2-1995 by the management of the than Bhagalpur- Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank to discharge the duties of a Sweeper - cum- messenger at Dariapur Branch of the Bank. He used to perform the duties from 9A.M. to 5 P.M. some- time beyond that as per requirement of the Bank . He was initially paid wages @ Rs . 5/- per day which was gradually raised to Rs . 44/ - per day. He was paid wages mostly on monthly basis through Bank's Debit Vouchers . In the year 2005 following a Central Government Notification three Re- gional Rural Banks ( RRB in short) sponsored by UCO Bank namely Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Begusarai Kshetriya Gramin Bank were amalgamated and was renamed as Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank with its headquarter at Munger. The Chairman of the then Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank was made chairman of the amalgamated Bank . Further the case of the workman is that the Chairman of the Bank in utter violation of the law and in most arbitrary manner in- structed the Branch Managers to terminate the services of the workman. Accordingly the services of the workman was terminated from 16-9-2006 . On the request ofthe work- man the Union took up the matter with the management but the management did not concede/ consider their grivances and thereafter the Union raised industrial dispute but the conciliation procedings ended in failure due to non-compromissing attitude of the management Thereafter the dispute was referred for adjudication . Accoding to the workman termiation of his services is covered under Section 2(00) of the Act . The management violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act and thus the management resorted to unfair labour practice as per Schedule - V of the Act . Further , the conten- tion of the workman is that he worked for over ten years under the management and is in the midstream of his life having no other means of livelihood. According to the workman the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman, not reinstating and regualrising his services in the Bank is neither legal nor justified. The workman claims that he be reinstated with back wages and his services be regularised as full time sweeper - cum-

messenger .

(ii) Whether the action of the management ofBihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the service of Shri Kundan Kumar Mishra without complying Sec. 25F of ' the Act' is legal and justified?

(iii) Whether the action of the management in not re- instated the workman in service is legal and justified?

3. The contention of the management is that Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank ( hereinafter called ' the Bank ' for brevity) has been created under the Regional Rural Banks Act. 1976 (in short RRB Act ) and as such is guided by the directions issued by Central Government in regard to policy matters involving public interest in discharging of its func- tions . The Central Government issued guidelines through

(iv) Whether the action of the management in not regularizing the workman ins service is lagal and justified?

899 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21, 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

maintainable. The definition of ' workman ' as laid down under Section 2(S) of the Act reade as follows:

(v) To what relief or reliefs , if any , the workman is entitled?

FINDINGS

Point No. (i) :

"Workman" means any person (including an-appren- tice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms ofemployment express or implied, and for the purpose ofanyproceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute , includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of, that dis- pute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person.

(i )who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950),or theNavy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee ofa person ; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or ad- ministrative capacity ; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercise , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of thepowers vested in him, functions mainly ofa mana- gerialnature."

According to the said definition Sri Kundan Kumar Mishra is undoubtedly a workman .As per the statement of M.W. 1 daily wagers do not come within the purview of Service Regulation of Bank. In this connection I haveto mention that Service Regulations ofthe Bank can not over- ride the statute, the law framed by the legislature , the Act .

There is no dispute on the point that the workman was not a member of any union . Section 36 of the Act which deals with the representation of the parties reads as follows :-

36. Representation ofparties (1 ) Aworkmanwho is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be repre- sented in any proceeding under this Actby-

(a) (any member of the executive or other officer bearer) ofa registered trade union of which he is a member;

5. Both the parties have adduced evidences , oral as well as documentary in support of their respective contentions.One Anil Kumar, Senior Manager, Personnel, Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Munger has deposed (as M.W. 1) on behalf of the management . The workman himself has deposed (as W.W.1 ) for himself in support of his case. The management got exhibited the photocopy of D.O.No. FA-27/75-AC dated 26-11-1975 (Ext, M), photocopy ofletter No. F2-27/ 80 RRB 27-9-1980 (Ext.M/ 1 ) concerning appointment of messengers in Regional Rural Banks , photocopyofletter No. F2-27/ 80 RRB dated 16-12-1980(Ext . M/2) and photocopy of letter No. F2-27/80 RRB dated 28-5-1981 (Ext.M/3 ) on the same subject and photocopy of letter No. 4559 dated 20-3-1993 (Ext.M/4 ) regarding implementation ofNational Industrial Tribunal Award.As against that photocopy of letter dated 2-2-2008 of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank regarding calculation of expenses to daily wagers/ part- time workers of Branch (Ext.W), photocopy of list of whorkmen prepared by Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank with the name of Kundan Kumar at serial No. 20(Ext. W/1 ), photocopy of letter ofBihar Kshetriya Gramin BankDariyapur Branch dated 11-10-2006 regarding removal of the workman from service after making payment through vouchers (Ext. W/2) , photocopy of details of daily wages paidby the branch dated 28-2-2008 (Ext . W/3 and W/3-1 ), phtocopy of circular No. 22/2003 dated 10-7-2003 regarding enhancement of daily wages payable to casual worker working in the Bank as sweeper and others (Ext. W/4), photocopy of letter of UCO Bank dated 18-11-1993 (Ext . W/5), photocopy of letter dated 31-12-1993 regarding directions of cleanliness in the Branches ( Ext . W/6) , photocopy of circular No. 49/2000 of Bhagalpur -Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank dated 25-11-2000 (Ext . W/7 ) , photocopy of letter dated 22-9-2003 of Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank concerning payment of D.A. to daily wagers (Ext . W/ 8 ) and photocopy of payment vouchers dated 31-8-2006 (Ext . W/9 ) , I may mention here that the workman called for the voucher , from the management but the management neither produced the same nor filed any explanation of non- filing the same.

(b) ( any member of the executive or other office bearer) of a federation of trade unions towhich the trade union referred to in clause(a) is affiliated;

(c)where the worker is not a member ofany trade union, by (any member of the executive or other officebearer) of any trade union connected with,or by any other workman employed in, the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed ."

6.While challenging the maintainability ofthis refer- ence the management in its W.S. have contended that daily wagers do not come within the purview of service Regula- tion of the Bank and they are not ' workman ' as defined under Section 2(S) of the Act and the workman is not a member of any union and thus the dispute raised is not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(K) ofthe Act and as such the reference itself is bad in law and is not 900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] This workman though is not a member of any union he is represented by the office bearer of the trade union conneted with the industry in which the workman was employed. Under such circumstances the reference can not be said not maintainable merely because the workman did not happen to be a member of any trade union .

Section 2( K) of the Act defines ' Industrial Dispute' asfollows:

" Industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , or between employers and workman, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour , of any person;"

admitted fact that the workman put in more than 240 days continuous service for about 11 ( Eleven) years . There is not dispute on the point that the workman was removed from the service on 16-9-2006 by the management without anynotice , notice pay or compensation as required under Section 25F of the Act . The workman raised industrial dispute yet he was not reinstated. I may mention here that it was quite within the knowledge of the management that the workman was working, may that be in violation of the circulars of the Bank and the management not only made payments to the workman for his work rendered, it was enhanced from time to time following the enhancement in payby the government . The management did not take any action or punish the officer who engaged the workman and made payments in violation of the circulars of the Bank. Under such circumstances the management can not take the plea that the claimant was not a workman and the dispute raised by him is not an industrial dispute .

Keeping in view the discussions made above I find and hold that the dispute between the management and the workman is an industrial dispute' and the reference made for adjudication is maintainable in law. Point No. (i ) is decided accordingly .

8. Section 2(00) of the Act defines retrenchment as follows:

Point Nos . (ii) & (iii) :

"retrenchment" means the termination by the employerof the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of dsciplinary action but does not include .

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman: or

(b) retirement ofthe workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment be- tween the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf ; or

(bb) termination the service of the workman as a re- sult of the non-renewal of the contract of employ- ment between the employer and the workman con- cerned on its expiry or of such contract being termi- nated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

Under the circumstances discussed above I find that the termination of the services of the workman was re- trenchment as defined in the above noted section . The retrenchment was done without compliance of the provi- sions of section 25F of the Act. Under the circumstances I find and hold that the action of the management of Bihar ' Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services ofthe workman without complying Section 25F of the Act, and not reinstating in service is unfair labour practice and is illegal and unjustified. Point Nos . ( ii) & ( iii) are answered accordingly.

Point No. (iv):

7.At the very outset I would like to mention that the facts ofthis are almost admitted . From the oral evidence of the parties and also from the pleadings of the parties it is admitted that the workman worked in Bhagalpur branch of theBank from 1-12-1995 to 15-9-2006, he was removed from the service w.e.f 16-9-2006 . It is also an admitted fact that the workman was not given any appointment letter nor he was given termination letter. It has been stated by the workman ( W.W.1 ) and has not been contraverted by the management that the workman worked from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and sometimes till colosure of the Bank work even after that as per requirement . He used to be paid weekly on daily basis through vouchers . There is no dispute on the point that earlier he used to get @ Rs . 5/- per day which gradually rose to Rs . 44/- per day. There is no dispute on the point that the workman used to get Festival advance and the same used to be recovered from his wages in instalments . The workman has filed documents in support of the same which need not require discussion because the facts admitted need not be proved. It is also an admitted fact that Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Begusarai Kshetriya Gramin Bank, were amalgamated. Before amalgamation Bhagalpur- Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank was independent . All the three Kshetriya Gramin Bank, named above were sponsored by UCO Bank . M.W.I during cross - examination has admitted that National Industrial Tribunal Award become applicable in the Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 1991 M.W.1 in his cross -examination has admitted that the Board of Directors of Bhagalpur- Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank increased the wages/pay of the sweepers as per the government scales . Copy of letter dated 22-9-2003 (Ext .W/4) also supports the same . Under the circumstances it is an

9. It is an admitted fact that the workman was engaged on daily wages by the management and the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

workmanworked for nearly eleven years as sweeper-cum- messenger. It is also an admitted fact that there was no advertisement ofthe post for appointment , no examintaion for selection meaning thereby the procedures of appointment were not followed in taking the workman in employment. There are catena of decisions and it is well settledprinciple of law that no direction for regularisation of services of such workman can be issued. Moreover regularisation in service is essentially the executive work, the work of the management and is not the business of tribunal . Under the circumstances though the workman has served the management for a pretty long time and is in the midstream of his life and it is for the management to consider his regularisation, this tribunal can not issue direction for regularisation and can not hold as towhether the action of the management in not regularising the services of the workman was illegal or unjustified or otherwise. I may mention that on behalf of the workman para4.410 ofthe award ofNational Industrial Tribunal for Regional Rural Banks has been referred in support of regularisation . But as already mentioned above the tribunal can not pass an order for regularisation . This point is decided accordingly.

Point No. (v):

: 10. Ithas alreadybeen held above that the action of the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in termiating the services of the workman without complying theprovisions ofSection 25F of the Act is not only illegal it is unjustified also. It has also been held that this tribunal cannot pass an order on the point of regularisation of the workman in service . The workman has served the management as Sweeper - cum-Messenger for nearly eleven years and is in the midstream of his life . Under the circumstances I find and hold that the workman deserves to be reinstated with back wages . This point is decided accordingly.

11. In the result I find and hold that the action ofthe management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger in terminating the services ofthe workman without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the Act is unfair, illegal and unjustified and the workman deserves to be reinstated with back wages @ wages last paid . The management is directed to comply the same within two months from the date of the publication of the Award.

12.And this is my Award . VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 460. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बिहार श्रेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो

901 केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-01-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/ 72/2007- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 30th January, 2009

S.O. 460.--In pursuancesuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the CentralGov- ernment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. 27/2007) of In dustrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Patna as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the manage- ment of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and their workmen ; received by Central Government on 30-01-2009.

[No. L- 12012/72 /2007-IR-(B- I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. ReferenceCase No. 27(C) of 2007.

Betweenthe management of Bihar KshetriyaGramin Bank,Head Office , Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger (Bihar) and their workman Sri Ratan Kumar Jaiswal , represented by Sri B. Prasad, President, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association.

Forthe management : Sri Shekhar Prasad Singh Sr.Manager( PAD ), Management Representative.

For the Workman

SriB. Prasad, President,Bihar Provincial GraminBank Employees Association, Saboo Complex, Exhibition Road , Patna.

Present

: Vasudeo Räim, Presiding Officer AWARD Patria, dated the 22nd January, 2009 .

By adjudication Order No. L- 12012/72/2007- IR(B- 1 ) datedthe 17th September , 2007 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferredby clause (d) ofSub-section ( 1 ) and Sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called' the Act' for previty) has referred the dispute betweenthe management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger (Bihar) and their workman Sri Ratan Kumar Jaiswal to this Tribunal for adjudication on the following: - "Whether the action of the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Sri Ratan Kumar Jaiswal without complying Section 25F of the 1.D. Act and not reinstating and 902

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

regularising him in service, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?".

Further according to the management the appointment of any employer without following the procedures of appoint- ment and without observing the rules of reservation is treated as back- door appointment and such employment will notgive any right to such employees . Further the man- agement contends that as per Circular D.O. No. F4-27/75- AC dated 26-11-1975 no peon or his equivalent by what- ever designation called, would be employed by R.R. Banks . The services of the employees so appointed wouldbe dis- pensed with without delay . The representatives of Kshetriya Gramin Banks approached the head -office for employment of sweepers and the matter was placed before the Board of Directors . After deliberations the Board of Directors decided to authorise each branch to spend Rs . 2 only per day from miscellaneous head on cleaning . It was also decided that a man can not work more than seven days and the person so engaged would not claim for appointment on that basis . The part - time sweeper cum- messenger who were in service on 22-2-1991 and completed 240days continuous service thereafter were treated as regu- lar employees w.e.f. 2-2-1991 . The management further contends that this workman was engaged on daily wages without following the norms and procedures of appoint- ment and his engagement was against the circulars of NABARD and Central Government as there was already permanent sub - staff in the category in the branch . There is no sanctioned post in the Bank as daily wagers do not come within the purview of Service Regulations of the Bank.According to the management this claimant is not a workmanas defined under Section 2( S ) of ' the Act' and as such the reference itself is bad in law. The workman is also not the member of any union.The dispute raised by the claimant is also not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2 ( K) of the Act . According to the management Section 25F of the Act has no application in this case nor the management has committed any unfair labour practice. According to the management the purported workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is fit to be de- cided in favour of the management .

4.Upon the pleadings of the parties and the terms of reference the following points arise out for decisions :-

0 Isthe reference maintainable ?

(ii) Whether the action of the management ofBihar Kshitriya Gramin Bank in terminating the ser- vice of Shri Ratan Kumar Jaiswal without com- plying Sec . 25F of ' the Act ' is legal and justi- fied ?

2. The parties appeared on notice and filed their respective statement of claim and the written statement. The contention of the workman is that he had been appointed by the management of the then Bhagalpur-Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank w.e.f. March , 1994 to discharge the duties of a sweeper - cum -messenger at Gosiangaon branch ofthe Bank. Since then the workman performed the duties of a sweeper-cum -messenger every day from 9A.M. to 5 P.M. Sometimes beyond that as per the requirement of the Bank. He was initially paid @ Rs . 2 per day which subse- quently was enhanced to Rs , 67 per day. He used to be paid mostly on monthly basis through Bank's Debit vouch- ers. In the year 2005 the three Regional Rural Banks spon- sored by UCO Bank namely Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Begusarai Kshetriya Gramin Bank were amalgamated fol- lowing the Central Government . Notification and after amalgamation the same was renamed as Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger with its headquarters at Munger. The Chairman ofMunger Kshetriya Gramin Bank was made its Chairman . Further , the case of the workman is that the Chairmam in utter violation of law and in most arbitrary manner instracted the Branch Manager to terminate the services of the workman and accordingly the services of workman was terminated on 16-9-2006 . On the request of theworkman the union ofthe employees of that Bank took up the matter with the management but the management did not consider their grivances and thereafter the Union raised industrial dispute but the Conciliation proceeding ended in failure due to non- compromising attitude of the management . Thereafter the dispute was referred adjudication. According to the workman termination of hisservices is covered under Section 2 (00) ofthe Act . The management violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act and thus the management resortedto unfair labour practice as per Schedule V of the Act. Further, the contention of the workman is that he served the manage- ment for more than twelve years and is in the mistream of his life having no other means of livelihood . Accordingto the workman the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman ; not reinstating and regularising his services in the Bank is neither legal nor justified. The workman claims that he be reinstated with back wages and his services be regularised as full time Sweeper- cum-Messenger. for

(iii) Whether the action of the management in not reinstatingtheworkman in service is legal and justified ?

(iv) Whether the action of the management in not regularising the workman in service is legal andjustified ?

(v) To what relief or reliefs , ifany , the workman is entitled ?"

3. The contention of the management is that Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank has been created under the Re- gional Rural Banks Act , 1976 ( in short RRB Act) and as such is guidedby the directions issued by Central Govern- ment in regard to policy matters involving public interest in discharging its functions . The Central Government is- sued guidelines through -NABARD about strength of mản- power of the Bank and the circulars issued by NABARD in that connection is binding on the Bank management .

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

FINDINGS

Point No. (i) :

5.Both the parties have adduced evidence , oral as well as documentary in support of their respective contentions . One Anil Kumar , Officer , Personnel ofBihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger has deposed (as M.W.1 ) on behalf of the management . The workman himself has deposed (as W.W.1 ) in support of the case . The management got exhibited photocopy of D.O.No. F 4-27 / 75 dated 26-11-1975 (Ext.N), photocopy ofcircular No.4/93 dated 8-1-93 of Bhagalpur - Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank(Ext. M/ 1 ) as regards spending Rs.2/-(Rs . two) only per day from Miscellaneous Head on cleanliness , photocopy of letter No. 4559 dated 20-3-1993 (Ext.M/2) regarding implementation of National Industrial Tribunal Award and photocopy of order of the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6822 of2004 (Ext. M/3 ) on the point that no direction for regularisation of daily wagers can be passed. Asagainst that the workman got exhibited photocopy letter dated 2-02-08 of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank regarding calculation ofexpenses on daily wager part time workers of the Branch (Ext. W) , photocopy of letter ofBihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank dated 29-2-2008 (Ext . W/ 1 ) which relates to one casual worker Sanjay Kumar and not this workman Ratan Kumar Jaiswal , Photocopy of Circular No. 22/2003 dated 10-7-2003 ofBhagalpur -Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank regarding enhancement of daily wages payble to casual Sweepers (Ext.M/2), photocopy of letter dated 18-11-1993 ofUCO Bank (Ext . M/3 ) , photocopy of letter dated 31-10- 1993 of Bank (Ext . M/4 ) for spending Rs . 2/- per day on cleanliness , photocopy ofcircular Rs . 49/2000 dated 25-11- 2000 ofBank concerning revised daily wages to sweepers in Branches (Ext. W/5 ), photocopy of letter dated 22-09- 2003 ofBhagalpur -Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Ext .W/ 6) concerning payment of D.A. to daily wage workers and photocopy of payment vouchers (Ext.7 to18) .

6. While challenging the mantainability of this reference the management in its W.S. have contended that daily wagers do not come within the purview of Service Regulation of the Bank and they are not ' workman ' as defined under Section 2 (S) of the Act and the workman is not a member of any union and thus the dispute raised is not an ' industrial dispute ' as defined under Section 2(K) of the Act and as such reference itself is bad in law and is not maintainable . The definition of ' workman ' as laid down under Section 2(S) of the Act reads as follows:

"Workman " means any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled , technical , operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment express or implied and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute , includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of,

903. that dispute , or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

"(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act 1950 (45of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950 ) , or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person ; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity ; or

(iv) who being employed in supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hurtdred rupees per mensem or exercise , either by the nature ofthe duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly or a managerial nature. "

According to the said definition Sri Ratan Kumar Jaiswal is undoubtedly a workman. As per the statement of M.W.1 daily wagers do not come within the purview of Service Regulation of Bank. In this connection I have to mention that Service Rugulations of the Bank can not override the statute , the law framed by the legislature the Act,

There is no dispute on the point that the workman was not a member ofany union. Section 36 ofthe Act which deals with the representation of the parties reads as follows: - 36. Representation ofparties:-( 1 ) Aworkman who is aparty to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by-

(a) ( any member of the executive or other office bearer) of a registered trade union of which he is a member;

(b) (any member of the executive or other office bearer) ofa federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;

(c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union , by (any member of the executive or other office bearer) of any trade union connected with, or by any other workman employed in the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be prescribed.

This workman though is not a member of any union he is represented by the Office bearer of the trade union connected with the industry in which the workman was employed. Under such circumstances the reference can not be said not maintainable merely because the workman did not happen to be a member of any trade union.

Section 2(K) of the Act defines ' Industrial Dispute ' asfollows:

"Industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , or between 904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] employers and workmen , or between workman and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non - employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person: "

violation of the circulars of the Bank . That simply shows that the work was taken from the workman in connivance of the management . Under such circumstances the management can not take the plea that the claimant was not a workman and the dispute raised by him is not an industrial dispute. It is really peculiar that the management on the one hand took work from the workman for years together and on the other pleads that the engagernent of workmanwas illegal and he can not claim any benefit.

Keeping in view the discussions made above I find and hold that the dispute between the management and the workman is an ' industrial dispute ' and the reference made for adjudications is maintainable in law. Point No. ( i) isdecided accordingly.

Point Nos . ( ii) &( iii) :

8. Section 2(oo)of the Act defines retrenchment as follows:

"retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted byway ofdisciplinary action but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement ofthe workman: or

(b) retirement ofthe workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment betweenthe employer and the workınan concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination the service of the workman as a result ofthe non -renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein ; ог

Under the circumstance discussed above I find that the termination of the services of the workman was retrenchment as defined in the above noted section .The retrenchment was done without compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . Under the circumstances I find and hold that the action of the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of the workman without complying Section 25F of the Act and not reinstating him in service is unfair Labour Practice and is illegal and unjustified. Point Nos . ( ii) and ( iii ) are answered accordingly.

Point No. ( iv) :

9. It is an admitted fact that the workman was engaged on daily wages by the management and the workman worked for nearly twelve years as Sweeper -cum- Messenger. It is also an admitted fact that there was no advertisement ofthe post for appointment , no examination for selection meaning thereby the procedures of appointment were not followed in taking the workman in employment. There are cantena ofdecisions including Ext . M/3 and it is well - settled principle of law that no direction for regularisations of services of daily wage workman can beissued.Moreover regularisation in service is essentially the executive work , the work management and is not the business oftribunal . Under the circumstances though the 7.At the very outset I would like to mention that the facts of this case are almost admitted . From the oral evidence of the parties and also from the pleadings of the parties it is admitted that the workman worked in Gossingaon branch of the Bank from March , 1994 to 15-9-2006 , he was removed from the service w.e.f. 16-9-2006. It is also an admitted fact that the workman was not given any appointment letter nor he was given termination letter . It has been stated by the workman (WW1) and has not been controverted by the management that the workman worked from 9.30 A.M. till 5 P.M. and sometimes even after that as per requirement . He used to be paid monthly on daily basis through vouchers . There is no dispute on the point that earlier he used to get Rs . 2 per daywhich was gradually increased. There is no dispute on the point that the workman used to get Festival advance and the same used to be recovered from his wages in instalments . The workman has filed documents in support of the same which need not require discussion because the facts admitted need not be proved. It is also an admitted fact that Bhagalpur- Banka Kshitriya Gramin Bank, Munger Kshitriya Gramin Bank and Begusari Kshitriya Gramin Bank were amalgamated. Before amalgamated Bhagalpur. Banka Kshitriya Gramin Bank was independent . All the three Kshitriya Gramin Banks named above were sponsored by UCO Bank . National Industrial Tribunal Award became applicable in the Kshitriya Gramin Banks from 1991 M.W.1 in cross - examination has admitted that the Board of Directors ofGramin Bank increased the wages pay ofthe sweeper as per the Government Scales . Copy of letter dated 22-9-2003 (Ext . W/6) also supports the same . Under the circumstances it is an admitted fact that the workman put in more than 240 days continuous service or about twelve years . There is no dispute on the point that the workman was removed from the service on 16-9-2006 by the management without any notice , notice pay or compensation as required under Section 25F of the Act. The workman raised industrial dispute yet he was not reinstated . I may mention here that it was quite within the knowledge of the management that the workman was working may that be in violation of the circulars of the Bank and the management not only made payments to the workman for his work rendered, it was enhanced from time to time follwoing the enhancement in pay by the Government to its employees . The management did not take any action or punish the officer who engaged the workman and made payments in [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

905

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009 /फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

ANNEXURE

TRIBUNAL, SHRAM BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL

Reference Case No. 25(C) of2007

Between the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, HeadOffice , Bhagat Singh Chowk, Munger ( Bihar ) and their workman Sri Nawal Kishore Mandal , represented bySri B. Prasad, Bihar Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association .

workman has served the management for a prettly long time and is in the midstream of his life and it is for the management to consider his regularisation, this tribunal cannot issue direction for regularisation and can not hold as to whether the section of the management in not regularising the services of the workman was illegal or unjustified or otherwise . I may mention that on behalf of theworkman para 4.410 ofthe award ofNational Industrial Tribunal for Regional Rural Banks has been referred in support of regularisation . But as already mentioned above this tribunal can not pass an order for regularisation . This point is decided accordingly.

PointNo.(v):

For the management : Sri Shekhar Prasad Singh Sri Manager(PAD), Manage- ment Representatives.

For the Workman : Sri B. Prasad, President, Provincial Gramin Bank Employees Association , Saboo Complex, Exhibition Road, Patna:

Present

: Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer

10. It has already been held above that the action of the management ofBihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in termi- nating the services of the workman without complying the provisions ofSection 25F of the Act is not only illegal it is unjustified also . It has also been held that this tribunal can not pass an order on the point of regularisation of the workman in service. The workman has served the manage- ment as Sweeper-cum-Messenger for nearly 12 years and is in the midstream of his life . Under the circumstances I find and hold that the workman deserves to be reinstated with back wages . This point is decided accordingly.

AWARD

Patna, dated the 19th January, 2009.

11. In the result I find and hold that the action of the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Munger in tenninating the services of the workman without comply- ing the provisions of Section 25F of the Act is illegal and unjustified and the workman deserves to be reinstated with back wages @ wages last paid. The management is di- rected to comply the same within two months from the date of publication of theAward.

12. And this is my Award.

ByadjudicationOrder No. L- 12012/70/2007- IR(B- 1) dated 14th September, 2007 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferredby clause (d) ofSub-section ( 1 ) and Sub - section (2-A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ' the Act ' for previty) has referred the disputebetween the management ofBihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger (Bihar) and their workman Sri Nawal Kishore Mandal to this Tribunal for adjudication on the following: - VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Bihar KshetriyaGramin Bank in terminating the services of Sri Nawal Kishore Mandal without complying Sec- tion 25F ofthe I.D. Act and not reinstating and regu- larizing him in service, is legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ? " का.आ. 461. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बिहार श्रेत्रिय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-01-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/70/2007- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 30th January, 2009

S.O. 461. In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrialDisputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Gov- emment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2007) of Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Patna as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the man- agement of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and their work- men, receivedby the Central Government on 30-01-2009.

[No.L- 12012/70/2007- IR-(B- I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

2.The parties appeared on notice and filed the state- ment of claim and the written statement. The contention of the workman is that he had been appointed in March, 1993 on the post ofSweeper-cum-Messenger in Bhagalpur Branch of the Bank by the management of the then Bhagalpur-Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank. He used to per- form the duties of Sweeper -cum- Messenger in the Bank from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M and sometime even beyond that as per requirement of the Bank. The workman used to be paid initially@ Rs . 2/ - which was subsequently raised to Rs . 44 per day. The workman used to be paid mostly on monthly basisthrough Bank's debit vouchers . In the year 2005 three rural regional Banks Sponsored by UCO Bank nemely, [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

906

completed 240 days continuous service thereafter were treated as regular employees w.e.f. 2-2-1991 . The manage- ment further contends that this workman was engaged on daily wages without following the norms and procedures of appointment and his engagement was against the circulars of NABARD and Central Government as there was already permanent sub - staff in the category in the branch . There is no sanctioned post in the Bank as daily wagers do not come within the purview of Service Reglations of the Bank. According to the management this claimant is not a workman as defined u/ s 2(S) of ' the Act' and as such the reference itself is bad in law. The workman is also not the member of any union . The dis- pute raised by the claimant is also not an industrial dispute asdefined under Section 2( K) ofthe Act. According to the management Section 25F of the Act has no application in this case nor the management has committed any unfair labour practice . According to the management the pur- ported workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is fit to be decided in favour of the management .

4.Upon the pleadings of the parties and the terms of reference the following points arise out for decision :-

0 Isthe reference maintainable ?

(ii) Whether the action of the management of BiharKshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the service of Shri Nawal Kishore Mandal without complying Sec . 25F of ' the Act ' is legal and justified ?

Bhagalpur -Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger , Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Begusarai Kshetriya Gramin Bank were amalgamated following the Central Govern- ment Notification and after amalgamation the same was renamed as Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank with its head- quarters at Munger . The Chairman of Munger Kshetriya Gramin Bank was made its Chairman . Further , the case of the workman is that the Chairman of the Bank in utter vio- lation ofthe law and in most arbitrary manner instructed the Branch Manager to terminate the services ofthe work- man.Accordingly , the services ofthe workman was termi- nated from 16-9-2006. On the request ofthe workman the union took-up the matter with the management but the management did not consider their grievances and thereafter the union raised industrial dispute but the con- ciliation proceedings ended in failure due to non -compro- mising attitude of the management . Thereafter the dispute was referred for adjudication . According to the workman termination of his services is covered under Section 2(00) of ' the Act ' . The management violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of ' the Act ' and thus the man- agement resorted to unfair labour practice as per Schedule Vof ' the Act' . Further , the contention of the workman is that he worked for over ten years under the management and is in the midstream of his life having no other means oflivelihood. According to the workman the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman ; not reinstating and regularising his services in the Bank is neither legal nor justified . The workman claims that he be reinstated with back wages and his services be regularized as full-time Sweeper -cum - Messenger.

(iii) Whether the action of the management in not reinstating the workman in service is legal and justified?

(iv) Whether the action of the management in not regularising the workman in service is legal andjustified?

(v) To what reliefor reliefs , if any, the workman is entitled?

FINDINGS

PointNo. (i):

5.Boththe parties have adduced evidence , oral as well as documentary in support of their respective contentions . One Anil Kumar, Officer Personnel of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger has deposed ( as M.W.1 ) on behalf of the management . The workman himself has deposed (as W.W.1 ) in support of his contentions . The management got exhibited D.O. No. FA-27/75 -AC dated 26-11-1975 (photocopy Ext.M ) , photocopy of letter No.F2- 27/80 RRB dated 27-9-1980 (Ext . M/ 1 ) concerning appointment of Messengers in Regional Rural Banks , photocopy of letter No. F2-27/80 RRB dated 16-12-1980 (Ext.M/2) on the same subject, photocopy of letter No. F2- 27/80-RRB dated 28-5-1981 (Ext.M/3 ) and photocopy of letter No. 4559 dated 20-3-1993 (Ext.M/4 ) regarding implementation of National Industrial Award . As against thatphotocopy of letter dated 2-2-2008 of Bihar Kshetriya 3. The contention of the management is that Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank ( hereinafter called the Bank' for brevity) has been created under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 ( in short RRB Act) and as such is guided by the directions issued by Central Government in regard to policy matters involving public interest in discharging of its func- tions . The Central Government issued guidelines through NABARD about strength of manpower of the Bank and the circulars issued by NABARD in that connection is binding on the Bank management . Further, according to the management the appointment of any employee with- out following the procedures of appointment and without observing the rules of reservation is treated as back- door appointment of such employees. Further , the management contends that as per Circular DO- No.F4-27 / 75 -AC dated the 26th November, 1975 no peon or his equivalent by whatever designation called, would be employed by RR Banks . The services of the employees so appointed was directed to be dispensed with without delay. The repre- sentatives of Kshetriya Gramin Bank approached the head office for employment of Sweepers and the matter was placed before the Board of Directors . The Board of Directors decided to authorise each branch to spend Rs. 2/- only from miscellaneous account every day on cleaning. It was also decided that a man cannot work more than seven days and the person so engaged would not claim for appointment on that basis . The part-time- Sweeper- cum- Messenger who were in service on 22-2-1991 and 907 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

"36. Representation of parties : ( 1 ) A workman who isa party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act, by-

(a) (any member of the executive or other office bearer) ofa registered trade union ofwhich he is a member ;

(b) (anymember ofthe executive or other office bearer) of a federation of trade unions to which the trade union referred to in clause(a) is affiliated;

Gramin Bank regarding calculation of expenses to daily wagers/part time worker of Branch (Ext . W) , photocopy of CircularNo.49/2000 dated 25-11-2000 of Bhagalpur-Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank, concerning daily wager for casual Sweeper (Ext. W/ 1 ) , photocopy of circular No. 22/2003 dated 10-7-2003 of the Bank regarding enhancement of daily wages payable to casual sweeper (Ext . W/2) , photocopy of letter dated 18-11-1993 of UCO Bank (Ext. W/3 ) , and photocopy of letter of Bhagalpur Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank, dated 22-9-2003 concerning payment of D.A. Over dailywage to daily wages (Ext . W/4).

(c) where the worker is not a member of any trade union , by (any member of the executive or other office bearer) of any trade union connected with, orby any other workman employed, in the industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such manner as may be pre- scribed."

6. While challenging the maintainability of this reference the management in its W.S. have contended that daily wagers do not come within the purview of Service Regulation of the Bank and they are not ' workmen ' as defined under Section 2(S) of the Act and the workman is not member of any union and thus dispute raised is not an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(K) of the Act and as such the reference itself is bad in law and is not maintainable . The definition of ' workman ' as laid down under Section 2 (S) of the Act reads as follows :

This workman though is not a member of any union he is represented by the office bearer of the trade union connected with the industry in which the workman was employed. Under such circumstances the reference cannot be said not maintainable merely because the work- man did not happen to be a member of any trade union .

Section 2(K) of the Act defines ' Industrial Dispute' asfollows :-

"Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour , of any person" .

" Workman " means any person ( including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled , technical, operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under thisAct in relation to an industrial dispute , indudes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute , or whose dismissal , dischage or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

Keeping in view the discussions made above I find and hold that the dispute between the management and the workman is an ' industrial dispute ' and the reference made for adjudication is maintainable in law. Point No. ( 1 ) isdecided accordingly.

Point Nos . (ii ) & ( iii) :

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act , 1950 (45 of 1950) , or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) , or the NavyAct, 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison ; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity , draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercise , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature .

According to the said definition Sri Nawal Kishore Mandal is undoubtedly a workman . As per the statement of M.W. 1 daily wagers do not come within the purview of Service Regulation of Bank . In this connection I have to montion that Service Regulations of the Bank cannot override the statute, the law framed by the Legislature , the Act .

There is no dispute on the point that the workman was not a member of any union . Section 36 of the Act which deals with the representation of the parties reads as follows:

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Begusarai Kshetriya Gramin Bankwere amalgamated . Before amalgamation Bhagalpur- Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank was in dependent . All the three Kshetriya Gramin Banks named above were sponsored by UCO Bank . M.W.1 during cross- examination has admitted that National Industrial Tribunal Awardbecame applicable in the Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 1991. M.W. I in para 22 ofhis corss - examination has admitted that the Board of Directors of Bhagalpur -Banka Kshetriya Gramin Bank increased the wages pay of the sweepers as per the government scales . Copy of letter dated 22-9-2003 (Ext. W/4) also supports the same . Under the circumstances it is an admitted fact that the workman put in more than 240 days continuous service for about 13 (thirteen) years . There in no dispute on the point that the workmen was removed from the service on 16-9-2006 by the management without any notice , notice pay or compensation as required under Section 25F of the Act. The workman raised industrial dispute yet he was not reinstated . I may mention here that it was quite within the knowledge of the management that the workman was working may that be in violation of the circulars of the Bank and the management not only made payments to the workman for his work rendered , it was enhanced from time to time following the enhancement in pay by the government . The management did not take any action or punish the officer who engaged the workman and made payments in violation of the circulars of the Bank . Under such circumstances the management cannot take the plea that the claimant was not a workman and the dispute raised by him is not an industrial dispute.

8. Section 2( oo) of the Act defines retrenchment as follows:

retrenchment " means the termination by the employer ofthe service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, other wise than as a punishment inflicted by way ofdisciplinary action but does not include:-

( a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of empolyment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf ; or

(bb) termination the service of the workman as a result of the non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; ог

Under the circumstances discussed above 1 find that the termination of the services of the workman was retrenchemnt as defined in the above noted section . The retrenchment was done without compliance of the

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Under the circumstances I find and hold that the action of the management ofBihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of the workman without complying Section 25F ofthe Act, and not reinstating him in service is unfair labour practice and is illegal and unjustified. Point Nos . ( ii) & ( iii) are answered accordingly.

PointNo. ( iv) :

9. Itis an admitted fact that the workman was engaged on daily wages by the management and the workman worked for nearly thirteen years as sweeper -cum -messenger . It is also an admitted fact that there was not advertisement ofthe post for appointment, no examination for selection meaning thereby the procedures of appointment were not followed in taking the workman in employment . There are catena of decisions and it is well settled principle of law that no directions for regularisations of services of such workman canbe issued . Moreover regularisation in service is essentially the executive work , the work of the management and is not the business of tribunal . Under the circumstances though the workman has served the management for a pretty long time and is in the midstream of his life and it is for the management to consider his regularisations , this tribunal can not issue direction for regularisation and can not hold as to whether the action of the management in not regularising the services of the workman was illegal or unjustified or otherwise . I may mention that on behalf of the workman para 4.410 of the award ofNational Industrial Tribunal for Regional Rural Banks has been referred in support of regularisation . But as already mentioned above the tribunal can not pass an order for regularisation. This point is decided accordingly .

Point No. (v) :

10. It has already been held above that the action of the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services of the workman without complying theprovisions of Section 25F of the Act is not only illegal it is unjustified also . It has also been held that this tribunal can not pass an order on the point of regularisation of the workman in service . The workman has served the management as sweeper - cum - messenger for nearly thirteen years and is in the midstream of his life . Under the circumstances I find and hold that the workman deserves to be reinstated with . back wages . This point is decided accordingly.

11. In the result I find and hold that the action of the management of Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Munger in terminating the services ofthe workman without complying the provisions of Section 25F of the Act is illegal and unjustified and the workman deserves to be reinstated with back wages @ wages last paid . The management is directed to comply the same within two months from the date ofthe publication of the Award.

12. And this is my Award.

VASUDEO RAM , PresidingOfficer 909

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी, 2009

का.आ. 462.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इन्टरनेशनल एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.- II, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-2/3 / 1990 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/9/1989- आई आर( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th January , 2009

S.O. 462. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes 'Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/3/1990) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, No. - II , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of International Airport Authority of India, and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 30-01-2009.

[No. L- 11012/9/ 1989- IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL NO. II AT MUMBAI PRESENT: A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT/2/3 of 1990

Employers in relation to the management of Internationa ! Airports Authority of India

TheAirport Director ,

International Airports Authority of India, BombayAirport,

Mumbai 400 099.

AWARD

The metrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under:

2. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , NewDelhi , by its Order its No.L- 11012/9/89- IR(Misc. ) dated 24th January, 1990 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of International Airport Authority of India, Bombay in removing Mr. T.C./Shivaprashad, Mechanic (ACR), Bombay Airport with effect from 9-2-1988 is legal and justified? Ifnot,to what reliefthe workman is entitled?

(2) To support the subject -matter reffered in the reference 2nd Party filed Statement of Claim at Exhibit 2 which was disputedby the 1st Party by filing written statement at Exhibit 3 and in view of that , my Ld . Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 4.

(3) Bypart I Award issue ofEnquiry and perversity ofthe finding of the Enquiry Officer was decided which was challenged by the 1st Party vis- a vis order of this Tribunal where the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court observed that , inter- locutory order cannot be challenged in Writ Petition . Then 1st Party withdrew the Appeal filed in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the order of the Writ Petition filed against the order of this Tribunal and prayed to proceed with the present Reference by filing application at Exhibit 98.

(4) On the request of the Management, Exhibit 96, notices were sent to 2nd Party. Management appeared. Though Union was served with Exhibit 98 and its Advocate , nobody appeared and responded to the notice givenby this Court .

...FirstParty

And

TheirWorkman,

(5) This is the Reference of 1990, though attempts were made to secure the presence ofthe 2nd Party nobody appeared . It takes me to conclude that, the 2nd Party is not interested in proceeding with the reference and in this situation there is no point to keep this reference alive . Hence, the order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed off for want to prosecution .

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Second Party

Through the Local Secretary, International Airport Authority Employees Union, Bombay Airport, Mumbai 400 099.

APPEARANCE

For the Employer : Mr. Shamrao Patil , Advocate .

FortheWorkman : No appearance .

Date of Passing of Award: 21st November , 2008 Bombay,

21stNovmber , 2008 .

नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 463. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. दुराबसाथ भी.

910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)]

AWARD

क्रूसेटजी सन्स ( मुम्बई ) प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-2/9/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The reference is sent to this Tribunal by the Under Secretary of Central Government, The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L -31012/ 12/2001 - IR(M) dated 24th January, 2001 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A ) of section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947to decide:

[सं. एल-31012/12/2001- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 30th January, 2009

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Dorabashaw B. Crusetjee Sons (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. , Contractor , M/s. Bombay Port Trust in terminating the services of Shri A. Abdul Kadar, Carpenter w.e.f. 3-9-99 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

(2) Statement of Claim is filed by the concerned Workman at Exhibit 4. Said was replied by the 1st Party( 1 ) by filing Written Statement at Exhibit8 .

S.O. 463. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/9/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, No. - II , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Dorabashaw B. Crusetjee Sons (Bombay) Pvt . Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30-01- 2009.

(3) Issues were framed by my Ld . Predecessor at Exhibit 10 and the Reference was fixed for recording evidence .

[No. L- 31012/ 12/2001 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

(4) 2nd Party filed affidavit at Exhibit 14 as well as at Exhibit 17 in lieu of the examination in chief and he was cross examined on it by Ist Party.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL NO . II AT MUMBAI

Present : A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/9 of 2002

(5) In the meanwhile concerned Workman came with aproposal of settlement at Exhibit 27 and informed that the dispute is settled and he requested to take the Reference before Lok Adalat .

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Darabshaw B. Crusetjee Sons (Bombay) Pvt . Ltd.

(6) Accordingly the matter was placed for consideration before the Lok Adalat on 22nd December, 2008. Hence , the order:

ORDER

1. The Managing Director, M/ s. Darabshaw B. Cursetjee Sons (Bombay) Pvt . Ltd. Darabshaw House , Ballard Pier , Mumbai 400010 .

In view ofthe Exhibits 27 and 28 Reference is disposed off in Lok Adalt ..

...First Party

A. A.LAD, Presiding Officer 2. Mumbai Port Trust Vijay Deep , S. V. Marg , Ballard Estate , Mumbai 400001 .

Bombay,

And

22nd December , 2008 .

Exh . NO . 27

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT MUMBAI TheirWorkman , A. Abdul Kadar , R. No. 3 , Bharati Nagar , Tilak Nagar , Chembur , Mumbai 400038,

Second Party

APPEARANCE

Reference No. CGIT- 2/9 of 2002 BETWEEN

Mr. B. K. Ashok , Advocate .

Forthe Employer ( 1 ) :

Employers in relation to the management of (2) : Mr. Umesh Nabar , Advocate

For the Workman : Mr. R. R. Yadav, Advocate

1. M/ s. Darabshaw Crusetjee's Sons ( Bombay) Pvt . Ltd. 2. Employers in relation to the management of Mumbai PortTrust

Date of Passing the Award : 22-12-2008.

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

911 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

V/s:

Mr. A. Abdul Kadar

MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON'BLE COURT

The SecondParty workman states that he has settled all his claim, dispute with the first Party above named, monetarily and hence he does not wish to proceed with the Reference further . A memorandum of Settlement to that effect have been executed between the parties .

It istherefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to pass an Award disposing of the Reference as settled out of Court .

Mumbai:

Dated: 11-11-2008

A. Abdul Kadar

(Second PartyWorkman)

Explained& Identifiedbyme

R. K. Yadav

man . They raise an Industrial Dispute challenging termination of their service by the First Party company. The said dispute was referred before the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , Mumbai , under referenceNo. CGIT-2/26 of 2002 and Reference No. CGIT- 2/9 of2002 respectively of both the above named second party. The party of the first part have contended that both the second party were legally retrenched by following due process of law and by complying very strictly with all the provisions of law, specially Section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The first party company have further contended that the stevedoring business of the company had gone down miserably and it was not possible for the company to continue its stevedoring business and in the circumstances the company surrendered their stevedoring Licence to the Mumbai Port Trust, by their letter dated 24th April , 2000. The first party company further contended in their W.S. that after surrendering the stevedoring Licence to the Mumbai Port Trust almost all the employees of the company who were engaged in stevedoring work were retrenched by the company and paid according to the law. The said both the Reference is pending for hearing before the said Hon'ble Tribunal ,

B. K. Ashok

Advocate for 1st Party.

Advocate for Second Party.

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

AndWhereas the Second party employees and the FirstParty employer negotiated with the matter/claim and after discussion, both the parties arrived at the settlement on the following terms and conditions :

Under Section 2 (p) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 .

ThisMemorandum of Settlement is made and entered into atMumbai on this 11th day ofNovember , 2008, Between:-

M/s. Darabshaw B. Crusetji's Son (BOM) Ltd. ,

Darabshaw House , Ballard Pier ,.'

Mumbai-400001 .

1. The Party ofthe First Part both paid top the Second Party No. 1 a sum of Rs . 1,60,000/- (Rupees one lac sixty thousand only) and an amount of Rs . 1,40,000 ( Rupees one lac forty thousand only) to the Second Party No.2 towards full and final settlement of all their claim , dispute raised in abovementioned References . The receipt ofthe said amounts , both the Second party admit and acknowledge in this Memorandum of Settlement .

(herein referred to as the " Employer" ) of the party ofthe FirstPart,

And

2. The First Party company hereby agree to take immediate steps for payment of Provident Fund amount accumulated along with interest to the second party workmen, at the earliest possible .

(1) Mr. Rajbhan Santbhan Singh,

Room No. 27, Zakaria Bunder Road, Sewree, Mumbai -400015 .

2.A The second Party employees hereby declares that they have settled all their claim , dispute in full and final and on receipt of the said amounts, and they shall not have any claim of reinstatement, re-employment, back wages, earned wages, leave wages , bonus , retrenchment compensation, Gratuity, overtime wages and/or any other claim ofwhatsoever nature against the First Party employer .

(2) Mr. A. Abdul Kadar , RoomNo. 3 , Bharti Nagar, Tilak Nagar , Chembur , Mumbai-400089.

(hereinafter referred to as the " Employees " ) of the party of the Second Part.

3. The Second Party employees further undertake that they will not raise any claim of whatsoever nature against the First Party or against its Directors or against Mumbai Port Trust, at any time in future.

Whereas the partyofthe Second part were employed withthe Party of the First Part, as Carpenter-cum-Sewing.

4. The Second Party employees hereby undertake to file settlement purshish before the said Hon'ble 912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/ PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Tribunal , praying disposal of both the Reference , as settled out of Court .

Sd/-

Illegible

Sd/- Illegible

Shri D.Kapadia

( 1 ) Shri Rajbhan Santbhan Singh

ForM/ s . Darabshaw

leave wages, Commission , bonusGratuity, overtime wages or any other claim of whatsoever nature against the said M/s. Darabshaw Cursetji , s Sons (Bom) Ltd. I also hereby declarethat hereafer I shall move and application to dispose of the said Reference as settled out of Court . I further undertake not to initiate any proceeding against the said employer at anytime in future.

Cursetji's

I say that I received the above mentioned amounts as follows:

Sons (Bom) Ltd. ,

FirstParty Employer (2) Shri A Abdul Kadar

Second Party Employees

Rs . 1,40,000 ( Rupees one lac fourty thousand only) by Cheque No. 006695 dated 7-11-08 drawn on Bank of India Branch.

Witnesses :

Mumbai:

Signed, ( Illegible) 1.

Date: 11-11-08

(Mr. A. Abdul Kadar)

Witneses:

2. RECEIPT

1. Signed, ( Illegible)

2. Signed , ( Illegible)

Proceedings of the Lok Adalat held on 22nd December , 2008.

Exh . No. 28

Ref. No. CGIT- 2 / 9 of 2002 , D.B.C. Sons , (Bom) P. Ltd. , and another

Vs.

A. Abdul Kadar.

PanelMembers:

1, Mr. Rajbhan Santbhan Sing, Received with thanks from M/ s . Darabshaw Cursetji's Sons (Bom) Ltd. , the First party employer, a sum of Rs . 1,60,000 Rupees one lac Sixty thousand only) towards full and final settlement of all my dues and claims made in Reference No. CGIT- 2 /9 of 2002 . Ihereby declare that hereafter I shall not have any claim of reinstatement , re - employment , back wages , earned wages , leave wages , Commission , bonus ,Gratuity, overtime wages or any other claim of whatsoever nature against the said M/s. Darabshaw Cursetji's Sons (Bom) Ltd. I also hereby declare that hereafter I shall move an application to dispose of the said Reference as settled out of Court . I further undertake not to initiate any proceeding against the said employer at anytime in future .

1. Mr. M.B. Arehn , Advocate. 2. Mr. S.B.Kadar , Advocate.

3. Mr. R. S.Pai , Advocate .

I say that I received the above mentioned amounts as follows:

Present:

:Workman

A. Abdual Kadar

Rs.1,60,000 ( Rupees one lac sixty thousand only) by Cheque No. 006696 dated 7-11-08 drawn on Bank of India Branch . Ballard estate .

Mr. D. Kapadia

:Rp . ofManagement No. 1 Mumbai:

Mr. Umesh Nabhar

Date: 11-11-08

Sd/- Illegible

:Advocate for Management No.2

(Mr. Rajbhan Santbhan Singh)

Parties have amicably settled the above matter . Settlement filed at Ex 27. Sent to Tribunal for Award .

Witnesses :

Signed, Illegible 2.

UMESH NABARD, Adv for Management No.2

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 464. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . काला माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी RECEIPT I, Mr. A Abdul Kadar , Received with thanks from M/s . Darabshaw Cursetji's Sons (Bom) Ltd. , the First party employer, a sum of Rs.1,40,000 (Rupees one lac fourty thousand only) towards full and final settlement of all my dues and claims made in Reference No.CGIT- 2/26 of2002 . I hereby declare that hereafter I shall not have any claim of reinstatement, re -employment, back wages , earned wages , [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

आई टी-2/48/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29011 /72/2004- आई आर( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th January, 2009

S.O. 464. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/48/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, No. -2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Kala mines and minerals , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-01-2009 .

[No. L-29011 /72/2004-IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL - TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT MUMBAI PRESENT : A.A. LAD, PresidingOfficer Reference No. CGIT/2/ 48 of 2005 Employers in relation to the management of 1. M/s . Kala Mines & Minerals ,

2.M/s . Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt . Ltd. , 1.The Managing Partner ,

M/ s . Kala Mines & Minerals , Baboy Commerce Centre, 'B' Block, 1st floor, FO-32 &35 Martiers Dias Road, Goa-403 601 .

2. The Managing Director, M/s. Sociedade De Domento Industrial Pvt . Ltd. , Vila Flores Da Silva, Erasmo Carvalho Street, Goa-403601.

And

Their Workman,

The Secretary,

GoaMining Labour Welfare Union , Velho'sBuilding, 2nd floor, Opp.Municipal Garden, Panaji , Goa -403 001

APPEARANCES

Mr. M.S.Bandodkar Forthe Employer No.1 :

Advocate.

Mr. G.B. Kamat Advocate For the Employer No.2 :

Mr. Suhaas Naik , Advocate Forthe Workmen :

Camp:Goa, dated 27th, November, 2008.

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-29011 /72 /2004 - IR (M) dated 25-01-2005 , in

913 exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

" Whether the action of the management of M/s . Kala Mines & Minerals , Goa in closing mining activities w.e.f. 25-07-2002 and terminating the employment of21 workinen as per Annexure VI w.e.f. 26-07-2002 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, towhat relief the wormen are entitled for? "

Name ofthe workmen

12.Mr. Namdev Naik 1. Mr. Devidas Dessai

13.Mr. Vagho Zure 2.Mr.Hari Dhargalkar

14. Mr. Anil Adalkar 3.Mr. Gopal Mapari

4. Mr. Devidas Sawant 15.Mr. GopinathGaonkar

16: Mr. Mangesh Gounder 5.Mr.Gajanan Prabhu

17. Mr. Lavu Sawant 6. Mr. Madhukar Marathe

7. Mr. Tohidas Surlkar 18.Mr.RajendraDessat

19. Mr: Fondu Dessai 8. Mr. Shankar Vakhode

9. Mr. RavindraDessai 20.Mr. Arjun Dessai

21 Mr. Niclao Gomes 10. Mr. Suresh Dhavkonthar

11.Mr. Babu Pingle

2. Claim Statement was filed by the General Secretary, of GoaMining Labour Welfare Union at Ex. - 10 . Written statement was filed at Ex. -26 by the management and issues framed at Ex .-36. Reference was kept for recording evidence .Meanwhile parties decided to settle dispute out ofcourt. By purshis Ex. -98 submitted proposal of settlement which was accepted. Hence the order:

ORDER

Vide Exhibit- 98 , reference is disposed of.

Camp: Goa

Date: 27-11-2008

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

EX NO: 98 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNALNO.2AT MUMBAI

Ref. No : CGIT- 2 /48 of2005

Workmen

PartyNo. 1

Versus

1. M/s . Kala Mines & Minerals

Party No. 11 (1) 2 M/ s . Sociedade de Fomento

..Party .

No. II ( II)

Industrial Pvt . Ltd.

--PartyNo. II (II) CONSENT TERMS OF SETTLEMENT MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR :

1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of sub -section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

of1947) hereby refers the said dispute for adjudicationto the Central Government Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Mumbai , No. 2 vide its order No. -L-29011 /72/2004- IR (M) dated 25-01-2005 .

SCHEDULE

* Whether the action of the management of M/s . Kala Mines & Minerals , Goa in closing mining activities w.e.f. 25-07-2002 and terminating the empolyment of 21 workmen of as per the Annexure -Vi w.e.f. 26-07-2002 is legal & justified? Ifnot , to what relief the workmen are entitled for ? " 2. That the above named parties to the dispute , have after discussions and deliberations , amicably settled the entire matter as under :

3. That the Party No. I and Party No. II (I ) admit thatthe Party No II ( I ) is the Employer of the 21 workmen involved in the present Reference as the Licensed Contractor of the Principal Employer , i.e. Party No. II ( II ) , under the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 , and Rules thereunder at all times during the working of the Party No. II ( I) at the mining establishment of the Party No. II ( II) at Shigao from 10.10.1989 to 25.07.2002.

4. ( i) That the Party No. I and the Party No. II (I ) agree and admit that the termination of services of all the 21 workmen named in the Order of Reference was on account of the termination of the contract of the Party No. II (I) w.e.f. 25.07.2002 .

(ii) The Party No. I and the Party No. II (I) further admit that the Party No. 11 ( II ) is the Principal Employer and the Union as well as the 21 workmen have no claim of whatsoever nature against the Party No. II ( II ) in this present reference .

5. That the Party No.1 and the Party No. II (I ) agree that the final settlement dues consisting of notice pay, retrenchment compensation dues , gratuity and other dues such as Bonus , leave encashment as shown in the Annexure attached to this settlement are the legal dues due and payable to the workmen named in the Order of Reference and that the Party No. II ( I) agrees and undertakes to pay the said amount to the workmen named in the Annexure- I immediately on the date of signing this settlement by Demand Draft (DD) in favour of each and every workman and the workmen agree to discharge a valid receipt for the amount received from the Party No. II (I) .

6. That the Party No.1 and the workmen named in the Order of Reference agree that the amount shown in the Annexure-I is on account of the termination of the contract of the Party No. II ( 1 ) and that the dispute raised in the presentOrder of Reference by the Party No. I stands conclusively settled in all its finality and no dispute survives .

7. The workmen named in the Order of Reference agrees to pay Union deductions of 10 % from the final/ balance dues payable to each and every individual workman as an authorized Union deduction and the Party No. II( I ) agrees to pay these Union deductions to the Goa

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

Mining Labour Welfare Union by a Demand Draft payable onorbefore 18-09-2008 .

In view of the above terms of the settlement, the PartyNo. I and Party No. II ( 1 ) and Party No. II (II) prays that a Consent Award be passed in terms of the above terms of Settlement .

For Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union

[PRESIDENT] Workmen 1. Hari B. Dhargalkar

2. Devidas V. Dessai

3. Gopal Mapari

4. Devidas S. Sawant

5. Gajanand Prabhu

6. Madhukar Marathe

7. Babu K. Pingle

8. Nicalo Gomes

9. Vaglo M. Zore

10 . Lavu L. Sawant

11 . Suresh B. Devkonkar

12 . Namdev Naik

13 . Ravendra S. Dessai

14 . Shankar Vakode

15. Murgan Gounder

16. Gopinath V. Gaonkar

17 . Rohidas S. Surlekar

18 . Anil A. Adarkar

19. Rajendra V. Dessai

20 . Fondu Dessai

21. Arjun Dessai [PARTY I ]

For M/ s . KALA MINES & MINERALS Shri Bipinchandra S. Kantak

[PARTNER]

[PARTY 11 (1 )] ForM/ s SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO

INDUSTRIAL PVT . LTD

[DIRECTOR] [PARTY II ( II ) ]

18-09-2008 Vasco-da-Gama , Goa .

Signed, ( Illegible) (Adv. for Workman Union)

Signed, (Illegible) (Adv. for Party II ( 1 ) / Employee )

Signed, ( Illegible) (Adv . for Party II ( II )/ Employee ) Adv . G. B. Kanat 915 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/ फाल्गुन 2, 1930

CHART. SHOWING AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO EACH WORKMAN

Gratuity

Name of Workman

Bonus 2002-2003

Leave Encashment

Bonus 2001-2002

Date of Termination

Retrenchment

Compensation

Sr. No.

Dateof Joining

No. of Completed Years

Total Gross Wages

1,738

22,655 4,816

19.635

16-10-1995 25-07-02 7years

5,610

1. Hari B.Dhargalkar

1,529

25-07-02

4,943 32,129

37,072 4,319

6,688 01-01-1990

2. Devidas Desai

13 years

28,521

23-10-1992 25-07-02

5.493 24,718

9years

3. Gopal Mapari

1,439

5,189

35,923 4,462

31,133

12-03-1990 25-07-02 12 years

4. Devidass Sawant

1.458

35,384

30,660

25-07-02

4,718

4,187

6,048 08-01-1990

13 years

5. Gajanand Prabhu

25,707

1,375

5,530

3,948

25-07-02

4,456 22,279

13-02-1992

6. Madhukar Marathe

10 years

834

18.964 3,381

4,109

1,222

16,435

03-10-1994 25-07-02

7. Babo K. Pingle

8years

1,221

2,538

3,964 13,874

25-07-02

16,008 3,501

01-11-1995

8. Nicalo Gomes

7 years

1,030

16,008 3,164

04-05-1995 25-07-02

3,964 13,874

7 years

9. VagloM. Zore

1,146

16,008 3,297

13,874

01-08-1995 25-07-02

3,964

10. Lavu L Sawant

7years

1.297

19,268

22,233 3,420

25-07-02

4,282

9years

12-03-1993

11. Suresh B. Davkonkar

15,531 3,184

1,184

3,846

25-07-02

13,461

12-03-1995

12. Namdev Naik

7 years

1,644

13,313 3,381

1,184

3,846 11,538

21-02-1996 25-07-02

13. Ravindra S.Dessai

6years

19,344 2,539

4,790 16,764

25-07-02

01-11-1995

14. Shankar Vakode

7years

3,976.

1,229

16.117 3,527

12-02-1995 25-07-02

13,968

3,991

15. MurganGounder

7 years

3,550

13,968

1,229

25-07-02

16,117 3,526

3,991

13-03-1995

7years

16. Gopinath v. Gaonkar

1,229

5,254

16.117 3,527

25-07-02

3,991 13,968

06-02-1995

17. Rohidas S. Surlekar

7 years

15,531 2,039

01-09-1995

13,461

25-07-02

18. Anil A. Adarkar

3,846

7 years

1,383

2,877 12,946

14,938 2,532

07-03-1994 25-07-02 9years

19. Rajendra V. Dessai

1,369

13,149 2,541

25-07-02

08-01-1995

2,849 11,395

20. Fondu Dessai

8years

36,062

22,262

359,348

84,719

414,640 65,291

S K

Sr. Name ofWorkman

Total of Fto L

Total of M+N

No.

Notice Payment

Balance Payment

Net Payableto Workers

Balance Now Payable

Total Amount Receivedby Workman

Additional Compensation for 3 months Gross Wages

Authorised Union Deductions (@) 10% of Final Payment

F+H+ I+J+L

7128

64,156

71,284

54,454 16,830

1. Hari B. Dhargalkar 5,610

5,684

56,844

51,160

86,680

101,509 44,665

14,829

2. Devidas Desai

4,943

7,521

67,690

75,211

16,479

75,211

5,493

58,732

3. Gopal Mapari

56,679

5,668

51,011

15,567

93,713 37,034

78,146

4. Devidas Sawant 5,189

48,830

5,426

54,256

14,154

96,609 42,353

82,455

4,718

5. Gajanand Prabhu

39,178

43,531 4,353

13,368

76,663 33,132

63,295

6. Madhukar Marathe 4,456

35,400

3,540

31,850

57,272

12,327

21,872

44,945

4,109

7. Babu K. Pingle

28,678

3,186

31,864

11,892

21,134

52,998

41,106

3,964

8. Nicalo Gomes

28,678

31,864 3,186

49,932

38,040

18,068

3,964

11,892

9. VagloM. Zore

28,678

3,186

31,864

38.289

3,964

18,317

11,892

50.181

10. Lavu L Sawant

35,425

39,361 3,936

23,985

63,346

50,500 12,846

11. Suresh B. Davkonkar 4,282

30.915

27,823

3,092

11,538

37,206

17,829

48,744

12. Namdev Naik

3,846

25,827

17,747

2,870

28,697

46,444

11,538 .

34,906

13. Ravindra S. Dessai 3,846

34,653

38,504 3,851

26,438

14,370

64,942

7,135

14. Shankar Vakode 4,790

50,572

3,208

28,873

32,081

11,973

54,781

42,808

27,700

15. MurganGounder 3,991

28,873

32,081 3,208

22,273

11,973

54,354

42,381

16. Gopinath v. Gaonkar 3,991

3,208

32,081

28,873-

23,978

11,973

44,086

56,059

17. Rohidas S. Sirlekar 3,991

41,773

46,415 4,642

3,846

18. Anil A. Adarkar

46,415

34,877 11,538

21,212

23,569 2,357

28,369

51,938

43,307 8,631

11,508

19. Rajendra V. Dessai

19,522

2,169

21,691

48,392

11,396

26,701

20. Fondu Dessai

39,850 8,542

532G1/09-15

732,773

814,192 81,419

1006635 254,152

1,260,787 446,595

78,993 30,039 916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 / PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] SANJAY alias ARJUN L. DESAI

Rs.23,076

Retirement Compensation

26,626

Gratuity

Bonus for 2001-2002

3,381

Bonus for 2002-2003

1,184

53,844

Salary from 8-05-01 to 24-07-02 14 months@ Rs . 3846

And Their Workman The Secretary, Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union, Volho's Building, 2nd floor, Opp. Municipal Garden , Panaji , Goa403001.

1,36,533

Salary from 25-07-2002 to 24-06-2008 , 50% of71 X Rs . 3846

APPEARANCES

Total

2,44,644

Forthe Employer : Mr. M.S. Bandodkar Advocate .

5,356

ADD ex-gratia payment

FortheWorkman Mr. Suhaas Naik Advocate .

Total Payable

2,50,000

25,000

Camp : Goa, Dated 27 th November , 2008

Less Authorized union Deduction @10% of total payment

AWARD

Netpayable

Rs.2,25,000

नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी , 2009

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order its No.L - 29012/ 32/2002 / IR( M) dated 20th November , 2002, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

का.आ. 465.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. काला माईन्स एण्ड मिनरल्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.- II, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-2/88/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

: [सं. एल-29012/32/2002- आई आर( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Kala Mines & Minerals Goa in terminating the services ofShri Sanjay Alias Arjun Laximan Desai with effect from 8-5-2001 is legal; and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ? י

New Delhi , the 30th January, 2009

2. Claim Statement is filed by the second party at Ex- 5 and written statement at Ex-9 by the first party and issues were framed at Ex-17 .

3. Reference was fixed for recording evidence. However both parties by Ex- 56 informed that they have settled in dispute . Hence the order :

ORDER

S.O. 465. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/88/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , No. - II , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Kala Mines & Minerals and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-01-2009 .

Vide Ex - 56 , reference is disposed of. Camp: Goa

[No. L-29012/32/2002 -IR ( M ) ]

Dated : 27-11-2008

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . II MUMBAI

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT MUMBAI Reference No. CGIT -2/88/2002

PRESENT : A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT/2/88 of 2002

Shri Sanjay Alias Arjun L. Dessai ..Party No. I v/ s.

Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Kala Mines& Minerals

Mr. Kala Mines & Minerals

......PartyNo. II JOINT APPLICATION FOR PASSING NO DISPUTE AWARD

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

1. That the Party I above named is represented by GoaMining Labour Welfare Union.

The Managing Partner , M/ s . Kala Mines & Minerals, Baboy Commerce Centre 'B' Block, 1ª Floor , FO-32 & 35, Martiers Dias Road, Goa403601.

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2, 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2. It is stated the said Union had raised Industrial dispute in respect oftermination of services of21 workmen by Party II on account of closure of the mining activities w.e.f. 25-07-2002 which was referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication and numbered as CGIT- 2/48/2005 . It is stated that narne ofthe Party I is also included in names of 21 Workmen as aforesaid. It is submitted that the parties have, after discussions and deliberations , amicably settled the dispute referred in the present order of reference and entered into a settlement including settlement of all the Claims ofthe Party I in the present reference .Acopy ofthe Settlement is enclosed herewith . In view of the Settlement as aforesaid Party I, does not wish to proceed further in the matter and Parties pray that NO DISPUTE AWARD may be passed in terms of the above.

S/d (Illigible)

Shri Sanjay Alias Arjun L. Dessai

(PARTYI) ForGoaMining Labour Welfare Union

S/d Gen/. (Secretry)

For M/s Kala Mines & Minerals

S/d( Illigible)

Shri Bipinchandra S. Kantak

Partner

(PARTY II) Vasco DaGama

18th September, 2008

(Adv. for Party II)

Sd/

(Adv. for workman/Union) SANJAY alias ARJUN L. DESAI

Rs . 23,076 Retrechment Compensation

26,626 Gratuity

3,381 Bonus for 2001-2002

1,184 Bonus for 2002-2003

53,844 14 months@ Rs . 3846 Salary from 8-05-01 to 24-07-02

Salary from 25-07-2002 to 24-06-2008,

1,36,533

917

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी केस नं. - 23/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-30012/36/2005- आईआर (एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 30th January, 2009

S.O. 466.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D.Case No. -23/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of. M/ s. H.P.C.L and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2009.

[No. L-30012/36/2005- IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Dispute Case No. 23/2005 Date of Passing Award -21st November, 2008 BETWEEN

TheManagement of the Sr. Regional Manager, M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , AlokBharati Tower , At./Po./PS . Sahidnagar, Bhubaneswar , Orissa

... 1st Party- Management

AND

Their workman Shri Susant Kumar Puhan ,

At . Angargadia, Udayanagar , P.O./Dist . Balasore,

Orissa, Balasore.

2nd Party-Workman APPEARANCES

...Forthe 1st party

Shri S. K. Satpathy

50% of 71x Rs . 3846

2,44,644

Total

Management

Shri Mahendra Singh

5,356.

ForHimself- 2nd Shri S. K. Puhan

ADD ex-gratia payment

2,50,000

Total Payable

25,000 Less Authorized Union Deduction @10% of total payable

Net payable Rs . 2,25,000 नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी, 2009

का.आ. 466.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. एच.पी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच,

Party Workman

AWARD

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofPowers conferredby Clause (d) ofsub- section (1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following disputes for adjudication vide their Order No. L -30012/36/ 2005 IR(M), dated 1-9-2005.

"Whether the action of the Management of M/ s . Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd. , in relation to 918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009/PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

ISSUE NO . 1

their Somnathpur Depot, Balasore in terminating the service of Shri Susant Kumar Puhan , Workman without following due procedure of law as laid down in I. D. Act is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The case of the workman in short is that, he was engaged by the Regional Manager of the Management- Companyto render clerical jobs in its Somnathpur Depot at Balasore with effect from 24-12-1999 and was subsequently terminated from 17-7-2003 without any advance notice or terminal benefits and the wages for the period from 1-7-2003 to 16-7-2003 .

6. As regards this issue relating to employment of the workman it is claimed by the workman that he was issued with an appointment letter but no such letter has beenproduced with an explanation that the same and many other documents were lost during a train journey. This explanation as offered by the workman does not appeal to the conscience in as much as he says to have had not reported the matter to the police . When he has produced Xerox copies of several other documents in an effort to prove his engagement, it is surprising how he could lost his appointment letter alone . Besides when he is silent about such fact in his claim statement that he was issued with an appointment letter and it was lost during railjourney, hisabove evidence and explanation given during trial stage can hardly be believed that he was issued with an appointment letter. When he says further that in that appointment letter there was no mention of his salary or the period of his engagement that itself indicates that he was not issued with any such appointment letter as claimed by the Management.

3. By disowning his above liability the Senior Regional Manager of the Management- Company alleged in his written statement that the workman was never engaged by him at any time . Rather the services of the workman was requisitioned through a valid handling contractor M/ s . M. T. Enterprise for a temporary period to attend to some urgent clerical work and for that the concerned contractor was paid extra money for providing such man-power beyond his contractual obligations and that after the purpose was over the workman was returned back to the contractor concerned and that therefore there was no necessity of paying retrenchment compensation to the workman . It is further alleged by the Management that the allegations of the workman that he was terminated without payment of wages for the period from 1-7-2003 to 16-7-2003 is a matter with which the Management is not concerned in as much as he was never engaged by the Management . In nutshell it is averred that the entire allegations of the workman are false, after-thought and designed to get illegal benefits .

4.On the above pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the workman Shri Susant Kumar Puhan was an employee of M/ s . Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

2. Whether the workman was in continuous employment from 24-12-1999 to 16-7-2003 and if so , whether the action of the Management in terminating the service without following section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act wasjustified?

3. If not towhat relief the workman is entitled to?

5. Besides producing certain documents the workman has examined himself in support of his claim . The Management has also relied on some documents relating to the procedure to be followed and the powers to be exercised by different officers in the matters of appointment of persons . It has also filed some vouchers in support of payment ofmoney to the contractor towards remuneration ofthe workman .

7. As regards the nature of job he was entrusted with , the workman deposed that he was maintaining different registers , issuing challans aginst different oil tankers, preparing modified value added tax, maintaining Sales and Bunkering Challan Register and typing out materials and operating the computer . Without denying the same the Management deposed that one M/ s . M. T. Enterprise had taken the contract of loading unloading of trucks and house keeping etc. and therefore at times he was asked to provide man - power to attend urgent nature of work on separate payment basis and accordingly the workman was provided by that contractor to attend to the above work for a temporary period . To establish that he was paid by the management itself but not by the contractor the workman has produced Xerox copies of some receipts carryingthe heading " Receipt for cash Disbursed " marked asExt- 1 series . These documents show as if it were granted bythe owrkman himself as a token of receipt of his wages and according to him these Xerox copies were granted to him by the management itself. Challenging the genuineness of these documents the Management on the other hand produced some receipts with similar heading in original granted by the workman and another named Mansing Tudu whom the workman during cross examination of M. W. - 1 hasadmitted to be the owner of M /s . M.T. Enterprise, the contractor. These documents show that after necessary payment these receipts have been defaced with a rubber seal carrying the impression " PAID " and another approval seal of rubber make . But even though the workman claims thatExt. - 1 series were provided to him by the Management in Xerox from , none of these carry the impression of any seal suggesting that they have been created by the workman to suit his purpose , as claimedby the Management. Further as per the workman he was the only FINDINGS 919 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Ext. -2/3 -Copy ofproduct receipt report.

Ext.-3 -Copy of the sales cash control from 13-5-2002 to 17-5-2002.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY- MANAGEMENT

M.W. - 1 -Shri S. Hari Prased..

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st PARTY- MANAGEMENT

Ext. -A-Limites ofAuthority Manual .

Ext. -B -Extract ofChapter- I and Chapter - II

Ext. -C-Copy ofbillsNo.145.

Ext. -C/ 1 -Copy ofbills No.138.

Ext. -C/2-Copy ofbills No.133 .

persons engagedto look after the Modvet work relating to Central Excise Duty. According to him the Management had paid his wages for the month of July 2002 on his granting a receipt on 10-8-2002, vide Ext . - 1 /1 . But the document Ext . - D , a receipt on original granted by Shri Man Singh Tudu , the Proprietor of M/ s . Μ.Τ. Enterprise shows that for the self same month of July 2002 he has been paid Rs . 2500 which is equivalent to the salary of the disputant for attending to Modvet and other miscellaneious work. This document futher proves that the documents marked as Ext . - 1 series which the workman has produced are not genuine but have been crafted and created by him for the purpose of litigation as alleged by the Management. For the above reasons the workman deserves no consideration as he has not approached the Tribunal in a clean hand.

Ext. -C/3 -Copy ofBills No.119 .

Ext. -C/4-Copy ofBills No. 153.

Ext.-C/5-Original bills No.126.

Ext. -C/6-Original Bills No.109.

Ext. -D-Cash receipt dated 20-8-2002.

Ext. -D/ 1 -Cash Receipt dated 10-10-2002 .

Ext. -D/2-Cash Receipt dated 26-11-2002.

Ext. -D/3-Cash Receipt dated 3-12-2002 .

Ext. -D/4-Cash Receipt dated 18-6-2002.

Ext. -D/5 -Cash Receipt dated 5-9-2001.

8..On the other hand a scrutiny of the documents such as Ext . -C to C/ 6 and D to D/7 bring home the conclusion that the workman was never engaged directly by the Management . Rather it shows as claimed by the management, that he was provided by the contractor Shri Mansingh Tudu (the proprietor of M/s . M.T. Enterprise) outside his contractual obligation to attend to the urgent and temporary nature of work of the Management and for that he was being paid separately Rs . 2500 towards the remuneration ofthe workman .

Ext. -D/6-Cash Receipt dated 9-8-2001 .

Ext. -D/7- Cash Receipt dated Nil.

ISSUE NO. 2 & 3

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2009

9. For the discussions made under Issue No.1 , these issues need no answer , workman not being clean in his approach.

relief. 10. Accordingly the reference is answered with no

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

का.आ. 467. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेयरहाऊसिंग कॉर्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-59/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Shri Susanta Kumar Puhan.

[सं.एल -42012/5/92-आईआर(एम) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd PARTY-WORKMAN.

Ext. - 1 - Cash disbursement receipts dated 7-7-2003 .

NewDelhi, the 30th January, 2009

dated 10-8-2002 .

-do-

Ext.- 1 /1

dated 3-6-2003.

-do-

Ext.-1/2

-do- -do- dated 11-5-2003 .

Ext.-1/3

dated 4-4-2003 .

-do- -do-

Ext.-1/4

dated 11-3-2003 .

-do-

Ext.-1/5

dated 31-3-2003 .

-do-

Ext.-1/6

dated 3-1-2003 .

-do-

Ext.-1/7

dated 29-11-2002.

-do-

Ext. -1/8

dated Nil

-do-

Ext.-1/9

dated 3-10-2002.

-do-

Ext.-1/10

S.O. 467. In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. -59/ 93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. 1 , Chandigarh 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 Government on 30-1-2009 .

dated 6-9-2002 .

-do-

Ext. -1/11

Ext. -2-Invoice.

[No. L-42012/5 /92- IR (M )] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer Ext. -2/ 1 Extract of sales register . Ext. -2/2 -Copy ofwagon register .

532G1/09-16 920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, -1, CHANDIGARH

Case No I. D. 59/93

Shri Tawari S/ o Shri Naurata Ram, R/o Vill . Meerpur, Via; Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] difference of working days if calculated on the basis of photocopies filed by the workman and the original register filedby the workman.' e photocopies filedby the workman does not bear the name of any office who maintained it nor the seal or the signature of any authority, whereas , the original register maintained by the management has been filed as such.

....Applicant

Versus

The Warehouse Manager, Central Warehouse , Naraingarh, Distt. - Ambala

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman For the management

Sri D. R. Sharma Sri Pardeep Sharma

AWARD

Passed on 20-1-09

The Government of India vide notification no . L- 42012/5/92- IR (M) dated 29-4-93 has referred the following industrial dispute for judicial adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Warehousing Corporation in terminating the service ofShri Tawari w.e.f. 30-1-92 is legal , just and valid? If not, then to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

The main dispute between the workınan and the management of respondent Central Warehousing Corporation is whether workman has served for 240 days or more preceding to the date of his termination and whether hewas terminated from the services as per the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct.

From the pleadings of parties it is evident that workman worked with the management of respondent in two spans namely from 1-2-85 to 11-6-85 and again from December 1990 to January 1992 .

On perusal of evidence of the parties it is also evident that workman has admitted to abandon the services for his personal reasons in June 1985. Thus , he has no rightto claim any benefit for his working with the management from 1-2-85 to 11-6-85 .

The management has agreed that workman worked with the management from December 1990 to January 1992 but alleged that he has not worked with the management for 240 days or more in the preceding year from the date of termination. Original attendance register is on record . The attendance of the workman from August 1990 to January 1992 had found place in this register . Genuineness of this document has not been challenged by the workman during the proceedings of this case. Rather this document bears the thumb impression of workman. No doubt , there is a Onperusal of the original attendance register filed by the management , it is evident that the workman had not completed 240 days with the management in preceding year from the date of his termination . Workman has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days or more with the management in the preceding year from the date of his termination. He has further failed to establish that anyjunior to him was given preference in similar nature of work by the management. Accordingly, workman is not entitled for any relief.

The reference is answered accordingly. Central Government be approached for publication of award and, thereafter , file be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 468. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बरसुआ आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी केस नं. - 21 /2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-26011/3/2003- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th January, 2009

S.O. 468.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. Case No. -21 /2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Barsua Iron Mines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-1-2009 .

[No. L -26011/3 /2003 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT , BHUBANESWAR Present : Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer , Industrial Dispute Case No. 21/2003 Date of Passing Award - 16th December 2008 921 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

BETWEEN

The Management of the General Manager, Barsua Iron Mines , RMD, SAIL , P. O. Tensa, Dist . Sundargarh , Orissa .

knowledge ofthe workman changed his above date ofbirth to 10-5-1947 , the workman having came to know of the same made a representation and not being successfül to re-correct the same raised an Industrial Dispute through the Union . Hence the reference .

1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workman Shri Ranjan Munda, Represented through the General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union, P. O. Barbil Dist.Keonjhar.

2ndParty-Union

APPEARANCES

...For the 1st party Management

Shri R.C. Tripathy, Manager, Law

For the 2nd

Shri B.S. Pati

Party-Union

General Secretary

AWARD

4. The Management on the other hand contended that at the time of initial appointment the workman disclosed his age to be 25 years by 1972. During medical test he also disclosed his age to be 25 years and the Doctor concerned also assessed his age on 10-5-1972 as 25 years and accordingly his said age was recorded in his service record. But while giving him pertrnanent employment in 1982 his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 30-5-1951 in the appointment letter Ext . - 6 . This defect having been detected during verification of the service books , the Management issued a notice to the workman to produce necessary certificate in support of his age. The workman instead of producing any age certificate simply produced the order dated 20-10-1982 (Ext. -6) ofthe Management by which he was appointed on permanent basis . As the age of the workman as mentioned in that order was a mistaken entry and as except the same no other document was produced bythe workman, the Management had to adopt the date of birth as 10-5-1947 as per rule and as such no illegalitywas committed by the Management.

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofPowers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L -26011/3/ 2003 IR(M), dated 17-6-2003.

5. During trial the Union as well as the workman remained continuously absent after filing the claim statement . As a result, the Union was set exparte and the Management was asked to adduce evidence in support of its stand. The Management examined one of its officers besides producing documents marked as Ext . - 1 to 9.

"Whether the demand ofthe General Secretary, North Orissa Workers Union to correct the date of birth of Shri Ranjan Munda, PL No.840420, Barsua Iron Mines as30-9-1951 as per the appointment letter No. Iron/ PNL (KIM)/ 7 , dated 20-10-1982 and medical card issued by the company medical officer isjustified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?

2. The background of the dispute as gathered from the pleadings of the parties is that Barsuan Iron Mines and Kalta IronMines belonging to SAIL were earlier kept in 1956 under the administavtive control of Hindustan Steel Limited, presently known as Rourkela Steel Plant . After formation ofa new division named raw Materials Division , the SAIL placed those mines under the said division free from administrative control of Rourkela Steel Plant, shortly known asRSP.

6.Ext.- 1 is the letter dated 14-4-1972 for temporary appointment of the workman. Ext . -2 is the declaration of theworkmanmade at the time ofhis initial appointment as atemporary worker, Ext, -3 is the medical test certificate dated 10-5-1972 of the workman , Ext. -4 is the descriptive roll of the workman , Ext . -5 is the management -Company's Rules relating to determination ofdate ofbirth, Ext . -6 is the office order dated 20-10-1982 by which the workman was appointed on permanent basis . Ext. -7 is the letter dated 11-12-1998 issued to the workman to produce documentary evidence in support of his age , Ext . - 8 is the reply to Ext . - 7 and Ext. -9 is the letter dated 9-11-2001 of Management intimating the workınan that his date of birth has been determined as 10-5-1947 for all future púrposes .

7. On perusal ofthe above documents especially the declaration of the workman Ext. -2 and his medical fitness certificate Ext . - 3 it is clear that when he initially joined in service in 1972 he declared his age as 25 years and the Doctorwho examined him medically on 10-5-1972 had also found him aged 25 years . It also shows that at the time of hismedical examination the workman had himselfdisclosed his age as 25 years before the Doctor . These aspects thus nullifies the stand of the Union that at the time ofhis initial 3.The workman in question initially joined as a piece rated worker on casual basis in 1972 in Kalta Mines and subsequently he was transferred to Barsuan after being regularized.At the time of his initial appointment in 1972 the disputant gave necessary declaration regarding his age etc. It is alleged by the Union that on the basis ofsaid declaration that he was aged about 21 years his date of birthwas entered as 30-9-1951 in his service records . When susequently the workman was appointed on regular basis in 1982 vide Ext . -6 his above date ofbirth was also reflected in that order. But when the Management without the 922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 / PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या, केस सं.-136/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं.एल -26012/23/97- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी joining the workman had declared his age as 21 years . The other stand of the Union that the age of the workman was recorded as 21 years in the service record is also found to be incorrect in as much as the descriptive roll ( Ext. -4) prepared on 12-5-1972 shows that the age of the workman was never recorded as 21 years as claimed by the Union. Butit was recorded as 25 years on the basis of workman's own declaration marked Ext . -2 .

New Delhi , the 30th January , 2009

S.O. 469.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. Case No.- 136/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of Baitarani Iron Mines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government 30-1-2009. on 8. Therefore, in such circumstances, I find that there was sufficient justification on the part of the Management to assess the date of birth of the workman on the basis of his declaration made at the time of his initial appointment in 1972. Since by the time the workman was subjected to a medical test he was aged about 25 years as on 10-5-1972 his date ofbirth as per rule 4.7 of Ext. -5 , is to be assessed as 10-5-1947 . Accordingly, by adopting the said date as the date of birth of the workman the Management is found to havecommitted no mistake .

[No. L-26012/23/97 - IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer 9. Thus the reference is answered ex parte against the Union providing no benefit to the workman.

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY- UNION

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR PRESENT

No witnesses examined on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union.

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra , Presiding Officer

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY- UNION

Industrial Dispute Case No. 136/2001 No Documents exhibited on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union.

Date of PassingAward - 15th December 2008 BETWEEN

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE IND PARTY- MANAGEMENT.

M. W. - 1 - Shri Harihara Mohapatra .

The Management of the Agent, Baitarini Iron Mines of Dr. S. Pradhan , P. O. Barbil , Dist . Keonjhar.

Ist Party-Management LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENT

AND

Ext. - 1 -Offer letter ofAppointment dated 14-4-1972.

Ext. -2- Declaration dated 24-4-1972.

Their workman Shri Madhusudan Naik , Vill . 2nd Dhanurjoypur , P. O. Balabhadrapur, Keonjhar.

Ext. -3 -Medical Certificate dated 10-5-1972 .

2nd Party-Workman Ext. -4- Descriptive roll dated 12-5-1972 .

APPEARANCES

None

Ext. - 5 - Rutes regarding determination of date ofbirth .

... For the 1st party- Management Ext.-6-Office order dated 20-10-1982 .

Shri Madhusudan Naik

Ext. -7-Office letter dated 12-12-1998 .

.... For himself the 2nd Party-Workman

AWARD

Ex-8- Reply dated 23-12-1998 of the disputant.

Ex. -9 -Office letter dated 29-11-2001 .

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2009

TheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L -26012 /23 / 97 - IR (M), dated 20-10-1997.

का.आ. 469. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैतरनी आयरन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

"Whether the termination of services of Shri Madhusudan Naik , with effect from 20-5-1996 without [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

giving any notice or following laid down procedure bythe Management of Baitarani Iron Mines of Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, P. O. Barbil , Dist. Keonjhar, is justified and proper ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. It is allegedbythe workman in his Claim Statement that in June, 1994 he was engaged as a piece rated worker along with few others in the Baitarani Mines of the Management for his entry into the mine he was issued with necessary identity card. While he was working as such continuously, the Management created some disturbances with the help of his mining staff on 20-5-1996 and drove him and few others out of the work site by snatching away their working tools etc. As a result he along with other lodged a reportbefore the local police station . At the police station the agent of the mine gave them some assurance for their re-employment.but did not do that . Hence the workman raised an Industrial Dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central ) claiming that he was illegally terminated. Hence the reference.

3.After receipt the letter ofreference the Management appeared and filed his written statement denying the allegations of the workman. It is averred by the Management that the workman was engaged as a piece rated worker on daily rate basis as and when needed. But after working for few months he voluntarily abandoned the job without surrendering the attendance card and as such there was no obligation on the part of the Management to pay him retrenchment compensation etc. as required under section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act .

4.Be it noted at the very outset that during pendency of the case the Management objected the engagement of one Shri B. S. Pati , General Secretary of the North Orissa Workers' Union as the representative ofthe workman . After the above prayer of the Management was allowed , the workman filed O.J.C. 17216/2001 before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the order ofthe Tribunal . The proceeding was stayed thereafter under the orders ofthe Hon'ble High Court .While disposing of the said O.J.C. the Hon'ble Court in their order dated 24-7-2008 finally upheld the order of the Tribunal . A copy of the said order was filed before the Tribunal on 17-9-2008 by the disputant on the basis of which the Management was issued with a notice for his participation in the proceeding which he did not comply. As a result he was set ex parte and on 20-11-2008 and the evidence of the disputant was recorded.

5.The workman examined himself alone by producing hisidentity card (Ext. -D) issued to him by the Management.

6. The evidencé on record as adduced by the workman shows that initially himself and few others were engaged as piece rated workers by the Management in 1984 in its Balita Iron Ores Mine and subsequently in 1994 theywere taken to another mine namely Baitarani Iron Ores Mine in the district of Keonjhar. It is deposed by the

923

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

workman that while he was working in that Baitarani Mine on 20-5-1996 his tools and implements were taken away forcibly by some officers of the Management-Company and then he was refused employment.

7. Ext. -1 shows that the workman was allotted with a B.R. No. 192 and was issued with a permanent I.D. Card which is suggestive of the fact that his engagement was continuous but not intermittent. It is alleged by the Management that the workman had voluntarily abandoned thejob from20-5-1996. But in the absence of any evidence to that effect it cannot be believed. On the other hand the rising of an Industrial Dispute by the workman soon thereafter sufficiently indicates that he would not have abandoned the job voluntarily. Therefore , it is held that the workman was refused employment from 20-5-1996 as claimedbyhim.

8. Theevidence of the workman shows that in June, 1994 he was taken as a regular piece rated worker and on 20-5-1996 he was refused employment without any notice orretrenchment benefits . In these circumstances the action of the Management is held to be bad under law. He is directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages calculated from 20-5-1996 or to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs . 25,000 in lieu thereof within a period of two months from the date of communication of this award.

9. The reference is answered accordingly .

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY-WORKMAN .

W.W. - 1- Shri Madhusudhan Naik .

LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND PARTY-WORKMAN.

Ext. - 1 - Identity Card issued to Shri Madhusudhan Naik.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBTED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY- MANAGEMENT

No witnesses examined on behalf of the Management . LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PARTY-MANAGEMENT

No documents exhibited on behalf of the Management .

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2009

का.आ. 470.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. डाईमण्ड सिमेन्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विषाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआई टी/एलसी/आर/166/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-1-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं.एल-29012/178/98-आईआर( एम ) ] कमल बाखरु , डेस्क अधिकारी 924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2, 1930

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 30th January, 2009

against him according to rules. He was found guilty ofthe charges of misconduct of remaining absent unauthorisely from duty without any intimation. After completing all the legal formalities , the management dismissed his services vide letter No. 37038 dated 29-6-98 .

4. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit oftheir witness Shri R. S. Shekhawat , then working asGeneral Manager (Legal and Personnel ) in Diamond Cements.

S.O. 470.-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/ 166/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of M/ s. Diamond Cement and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on30-1-2009.

[No. L-29012/ 178/98 - IR(M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

5.After having gone through the exparte argument advancedby Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate for management and after having considered the evidence on record, I am of the view that the management has succeeded in proving their case by the affidavit of their witness Shri R. S. Shekhawat whose affidavit has remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Therefore the reference deserves to be decided in favour of the management and against the workman without any ordes as to costs .

No. CGIT/LC/R/166/99

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh

Shri A.V. Radhakrishnan ,

Workers Colony,

Diamond Cement,

Narsingarh

Damoh

Workman/Union

6. In view of the above , the reference is decided in favour of the management and against workman Shri A.V. Radhakrishnan without any orders as to costs holding that the action of the management of M/ S Diamond Cement, Narsingarh in dismissing Shri A. V. Radhakrishnan from service vide letter No. 37038 dated 29-6-98 is legal and justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to anyrelief.

Versus

The Vice President,

Diamond Cement,

7. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

Management

Narsingarh

C. M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 4 फरवरी , 2009

Passed on this 24th day of December , 2008

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-29012/ 178/98 - IR (M) dated 20-4-99 hasreferred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

का. आ. 471. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च , 2009 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 आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थातः- "Whether the action of the management of M/ s Diamond Cement, Narsingarh in dismissing Shri A. V. Radhakrishnan from service vide letter No. 37038 dated 29-6-98 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

" आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के पश्चिम गोदावरी जिले के भीमवरम् मण्डलम् में स्थित ताडेरू, रायलम तथा एनमदुररू राजस्व गाँव के अंतर्गत आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र एवं पालकोडेरू मण्डलम के गोल्लकोडेरू राजस्व गाँव के अंतर्गत आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र । "

2.Vide order dated 15-12-05 passed on the ordersheet ofthisproceeding , the reference proceeded exparte against workman Shri A. V. Radhakrishnan . No Statement of claim has been filed on behalf of workman Shri A. V. Radhakrishnan .

[सं. एस-38013/01/2009 -एस.एस. ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th February, 2009

3. The case of the management in brief is as follows . That the workman used to remain absent from duty unauthorisely without any prior intimation or sanctioned leave. He has committed gross misconduct and therefore he was issued with chargesheet and as DE was conducted

S. O. 471. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State 925

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 21 , 2009/फाल्गुन 2 , 1930

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Kothavalasa, Kodukarakavalasa, Chadrappa Valasa and Devubutchampet of Salur Mandal Vizianagaram District in Andhra Pradesh.

[Ne: S-38013/03/2009- S. S. IJ S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी , 2009 Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 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) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely: -

"All the areas falling within the Revenue Villages of TADERU , RAYALAM AND YANAMADURRU OF BHIMAVARAM MANDALAM AND GOLLAKODERU REVENUE VILLAGE OF PALAKODERU MANDALAM OFWESTGODAVARI DISTRICT IN ANDHRA PRADESH STATE."

का. आ. 473. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदारा 1 मार्च , 2009 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 आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः- [No. S- 38013/01 /2009- S . S. J S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 5 फरवरी , 2009

" आन्ध्र प्रदेश में कडपा जिले के एर्रगुंटला मण्डल में स्थित कालमल्ला, गोपुलापुरम्, चिन्नदन्दुलूरू, इल्लूरू, मलपाडु, हनुमानगुटी, के.जी.पी. पल्लि, निडिजिष्वी, वलसपल्लि, टी. सुंकेसुला और तिप्पलूर, राजस्व गाँव की सीमा के अन्तर्गत आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र ।

आन्ध्र प्रदेश में कडपा जिले के मुद्दनूर मण्डल के मुद्दनूर राजस्व गाँव की सीमा के अन्तर्गत आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र । "

[सं. एस-38013/02/2009 - एस.एस. 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 5th February, 2009 का. आ. 472. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदास 1 मार्च , 2009 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 आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः-

" आन्ध्र प्रदेश के विजयनगर जिले के सालूर राजस्व गाँव सालूर मण्डल के नैल्लिपर्थी, जिजिरम, गुमडम , दुगदासगरम, पि. एन. बुद्दावालसा , कुर्माराजीपेटा , मुगदावालसा , शिवरामपुरा , परन्नवालसा, कोथवालसा, कोडूकाराकावालसा , चदरप्पावालसा और देवुबुचमपेटा । "

[सं. एस-38013/03/2009- एस.एस. 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

S. O. 473. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Section 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) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State ofAndhra Pradesh namely:-

New Delhi , the 5th February, 2009

1."All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Villages of Kalamalla, Gopulapuram Chinnadandlura, Illuru, Malpadu , Hanumanguthy , K.G.V. Palli , Nidizivvi , Valasapalli , T. Sunkesula and Tippalur of Yerraguntla Mandal in Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh .

2."All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Village of Muddanur of Muddanur Mandal in Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.

S. O. 472. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 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) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely :-

[No. S- 38013/02/2009- S. S. I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 5 फरवरी, 2009

का. आ. 474. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियमण् 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च, 2009 को उस "All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Villages of Salur , Nelliparthi , Jeegiram , Gumadam , Dugdasagaram , P. N. Boddavalasa , Kurmarajipeta , Mugadavalasa, Shivram - Puram , Parannavalasa , 926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21 , 2009 /PHALGUNA 2 , 1930

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

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 तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः-

केन्द्र

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 पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

तुतुकोरिन जिला के

1. पुदुरपाण्डियपुरम

2. मेल अरसडी

ओट्टपिडारम तालुक

" जिला जलपाईगुड़ी के बिन्नागुड़ी एवं बोलीगच मौजा के क्षेत्रों को शामिल करके । "

के तुतुकोरिन परिधि के क्षेत्र

3. मेल मरूदूर

आदि के अन्तर्गत आने [सं. एस-38013/04/2009- एस . एस. I ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

वाले राजस्वगॉव New Delhi , the 5th February, 2009

* [सं. एस -38013/05/2009 -एस.एस . । ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th February, 2009

S. O. 474. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- VandVI (except sub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 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 West Bengal namely :-

"Areas Comprising Mouzas of Binnaguri And Boligach in the District of Jalpaiguri . "

S. O. 475.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Section 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) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely: -

Centre

[No. S-38013/04/2009- S. S. I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

AreasComprising the Revenue Villages of नई दिल्ली , 5 फरवरी , 2009

Peripheral Areas of

1. Pudurpandiapuram

2. Mela Arasadi

Tuticorin , Ottapidaram

Taluk, Tuticorin District .

3. Mela Marudur का. आ. 475. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियमण् 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च , 2009 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के

[No. S- 38013/05/2009- S . S. 1 ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri ,. New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054.