रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD. NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05
भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 38] No. 38]
नई दिल्ली , सितम्बर 16 सितम्बर 22 , 2012 , शनिवार / भाद्र 25-भाद्र 31 , 1934 NEW DELHI , SEPTEMBER 16-SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012 , SATURDAY/ BHADRA 25- BHADRA 31 , 1934
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 -खण्ड 3-उप- खण्ड( ii) PART II- Section 3 -Sub-section ( ii )
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)
गृह मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर , 2012
का. आ. 2897. केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम ( 4) के अनुसरण में, गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :
पुलिस उप महानिरीक्षक का कार्यालय , रंगरूट-प्रशिक्षण-केन्द्र, केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल , राजगीर , बिहार ।
[फा. सं. 12017/1/2012- हिन्दी ] अवधेश कुमार मिश्र , निदेशक ( राजभाषा )
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi, the 6th September , 2012
S. O. 2897.- In pursuance of sub - rule (4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifics the following office of the Ministry of Home Affairs wherein the percentage of the staff having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%.
3417 G1/ 2012
Office of the Deputy Inspector General , Recruit Training Centre , CRPF, Rajgir, Bihar.
[ F. No. 12017 / 1 /2012-Hindi ] AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA , Director ( OL )
नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर , 2012
का. आ. 2898, केंद्रीय सरकार , ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथा संशोधित , 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप- नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में, गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:...
1. के.औ.सु. बल आर.टी.सी. देवली ( राजस्थान )
2. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई ए.एस.जी. पटना ( बिहार )
3. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई एस.सी. एल. मोहाली ( पंजाब )
4. कं.औ.सु. बल इकाई ए.एस जी. उदयपुर ( राजस्थान )
5. के.औ.सु. बल एयर पोर्ट ( उत्तरी क्षेत्र ) मुख्यालय, नई दिल्ली
(7071) 7072
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SETEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
6. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई ए.एस.जी. भुन्तर ( हिमाचल प्रदेश )
7. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई ए.एस.जी. गया ( बिहार )
8. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई ए.एस.जी. कानपुर ( उ. प्रदेश )
9 के.औ.सु. बल समूह मुख्यालय कोचीन ( केरल )
10. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई ए.एस.जी. रांची ( झारखण्ड)
11. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई बी.आई.एम. टेनसा ( उड़ीसा )
12. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई एन.एल.सी.एम. /टी.पी.पी. बरसिंहसर, बीकानेर ( राजस्थान )
13. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई बी.पी.एस.सी.एल. बोकारो ( झारखण्ड)
14. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई आई.ओ.सी.एल. डिगबोई (असम )
15. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई एम.सी. एफ , हासन ( कर्नाटक )
[फा. सं. 12017/1/2013 -हिन्दी) अवधेश कुमार मिश्र , निदेशक ( राजधानी ) New Delhi , the 10th September, 2012
S. O. 2898. In pursuance of sub - ruie ( 4 ) of Rul 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976 ( as amended, 1987 ) the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Ministry of Home Affairs wherein the percentage of c staff having working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%.
1. CISF RTC Deoli (Rajasthan)
2. CISF Unit ASG Patna (Bihar )
3. CISF Unit SCL Mohali (Punjab )
4. CISF Unit ASG Udaipur (Rajasthan)
5. CISF Airport (North Zone ) Hqrs. New Delhi
6. CISF Unit ASG Bhunter (H.P.
7. CISF Unit ASG Gaya ( Bihar)
8. CISF Unit ASG Kanpur
9. CISF Group Hqrs . , Cochin ( Kerala )
10. CISF Unit ASG Ranchi (Jharkhand)
11. CISF Unit B.I.M. Tensa (Orissa )
12. CISF Unit N.L.C.M./T.P.P Barsinghsar, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
13. CISF Unit B.P.S.C.L. Bokaro ( Jharkhand)
14. CISF Unit I.O.C.L. Digboai (Assam)
15. CISF Unit M.C.F. Hassan ( Karnataka) [F. No. 12017/ 1 /2012- fi ) AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA. Dictor )
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 10 सितम्बर, 2012
का. आ. 2899.केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथा संशोधित, 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप - नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में , गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या ४० प्रतिशत से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :-
1. के.औ.सु. बल.आर.टी.सी. देवली ( राजस्थान )
2.. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई ए. एस.जी. पटना ( बिहार )
3. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई एस.सी.एल. मोहाली ( पंजाब )
4. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई ए. एस.जी. उदयपुर ( राजस्थान )
5. के.औ.सु. चल एयर पोर्ट ( उत्तरी क्षेत्र ) मुख्यालय , नई दिल्ली
6. के.औ.सु. ब्ल इकाई ए. एस.जी. भुन्तर (हिमाचल प्रदेश)
7. के.उ.भ. बल इकाई ए.एस.जी. गया ( बिहार )
९. के. जैतु अल इकाई ए.एस.जी. कानपुर ( उ. प्रदेश )
बल समूह मुख्यालय कोचीन ( केरल )
10. के.और बल इकाई ए.एस.जी. रांची ( झारखण्ड)
11. के. ओ . काईदाई. एम. टेनसा ( उड़ीसा)
१. कं..सु. बल इकाई एम.एल.सी.एम. /टी.पी.पी. बरसिंहसर , बीकानेर ( राजस्थान)
13. के.ओ.सु. बल इकाई बी.पी.एस.सी.एल. बोकारो ( झारखण्ड )
14. के. ओतु बल अकाई आई.ओ.सी.एल. डिगबोई ( असम )
15. के.औ.सु. बल इकाई एम.सी. एफ, हासन ( कर्नाटक )
[फा. सं. 12017/ 1/2012-हिन्दी ] अवधेश कुमार मिश्र , निदेशक ( राजभाषा )
New Dellu , the 10th September , 2012
S. O. 2899.- u pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976 ( as amended , 1987 ) the Central Goverssunent hereby notifies the following office of the Ministry ofHome Affairs wherein the percentage of the staffhaving working, & nowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%
1. CISF PTC Deoli (Rajasthan )
2. CISF Unit ASG Patna ( Bihar)
3. CISF Unit SCL Mohali ( Punjab)
4. CISF Unit ASG Udaipur ( Rajasthan)
5. CISF Airport (North Zone ) Hqrs . New Delhi
6. CISF UnirASG Bhunter (H.P. ) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7073
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
7. CISF Unit ASG Gaya (Bihar)
8. CISF Unit ASG Kanpur
9. CISF Group Hqrs. , Cochin ( Kerala)
10. CISF Unit ASG Ranchi ( Jharkhand)
11. CISF Unit B.I.M. Tensa (Orissa)
12. CISF Unit N.L.C.M./T.P.P Barsinghsar, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
13. CISF Unit B.P.S.C.L. Bokaro ( Jharkhand)
14. CISF Unit I.O.C.L. Digboai (Assam)
15. CISF Unit M.C.F. Hassan ( Karnataka) F. No. 12017 / 1 /2012 -Hindi ] AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL)
नई दिल्ली, 12 सितम्बर , 2012
का. आ. 2900.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधि कृत अधिभोगियों को बेदखली , अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री शशीश कुमार मिश्र , सहायक निदेशक , आसूचना ब्यूरो , नई दिल्ली को जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी हैं , श्री मंगल सिंह के स्थान पर उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करते हैं और निदेश देते हैं कि उक्त अधिकारी , निदेशक , आसूचना ब्यूरो, नई दिल्ली के नियंत्रणाधीन सभी सरकारी आवास सुविधा के सम्बन्ध में, उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा या उसके अधीन सम्पदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा और अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेगा ।
[ फा. सं. ( सी. -2/2006 ( 10) -पी.एफ- II - 3442 ] राजेन्द्र सिंह खिची , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 12th September, 2012
S. O. 2900. -In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of unauthorised occupations ) Act , 1971 ( 40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sashish Kumar Misra , AssistantDirector, Intelligence Bureau , New Delhi , a Gazetted Officer of the Government to be the Estates Officer vice Shri Mangal Singh , Assistant Director, for the purpose of the said act and directs that the Estates Officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estates Officer by or under the said Act in respect of all Government accommodation under the control ofthe Director, Intelligence Bureau at New Delhi .
[ F. No. 6 /C - 11/ 2006 ( 10) -PF - II - 3442 ]
RAJENDER SINGH KHICHI , Under Secy.
कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय
( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 10 सितम्बर , 2012
का. आ. 2901.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषण किए जाने वाले विनिर्दिष्ट निम्नोक्त अपराधों नामत:-
(क) कर्नाटक भूमि ( हस्तांतरण पर प्रतिबंध ) अधिनियम , 1991 के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों; तथा
(ख) प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणा तथा इससे सम्बद्ध षड्यंत्रों अथवा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराध के संबंध में तथा इसी संव्यवहार में किए गए अथवा इन तथ्यों से उत्पन्न कोई अन्य अपराध या अपराधों ।
[फा. सं. 228/49/2012- एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 10th September, 2012
S.O. 2901. In exercise of the powers-conferred by section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946 ) , the Central Government hereby specifics the following offence which is to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment namely :-
(a) Offences punishable under the Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act , 1991 ; and
(b) Attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offence and any other offence or offences committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .
[F. No. 228/49/2012 - AVD - IIj RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 12 सितम्बर , 2012
का. आ. 2902.-केन्द्र सरकार दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 (1974का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई ) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों में परीक्षण न्यायालयों और अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या विधि द्वारा स्थापित अपीलीय या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों का अभियोजन स्थानीय क्षेत्रों सहित सम्पूर्ण झारखंड राज्य में संचालित करने के लिए श्री कुन्दन कुमार सिन्हा, वकील को केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[फा. सं. 20275/2011- एवीडी- II ] राजीव जैम, अवर सचिव ( V- II ) 7074
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 22. 2012/ BHADRA 31. 1934
New Delhi , the 12th September , 2012
S. O. 2902. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Kundan Kumar Sinha Advocate in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the local area comprising the whole State of Jharkhand instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) intrial courts and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts, established by law.
[ F. No. 202/ 5/ 2011 - AVD - II ] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy (V- II )
नई दिल्ली, 12 सितम्बर , 2012
का. आ. 2903. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( सीबीवाई ) द्वारा संस्थाामलों में परीक्षण न्यायालयों और अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या विधि द्वारा स्थापित अपीलीय या पुनरीक्षण
PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों का अभियोजन स्थानीय क्षेत्रों सहित सम्पूर्ण बिहार राज्य में संचालिन करने के लिए श्री अख्तर हुसैन खान , त्रकील को कंन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के लांक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[फा. सं. 202/5/2012- एवीडी- II ) ] राजीव जैन , अवर सचिव ( V- II )
New Delhi , the 12th September , 2012
S. O. 2903. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Akhtar Hussain Khan Advocate in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the local area comprising the whole State of Bihar instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment ( CBI ) in trial courts and appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate Courts , established bylaw.
[F. No. 202/ 5/ 2012 - AVD - II] RAJIV JAIN , Under Secy.(V- II )
वित्त मंत्रालय
(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 16 अगस्त, 2012
का. आ. 2904.-सरकारी स्थान ( अनधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग के दिनांक 20-4-2009 के कानूनी आदेश संख्या 1484 ( अ ) दिनांक 20-4-2009 के अंतर्गत प्रकाशित अधिसूचना का अतिक्रमण करते हुए ( सिवाय उन कार्यों के जो ऐसे अधिक्रमण के पहले किए गए अथवा छोड़ दिए गए ) , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्द्वारः, निम्नलिखित सारणी के कॉलंम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है और आगे यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त अधिकारी उक्त अधिनियिम द्वारा या उसके अंतर्गत सम्पदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों और अधिरोपित कर्त्तव्यों का , अधोलिखित सारणी के कालम ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत आने वाले सरकारी स्थानों के संबंध में, प्रयोग करेंगे ।
सारणी
क्रम सं. अधिकारी , प्रशासनिक प्रमुख , जो भी पदनाम हो , का पदनाम सरकारी स्थानों की श्रेणियां और क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं
(1)
(2)
1. अंचल कार्यालय , हैदराबाद के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक ,6-1-73 , लकड़ी का पुल , सैफाबाद, हैदराबाद-500004
2. अंचल कार्यालय , मुजफ्फरपुर के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. मान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , मुजफ्फरपुर पंकज पाकेट , (3)
आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय हैदराबाद के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 23 जिले शामिल हैं :
पूर्वी गोदावरी जिला , गुंटूर , चित्तूर , हैदराबाद, कडप्पा , करीमनगर, कृष्णा , कुरनूल , महबूबनगर, अनंतपुर , नालगोंडा, नेल्लोर, निजामाबाद , प्रकाशम , रंगारेड्डी, श्रीकाकुलम , विशाखापट्टनम , विजयानगरम , वारांगल, पश्चिमी गोदावरी जिला , संगारेड्डी, खम्माम , आदिलाबाद।
बिहार राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय मुजफ्फरपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7075
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012 /भाद्र 31 , 1934
(1) (2) (3)
सरैयागंज , मुजफ्फरपुर-842001 अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में
नीचे उल्लिखित 9 जिले शामिल हैं :-
मुजफ्फरपुर, सीतामढ़ी, सिवान, गोपालगंज , पूर्वी चम्पारन , पश्चिमी
चम्पारन , सारन , वैशाली , शिवहर ।
3. अंचल कार्यालय , दरभंगा के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, बिहार राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय दरभंगा के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में
पंजाब नैशनल बैंक दरभंगा कमर्शियल हाउस , लहेरियासराय , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा
दरभंगा-846001 उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे
उल्लिखित 12 जिले शामिल हैं :-
मधुबनी , समस्तीपुर, बेगुसराय , सहरसा , सुपौल , अररिया , पुर्णिया,
कटिहार, किशनगंज , दरभंगा , मधेपुरा ।
4. अंचल कार्यालय , पटना के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, बिहार राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय पटना के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में
पंजाब नैशनल बैंक पटना ' ए ' , आर ब्ल. चाणक्य प्लेस , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा
पटना-842001 उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे
उल्लिखित । जिला शामिल हैं :-
पटना
5. अंचल कार्यालय , आरा के स.म.प्र ./उ.म.प्र . वर्तमान पता , बिहार राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय आरा के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में
पंजाब नैशनल बैंक जी. सी. हाउस , महाराजा कंपाउंड, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा
आरा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे
उल्लिखित 4 जिले शामिल हैं :-
भाभुआ, भोजपुर , बक्सर , रोहतास
6. अंचल कार्यालय , बिहार शरीफ के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान बिहार राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय बिहार शरीफ के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण
पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , रामचन्द्रपुर , बिहार में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए
शरीफ-8031010- अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में
नीचे उल्लिखित 8 जिले शामिल हैं :
लक्खीसराय , नालन्दा, नवादा, जमुई , शेखपुरा , भागलपुर, मुंगेर ,
बांका ।
7. अंचल कार्यालय , गया के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, बिहार राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय गया के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब
पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , ' ए' 400 एपी कालोनी , गया-823001 नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी
तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित
4 जिले शामिल हैं :-
गया, औरंगाबाद , जाहनाबाद , अरवल
8. अंचल कार्यालय , रायपुर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय रायपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में
पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , मदीना मंजिल मेडिकल कालेज रोड, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा
रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़ उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे
उल्लिखित 14 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बस्तर , बिलासपुर , धमतरी , दुर्ग , जंजगीर- चम्पा, कोरबा , कोरिया ,
महासमंद, रायगढ़ , रायपुर , राजनंदगांव, दांतेवाड़ा, जसपुर, कवर्धा ।
9. अंचल कार्यालय , नार्थ दिल्ली के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान दिल्ली राज्य में अंग्ल कार्यालय नार्थ दिल्ली के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण
पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , राजेन्द्र भवन , रोजन्द्र प्लेस, में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए
नई दिल्ली अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में
नीचे उल्लिखित 6 जिले शामिल हैं :--
7076
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
(2)
(1)
10. अंचल कार्यालय , अहमदाबाद के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, एमजे लाइब्रेरी के सामने , इलाइस पुल , आश्रम रोड, अहमदाबाद -380006
11. अंचल कार्यालय , चण्डीगढ़ के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र . वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , सेक्टर- 17-दी, चण्डीगढ़ -160017
12. अंचल कार्यालय , हिसार के स.म.प्र . /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , आईआईटी के सामने , डाबर चौक , हिसार-125005
13. अंचल कार्यालय , करनाल के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र . वर्तमान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, मीरा घाटी सद्भावना चौक, जी टी रोड, करनाल-132001
14. अंचल कार्यालय , रोहतक के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तभान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, गीता कालोनी , सर्कुलर रोड, रोहतक-124001
15. अंचल कार्यालय , शिमला के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , रिजेन्ट हाऊस , दि माल , शिमला-196001
16. अंचल कार्यालय , धर्मशाला के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , कचहरी रोड, जीपीओ के नजदीक , धर्मशाला -176215
[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
पूर्वी दिल्ली, पूर्वोत्तर दिल्ली, उत्तरी दिल्ली , सेन्ट्रल दिल्ली, पश्चिमोत्तर दिल्ली, पश्चिमी दिल्ली ।
गुजरात राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय अहमदाबाद के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए पारसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 26 जिले शामिल हैं :
अहमदाबाद , अमरेली , आनंद, भरूच , भाजनगर , गांधीनगर , जामनगर, जूनागढ़ , खेड़ा, रूच्छ, मेहसाणा , नवसारी, पाटन , पोरबंदर , राजकोट , साबरकांठा , सूरत , सुरेन्द्रनगर , बड़ोदरा , वलसाड, बनासकांठा , दाहोद , डांग , 'नर्मदा, तापी , पंचमहल ।
हरियाणा राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय चण्डीगढ़ के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :
चण्डीगढ़, पंचकूला , अम्बाला
हरियाणा राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय हिसार के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :-
हिसार, सिरसा , फतेहव्वाद
हरियाणा राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय करनाल के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :-
करनाल , पानीपत , सोनीपत
हरियाणा राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय रोहतक के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 5 जिले शामिल हैं :-
रोहतक, झज्जर , रेवाड़ी, नारनौल , भिवानी
हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय शिमला के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 4 जिले शामिल हैं :-
किन्नौर, शिमला , सिरमौर , सोलन
हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय धर्मशाला के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 2 जिले शामिल हैं :
कांगड़ा, चम्बा [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
7077
भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 22 , 2012 /भाद्र 31 , 1934
(2)
(1)
17. अंचल कार्यालय , हमीरपुर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, न्यु रोड, हमीरपुर -177001
18. अंचल कार्यालय , मण्डी के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , मण्डी जल रोड, बाटला चौक , मण्डी-175001
19. अंचल कार्यालय , जम्मू के स.म.प्र. उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक,, आई लैंड टावर रेल मुख्य परिसर , जम्मू-180012
20. अंचल कार्यालय , रांची के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , बेगराय मार्केट , मेन रोड, रांची-834001
21. अंचल कार्यालय , बंगलोर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 26-27 , एम जी रोड , रहेजा टावर्स , बंगलोर-560001
22. अंचल कार्यालय , कोझीकोड के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , शताब्दी भवन , मिनी बाईपास रोड, पीओ. एए, गोविंदपुरम , कोझीकोड-673016
23. अंचल कार्यालय , भोपाल के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, शिखरवार्ता भवन , प्रेस कांप्लेक्स होशंगाबाद रोड, भोपाल-462201
(3)
हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय हमीरपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :-
हमीरपुर, ऊना , बिलासपुर
हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय मण्डी के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा. उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :-
मण्डी, कुल्लू, केलौंग
जम्मूएवं कश्मीर राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय जम्मू के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 19 जिले शामिल हैं :-
जम्मू, कठुआ, सांबा, पूंछ , राजौरी , डोडा, रियासी , रामबाण, उधमपुर , श्रीनगर , अनंतनाग , कुलगांव , पुलवामा , बेदगाम , बारामूला ,कूपवाड़ा, लेह, गंदेरबाल , बांदीपोरा
झारखण्ड राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय रांची के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा. उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 24 जिले शामिल हैं :-
रांची, पूर्वी सिंहभूम , पश्चिमी, सिंहभूम , सरायकेला, बोकारो , धनबाद, पलामू, लातेहार, गढ़वा , गिरिडीह, हजारीबाग , चतरा , लोहरदग्गा, गोड्डा, देवघर , दुमका, गुमला , जामतारा, खुंटी, कोडरमा, पाकुर , रामगढ़ , साहेबगंज , सिमडेगा
कर्नाटक राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय बंगलोर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 19 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बंगलोर, रामनगर, बेलगाम , बिदर, बीजापुर , दक्षिण कन्नड, धारवाड़ , देवनगेरे , गडग , गुलबर्गा , हासन, कोलार , मांडया , मैसूर, उत्तरी , कन्नड़, शिमोगा , दुमकुर , उडिपी , बेल्लारी
केरल राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय कोझीकोड के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 6 जिले शामिल हैं :-
कन्नूर , कासरगोडा, कोझीकोड, मालापुरम, पालाक्कड, वायनाड
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय भोपाल के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 12 जिले शामिल हैं :-
7078
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
(1)
(2)
24. अंचल कार्यालय , इंदौर के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र . वर्तमान भता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, इंदौर-20 , स्नेह नगर , इंदौर-520001
25. अंचल कार्यालय , जबलपुर के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 1227 , नापेर टाऊन, जबलपुर-482001
26. अंचल कार्यालय , मुम्बई के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. भान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , कफ परेड, 7वीं मंजिल, मंकर टावर एफ, मुम्बई-400005
27. अंचल कार्यालय , नागपुर के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र . वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , किन्न्याजे , नागपुर-440001
28. अंचल कार्यालय , पुणे के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , अरोड़ा टावर्स, मेजनीन फ्लोर, 9 मेलादीन रोड , पुणे कैम्प, पुणे -411001
29. अंचल कार्यालय , गुवाहाटी के स.म.प्र . /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , नीलगिरी मेनशन , भंगाधार जी एस रोड, गुवाहाटी
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
(3)
बेतुल , भोपाल , दतिया , होशंगाबाद , हरदा, सिहोर, विदिशा, ग्वालियर , मुरैना, शिवपुर, रिसेन, भिण्ड
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय इंदौर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 17 जिले शामिल हैं :-
इंदौर , बधवानी , खारगौन, मंदसौर, नीमच , राजगढ़ , गुना , अशोक नगर , खांडवा , बुरहानपुर , रतलाम , शाजापुर , शिवपुरी , उज्जैन, देवास , धार, झाबुआ
मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय जबलपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 15 जिले शामिल हैं :
बालाघाट , छतरपुर , छिंदवाड़ा, डिंडोरे , दमोह , जबलपुर , कटनी , मांडिया , नरसिंहपुर , रेवा , सिओनी , सागर , सतना , सिधी, सिंगरौली
महाराष्ट्र राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय मुम्बई के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :-
मुम्बई उपनगर , थाणे , रायगढ़
महाराष्ट्र राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय नागपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 16 जिले शामिल हैं :--
अकोला, अमरावती , बुलढाणा , चन्द्रपुर , गोंदिया , जलगांव , नागपुर, नांदेड़ , वर्धा , यवतमाल , लातुर , पभानी, बांद्रा , गढ़चिरौली , हिंगोली, वाशिम
महाराष्ट्र राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय पुणे के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 17 जिले शामिल हैं :--
पुणे , अहमदनगर , औरंगाबाद , धुलिया , कोल्हापुर , नासिक , सांगली, सोलापुर, रत्नागिरी , सिंधुदुर्ग , सतारा , नंदुरबार , बीड, ओसमानाबाद , जालना , उत्तरी गोवा, दक्षिण गोवा
असम राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय गुवाहाटी के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 24 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बारपेटा , बोंगईगांव , कछार , डिब्रूगढ़ , गोलाघाट , जोरहाट, कामरूप , करीमगंज, नालबाड़ी, दारंग , नागांव , तिनसुकिया, सोनितपुर, पूर्वी खासी हिल्स, रि- भोई, मोरीगांव , धुब्री, दीमापुर , आइजोल , गोलपाड़ा, इम्फाल पश्चिम , पापूमपेरे , सिबसागर , पश्चिमी त्रिपुरा [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
7079
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
(1)
(2)
(3)
30. अंचल कार्यालय , भुवनेश्वर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , चौथी मंजिल , दीनदयाल भवन , अशोक नगर , जनपथ , भुवनेश्वर -751009
उड़ीसा राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय भुवनेश्वर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 24 जिले शामिल हैं :-
अनुगुलं, बालासोर , बारगढ़ , भद्रक, कटक, धनेकनाल, गजपति, गंजम , जाजपुर, झासुरगुडा, जगतसिंहपुर , क्योंझर , खुर्दा , मयूरभंज , नयागढ़ , पुरी , केन्द्रपाड़ा, संबलपुर, सुन्दरगढ़ , कालाहांडी , रायगढ़ , कंधमाल , बोलंगीर, सोनपुर
31. अंचल कार्यालय , अमृतसर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , मैकील रार्ड रोड, सैंट फ्रांसिस स्कूल केसामने , अमृतसर-143001
पंजाब राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय अमृतसर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 2 जिले शामिल हैं :-
अमृतसर, तरन तारन
32. मंचल कार्यालय , होशियारपुर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान ता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, जालंधर रोड, होशियारपुर-146001
पंजाब राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय होशियारपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 2 जिले शामिल हैं :-
होशियारपुर, नवांशहर
33. अंचल कार्यालय , जालंधर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , सिविल लाइन्स, जालंधर-144004
पंजाब राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय जालंधर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 1 जिला शामिल हैं :-
जालंधर
34. अंचल कार्यालय, भटिंडा के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , किकर बाजार, भटिंडा-151001
पंजाब राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय भटिंडा के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किसर पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 5 जिले शामिल हैं :-
भटिंडा, बरनाला , फिरोजपुर , फरीदकोट, मुक्तसर
35. अंचल कार्यालय , लुधियाना के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, फिरोज गांधी मार्केट, पखोवाल रोड, लुधियाना-141001
पंजाब राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय लुधियाना के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में. पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 2 जिले शामिल हैं :-
लुधियाना, मोगा
36. अंचल कार्यालय , जयपुर के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , 2 नेहरू प्लेस , टोंक रोड, जयपुर-302015
राजस्थान राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय जयपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 7 जिले शामिल हैं :-
जयपुर, दौसा , टोंक , कोटा, बुंदी, बास्न, झालावाड़
राजस्थान राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय भरतपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किसए पर लिए गए अथवा 37. अंचल कार्यालय , भरतपुर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , सुपर बाजार ,
3417 GI /12-2 7080
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEITEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
(2)
(1)
भरतपुर-302001
38. अंचल कार्यालय , जोधपुर के स.म.प्र. उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 802 , पहली मंजिल , चोपासिनी रोड, जोधपुर-302003.
39. अंचल कार्यालय , श्रीगंगानगर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , मीरा बाग, जवाहर नगर, श्रीगंगानगर -335001
40. अंचल कार्यालय , चेन्नै के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , आईजैडओ रायल टावर्स, तीसरी मंजिल , नया नं. 158 , सलाई , चेन्नै-600002
41. अंचल कार्यालय , त्रिची के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , भेल कैलाशपुरभ , तंजोर रोड, त्रिची-620014
42. अंचल कार्यालय , आगरा के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 1-2, रघुनाथ नगर, एम जी रोड , आगरा-282002
43. अंचल कार्यालय , बरेली के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 156 , सिविल लाइन्स, स्टेशन रोड. बरेली-243001
44. अंचल कार्यालय , बुलंदशहर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. समान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , यमुपुरम, (3)
उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 4 जिले शामिल हैं :-
भरतपुर , धोलपुर , सवाई माधोपुर, करौली
राजस्थान राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय जोधपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 15 जिले शामिल हैं :-
अजमेर , बांसवाड़ा , बाड़मेर , भीलवाड़ा , चित्तौड़गढ़ , डूंगरपुर , जैसलमेर, जालोर, जोधपुर , नागौर , पाली , प्रतापगढ़ , राजसमंद , सिरोही , उदयपुर राजस्थान राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय श्रीगंगानगर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 5 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बीकानेर , चुरू, झुंझनू, हनुमानगढ़ , श्रीगंगानगर
तमिलनाडु राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय चेन्नै के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशमल बैंक के अधवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 7 जिले शामिल हैं :-
चेन्नै, कांचीठान , पडिचेरी , तिरुवेल्लूर , वेल्लोर , विल्लुपुरम , तिरुवन। मलाई
तमिलनाडु राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय त्रिची के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 26 जिले शामिल हैं :
अरियालुर , कोयम्बतूर, कुडडालोर , डिंडीगूल , इरोड , कन्याकुमारी , करुर , मदुरै , नागापट्टनम , नामाक्कल , नीलगिरी , पुदुकोट्टाई , रामनाथपुरम , सेलम , शिवगंगा , तंजावुर , थेनी , तिरुनेलवेली , तिरुवरूर, त्रिची, तूतीकोरन , विरुद्धनगर , धर्मपुरी , कृष्णागिरी , पेरंबलूर , तिरुपुर
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय आगरा के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 9 जिले शामिल हैं :..
आगरा , एटा , फिरोजाबाद , मैनपुरी , मथुरा , इटावा , हाथरस , काशीराम नगर, फर्रुखाबाद
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय बरेली के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 6 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बरेली, बदायूं, लखीमपुर खिरी , पीलीभीत , शाहजहांपुर , हरदोई
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय बुलंदशहर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक को अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
7081
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
(1)
बुलंदशहर-203001
45. अंचल कार्यालय , झांसी के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, कानपुर रोड, झांसी-284001
46. अंचल कार्यालय , लखनऊ के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 94 , एम जी रोड , लखनऊ-226001
47. अंचल कार्यालय , गोरखपुर के स.म.प्र . /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, अलादंपुर तुलसी इंटर कालेज के सामने , गोरखपुर-273001
48. अंचल कार्यालय , वाराणसी के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, एस-20/56 - डी, दि माल , कनेडी रोड, वाराणसी कैंट-221002
49. अंचल कार्यालय , कानपुर के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 59/29 , बिरहाना रोड, कानपुर -206001
50. अंचल कार्यालय , मेरठ के स.म.प्र. उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , ईस्ट कचहरी रोड , मेरठ-250001
51. अंचल कार्यालय, मुरादाबाद के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , सिविल लाइन्स, मुरादाबाद-244001
(3)
अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 2 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बुलंदशहर, अलीगढ़
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय झांसी के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 7 जिले शामिल हैं :-
झांसी , ललितपुर , महोबा , बांदा, चित्रकूट , हमीरपुर , जालौन
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय लखनऊ के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 5 जिले शामिल हैं :-
लखनऊ , बाराबंकी, सीतापुर, रायबरेली , छत्रपति साहू जी महाराज नगर
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय गोरखपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 5 जिले शामिल हैं :-
गोरखपुर , देवरिया , महाराजगंज , कुशीनगर , संत कबीरनगर
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय वाराणसी के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 13 जिले शामिल हैं :
इलाहाबाद , आजमगढ़ , कोशाम्बी, बलिया , भदोही, चंदौल , गाजीपुर, जौनपुर, मऊ, मिर्जापुर, प्रतापगढ़ , सोनभद्र, वाराणसी
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय कानपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 6 जिले शामिल हैं :-
फतेहपुर , औरेया , कन्नौज , कानपुर सिटी, कानपुर देहात , उन्नाव
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय मेरठ के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बागपत , गाजियाबाद, मेरठ
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय मुरादाबाद के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 4 जिले शामिल हैं :
बिजनौर, मुरादाबाद , ज्योतिबा फुले नगर , रामपुर 7082
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31. 1934
(2)
(1)
52. अंचल कार्यालय , मुजफ्फरनगर के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 68 कंबल वाला बाग , मुजफ्फरनगर-251001
53. अंचल कार्यालय , देहरादून के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , पल्टन बाजार , देहरादून-248001
54. अंचल कार्यालय , हरिद्वार के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, पीएनबी हाउस , सेक्टर-4 , बीएचएल काम्प्लेक्स, हरिद्वार
55. अंचल कार्यालय , काशीपुर के स.म.प्र.उ.म.व. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, बाजार रोड , काशीपुर-244713
56. अंचल कार्यालय , कोलकाता के स.म.प्र... म. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, चौथी मंजिल एपीजेज हाउस , 15, पार्क स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700016
57. अंचल कार्यालय , अर्धवान के स.म.प्र./उ.भ.प्र. वर्तमान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , फैन्सी मार्केट काम्प्लेक्स, बर्धवान-713101
58. अंचल कार्यालय, मिदनापुर के स.म.प्र. /उ.न.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशमाल बैंक , विद्यासागर रोह बाटला चौक, मिदनापुर-721001
59. अंचल कार्यालय , दक्षिणी दिल्ली के सम.प्र./ पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , नई दिल्ली
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii))
(3)
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय मुजफ्फरनगर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 2 जिले शामिल हैं :-
सहारनपुर , मुजफ्फरनगर
उत्तराखंड राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय देहरादून के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :-
देहरादून, उत्तरकाशी , टिहरी
उत्तराखंड राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय हरिद्वार के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे. उल्लिखित 4 जिले शामिल हैं : --
हरिद्वार, चमाली, पौड़ी, रुद्रप्रयाग
उत्तराखंड राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय काशीपुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 6 जिले शामिल हैं :
अल्मोड़ा, नैनीताल , उधम सिंह नगर , पिथौरागढ़ , बागेश्वर , चम्पावत
पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय कोलकाता के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 5 जिले शामिल हैं :-
कोलकाता , 24 परगना ( साउथ ) , 24 परगना ( नार्थ ) , हावड़ा, साउथ अंडमान ( पोर्ट ब्लेयर )
पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय बर्धवान के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिस्मर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 12 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बर्धवान , बांकुरा , दार्जिलिंग , बीरभूम , मालदा , दक्षिण दिनाजपुर, हुगली, जलपाईगुड़ी, मुर्शिदाबाद , उत्तर दिनाजपुर, नाडिया, गंगटोक
पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय मिदनापुर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 3 जिले शामिल हैं :-
पश्चिमी मिदनापुर , पूर्वी मिदनापुर , पुरुलिया
दिल्ली राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय दक्षिणी दिल्ली के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 7 जिले शामिल हैं :-
7083
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
(2)
( 1)
60. अंचल कार्यालय, फैजाबाद के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , देवकाली रोड , आचार्य नरेन्द्र देव नगर, फैजाबाद -224001
61. अंचल कार्यालय , कपूरथला के स.म.प्र ./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , पीएनबी हाउस , सत्य नारायण मंदिर रोड , कपूरथला-144601
(3)
दक्षिण दिल्ली, नई दिल्ली, दक्षिण पश्चिमी दिल्ली , गुड़गांव , पलवल , फरीदाबाद , मेवात
उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय फैजाबाद के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 7 जिले शामिल हैं :-
बस्ती, सिद्धार्थनगर , बलरामपुर , अंबेडकर नगर, सुलतानपुर , बहराइच , फैजाबाद , गोंडा, श्रावस्ती
पंजाब राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय कपूरथला के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 2 जिले शामिल हैं :
गुरदासपुर, कपूरथला
62. अंचल कार्यालय , पटियाला के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक, पटियाला करम काम्प्लेक्स , सरहिन्द रोड, पटियाला-147001
63. अंचल कार्यालय , कुरुक्षेत्र के स.म.प्र . /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , छाता काम्प्लेक्स , पीपली रोड, कुरुक्षेत्र-136118
पंजाब राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय पटियाला के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर, जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 6 जिले शामिल हैं :-
संगरूर, फतेहगढ़ , साहिब , रोपड़ , मोहाली , पटियाला , मनसा
हरियाणा राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय कुरुक्षेत्र के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 4 जिले शामिल हैं :-
कैथल, कुरुक्षेत्र , यमुनानगर, जीन्द
64. अंचल कार्यालय , अलवर के स.म.प्र./उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता, पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , हर्षिल टावर , 29 , नारु मार्ग , हवाई अड्डा रोड , अलवर -301001
65. अंचल कार्यालय , एर्णाकुलम के स.म.प्र. /उ.म.प्र. वर्तमान पता , पंजाब नैशनल बैंक , 40/1461 , मार्केट रोड , एर्णाकुलम-682011
राजस्थान राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय अलवर के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अर्थवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 2 जिले शामिल हैं :-
अलवर, सीकर
केरल राज्य में अंचल कार्यालय एर्णाकुलम के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के अथवा उसके द्वारा किराए पर लिए गए अथवा उसकी तरफ से किराए पर लिए गए परिसर , जिनमें वर्तमान में नीचे उल्लिखित 8 जिले शामिल हैं :-
अलपुजा, एर्ष्याकुलम , इडुक्की , कोट्टायम , पठानमीठा , क्यूलोन/कोल्लम , त्रिचूर, त्रिवेन्द्रम।
[फा. सं. 4/ 1/2012-बीओए ]
एम. एम. दौला, अवर सचिव 7084
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 16th August , 2012
S.O. 2904. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession ofthe Notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Finance , Department of Financial Services published under S.O. No. 1484 (F) dated 20-4-2009 except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession , the Central Government thereby appoints the Officer mentioned in columa No. 2 of the table below to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act and further direct that the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred and the duties imposed on a Estate Officer by or under the said Act within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises falling under area as specified in column: no. 3 of the table below :-
S. No.
Categories of public premises and local limits of control ofjurisdiction
Designation ofthe Officer, AdministrativeHead, whatsoever designation calica
(1)
(2)
1. AGM/DGM , Circle Office , Hyderabad , Present address , Punjab National Bank, 6-1-73 , Lakadi Ka pul , Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004
2. AGM/DGM , Circle Office, Muzaffarpur, Punjab National Bank , Present address , Muzaffarpur, Funkaj Pocket Saraigang, Muzaffarpur -842001 .
3. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Dharbhanga, Punjab National Bank , Darbhanga, Commercial House, Laharia Sarai , Darbhanga -846001
4. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Patna, Punjab National Bank, Patna ' A' , R. Blow, Chanakya Place, Patna- 842001
5. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Arrah, Punjab National Bank , Arrah , GC . House, Maharaja Compound, Arrah.
6. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Bihar Shrif, Punjab National Bank , Ramchanderpur , Bihar
(3)
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf ofPunjab National Bank within the administrative control ofCircle Office Hyderabad , in the State of Andhra Pradesh, presently consisting 23 Districts , mentioned below :
Eeasi Godavari District Guntur , Chittor, Hyderabad , Kadapa, Karim Nagar , Krishna, Kurnool , Mohaboobnagar , Ananthpur, Nalgonda , Nellore , Nizamabad, Prakasam , Ranga Reddy, Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram , Warangal , West Godavari , Distt . Sangareddy, Khammam Adilabad .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Muzaffarpur , in the State of Bihar , presently consisting 9 Districts , mentioned below:
Muzaffarpur, Sitamarhi , Siwan , Gopalganj , East Champaran, West Champaran , Saran , Vaishali , Sheohar .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Darbhanga , in the State of Bihar , presently consisting 12 Districts , mentioned below:
Madhubani , Samastipur, Begusarai , Saharsa , Supaul , Araria, Purnia, Katihar, Kishanganj , Darbhanga, Khagaria, Madhepur.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Patna, in the State of Bihar, presently consisting 1 District , mentioned below:
Patna .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Arrah , in the State of Bihar, presently consisting 4 Districts , mentioned below:
Bhabhua, Bhojpur, Buxar, Rohtas
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of 7085
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(1)
(2)
Sharif-8031010
7. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Gaya, Punjab National Bank, Gaya ' A' 400 AP Colony Gaya- 823001
8. AGM/DGM , Circle Office , Raipur, Punjab National Bank , Madina Manjil Medical College Road, Raipur, Chatisgarh
9. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , North Delhi , Punjab National Bank, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, NewDlehi .
10. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Ahmedabad, Punjab National Bank , Ahmedbad , facing MJ Library, ElicePul, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380006
11. AGM/DGM, Circle Office, Chandigarh , Punjab National Bank, PNB House , Sector 17 -B , Chandigarh - 160017
12. AGM/DGM, Circle Office, Hisar, Punjab National Bank, Hisar, Opposite IIT, Dabur Chown, Hisar- 125005.
13. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Karnal , Punjab National Bank, Meera Ghati Sadbhawna Chowk, GT. Road, Karnal- 132001 .
(3)
Circle Office Bihar Sharif, in the State of Bihar, presently consisting & Districts , mentioned below:
Lahksarali , Nalanda , Nawada , Jamui , Sheikhpura , BhagalpurMunger , Banka.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Gaya , in the State of Bihar, presently consisting 4 Districts , mentioned below:
Gaya,Aurangabad, Jehanabad , Arwal.
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of CircleOffice Raipur, in the State of Chatisgarh, presently consisting 14 Districts , mentioned below:
Bastar, Bilaspur, Dhamtari, Durg , Janjgir -Champa, Korba, Korea, Mahassmund , Raigarh , Raipur, Rajnandgaon, Dantewada, Jaspur, Kawardha .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of CircleOffice North Delhi , in the State of Delhi , presently consisting 6 Districts , mentioned below:
East Delhi , North East Delhi , North Delhi , Central Delhi , NorthWest Delhi , West Delhi .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Ahmedabad, in the State ofGujarat, presently 26 consisting Districts , mentioned below:
Ahmedabad, Amreli , Anand , Bharuch, Bhavnagar , Gandhinagar, Jamnagar, Junagarh , Kheda , Kutch , Mehsana, Navsari , Patan, Porbandar, Rajkot, Sabarkantha, Surat, Surendranagar , Vadodara, Valsad, Banaskantha , Dahod, Dang, Narmada, Tapi , Panchmahal .
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Chandigarh, in the State of Haryana, presently 3 consisting Districts , mentioned below:
Chandigarh, Panchkula, Ambala .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Hisar, in the State of Haryana , presently consisting 3 Districts , mentioned below :
Hisar, Sirsa, Fatehabad.
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Karnal , in the State of Haryana, presently consisting 3 Districts , mentioned below:
Karnal , Panipat, Sonepat 7086
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
(2)
(1)
14. AGM/ DGM, Circle Office , Rohtak, Punjab National Bank , Rohtak , Geeta Colony, Circular Road, Rohtak - 124001
15. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Bihar Shimla, Punjab National Bank, Shimla, Regent House , The Mall , Shimla- 196001
16. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Dharamshala, Punjab National Bank , Kachehri Road, near GPO , Dharamshala - 176215
17. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Hamirpur , Punjab National Bank, Hamirpur, New road, Hamirpur- 1770
18. AGM/DGM, Circle Office, Mandi, Punjab National Bank, Mandi , Jal Road , Batala Chowk , Mandi- 175001
19. AGM /DGM, Circle Office , Jammu , Purigan National Bank , High Land Tower Raii Head Complex, Jammu - 180012
20. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Ranchu Punjab National Bank , Bagrai Market , Main Road Ranchi- 834001
21. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Bangalore , Punjab National Bank, 26-27 M.G Road , Raheja Towers , Bangalore-560001
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Rohtak , in the State of Haryana , presently consisting 5 Districts , mentioned below:
Rohtak, Jhajjhar, Rewari , Narnaul , Bhiwani .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Shimla , in the State of Himachal Pradesh , presently consisting 4 Districts , mentioned below:
Kannaur , Shimla, Sirmaur , Solan.
Prehises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Dharamshala , in the State of Himachal Pradesh , presently consisting 2 Districts , mentioned below:
Kangra, Chamba.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Hamirpur, in the State of Himachal Pradesh , presently consisting 3 Districts, mentioned below:
Himarpur, Una. Bilaspur.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Mandi , in the State of Himachal Pradesh , presently consisting 3 Districts , mentioned below :
Mandi , Kullu, Keylong
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Jammu , in the State of i and presently consisting 19 Districts , mentioned below:
Jammu . Kathua, Samba , Poonch , Rajouri , Doda, Reasi , Ramban, Udhampur, Srinagar, Anantnag, Kulgam , Pulwama , Badgam, Barmulla, Kupwara , Len , Ganderbai , Bandipora.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Ranchi , in the State of Jharkhand , presently consisting 24 Districts , mentioned below :
Ranchi , East Singhbhum , West Singhbhuta, Saraikela , Bokaro , Dhanbad , Palamu , Latchar, Garhwa, Giridih , Hazaribagh , Chatra , Lohardaga, Godda , Deoghar , Dumka, Gumla, Jamatra, Khunti , Koderma , Pakur, Ramgarh , Sahebgang, Simdega .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Bangalore , in the State ofiarnataka , presently consisting 19 Districts , mentioned below:
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
7087
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
(1)
(2)
(3)
Bangalore, Ramnagara, Belgaum , Bidar , Bijapur, Dakshin Kannada, Dharwad, Davangere, Gadag, Gulbarga, Hassan, Kolar,Mandya, Mysore, North Kannada, Shimoga, Tumkur, Udipi,Bellari .
22. AGM/DGM , Circle Office, Kozhikode , Punjab National Bank , Shatabadi Bhawan , Mini Bypass Road, PO. AAGovindpuram, Kozhikode-673016
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Kozhikode , in the State ofKerala, presently consisting 6 Districts , mentioned below:
Kannaur, Kasargod , Kozhikode , Malapuram , Palakkad, Wyanad.
23. AGM/DGM, Circle Office Bhopal , Punjab National Bank, Bhopal, Shikharvarta Bhayan, Press Complex HoshangabadRoad, Bhopal -462201
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Bhopal, in the State of Madhya Pradesh , presently consisting 12 Districts , mentioned below:
Betul , Bhopal , Datia, Hoshangabad , Harda , Sehore , Vidisha, Gwalior, Morena, Sheopur, Risen, Bhind.
24. AGM.DGM/Circle Office, Indore, Punjab National Bank, Indore 20, Sneh Nagar, Indore-520001
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Indore, in the State of Madhya Pradesh , presently consisting 17 Districts , mentioned below:
Indore , Badhwani , Khargone , Mandsaur , Neemuch , Rajgarh , Guna, Ashok Nagar , Khandwa , Burhanpur , Ratlam, Shajapur, Shivpuri , Ujjain , Dewas , Dhar, Jhabua .
25. AGM /DGM, Circle Office , Jabalpur, Punjab National Bank , Jabalpur , 1227 , Naper Town , Jabalpur-482001.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Jabalpur , in the State of Madhya Pradesh , presently consisting 15 Districts , mentioned below :
Balaghat, Chhatarpur, Chhindwara, Dindore , Damoh , Jabalpur , Katni , Mandia, Narsinghpur , Rewa, Seoni , Sagar, Satna, Sidhi , Singrauli .
26. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Mumbai , Punjab National Bank, Mumbai , Cuffe Parade, 7th floor, MakerTowar F. Mumbai -400005.
Premises belonging to or taken on home by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Mumbai , in the State of Maharashtra , presently consisting 3 Districts , mentioned below :
Mumbai Suburban, Thane , Raigad.
27. AGM /DGM , Circle Office , Nagpur, Punjab National Bank, PNB House , Kingsway, Nagpur- 440001.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Nagpur , in the State ofMaharashtra, presently consisting 16 Districts , mentioned below:
Akola, Amravati , Buldhana, Chandrapur, Gondia , Jalgaon, Nagpur , Nanded , Wardha , Yeotmal , Latur, Pabhani , Bhandara, Gadchirolli , Hingili, Windkim.
28. AGM/DGM, Circle Office, Pune, Punjab National Bank , Arora Towers Meznine Floor, 9 Meladine Road, Pune Camp Pune-411001 .
Premises belonging toortakenonthammerby or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Pune , in the State aff Maharashtra, presently consisting 17 D.stricts , mentioned below:
Pune,Ahmednagar, Aurangabad, Dhulia, Kolhapur, Nasik,
3417 GI/12-3 7088
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
( 2)
(1)
29. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Guwahati , Punjab National Bank , Neelgiri Maintion , Bhangadhar GS . Road, Guwahati .
30. AGM/DGM, Circle Office, Bhubaneshwar, Punjab National Bank , 4th Floor, Deendayal Bhawan, Ashok Nagar, Janpath, Bhubaneshwar. Orissa- 751009.
31. AGM /DGM , Circle Office , Amritsar, Punjab National Bank , Maiqil Yard Road, Opposite St.- Francers School , Amritsar- 143001 .
32. AGM /DGM , Circle Office , Hoshiarpur, Punjab National Bank , Hoshiarpur , Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur - 146001 .
33. AGM /DGM , Circle Office , Jalandhar, Punjab National Bank , Civil Lines , Jalandhar - 144004.
34. AGM /DGM, Circle Office , Bathinda , Punjab National Bank , Bathinda , Kikar Bazar, Bathinda- 151001.
35. AGM /DGM, Circle Office , Ludhiana , Punjab National Bank , Firoze Gandhi Market , Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana - 141001 .
36. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Jaipur, Punjab National (3)
Sangli , Solapur, Ratnagiri , Sindudurg , Satara, Nandurbar, Beed, Osmanabad, Jalna , North Goa, South Goa .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Guwahati , in the State of Assam , Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, presently consisting 24 Districts , mentioned below:
Barpeta , Bongaigaon , Cachar , Dibrugarh , Goleghat, Jorhat, Kamrup, Karimganj , Nalbari , Darrang, Nagaon , Tinsukia , Sonitpur , East Khasi Hills , Ri - Bhoi , Morigaon , Dhubri , Dimapur, Aizawl , Goalpara , Imphal West, Papumpare , Sibsagar, West Tripura .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease.by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Bhubaneshwar, in the State of Orissa , presently consisting 24 Districts , mentioned below:
Anugul , Balasore, Bargarh , Bhadrak , Cuttack, Dhenkanal , Gajapati , Ganjam , Jajpur, Jharsuguda , Jagat Singhpur, Keonjhar Khurda , Mayurbhanj , Nayagarh , Puri , Kendrapara. Sambalpur, Sundergar, Kalahandi , Rayagada, Kandhamala , Bolangir, Sonepur.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Amritsar , in the State of Punjab , presently consisting 2 Districts , mentioned below:
Amritsar, Taran Taran.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Hoshiarpur, in the State of Punjab, presently consisting 2 Districts, mentioned below:
Hoshiarpur, Nawashahar.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Jalandhar, in the State of Punjab , presently consisting 1 Districts , mentioned below:
Jalandhar
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Bathinda , in the State of Punjab , presently consisting 5 Districts , mentioned below :
Bathinda, Barnala, Firozepur, Faridkot , Muktsar.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Ludhiana, in the State of Punjab , presently consisting 2 Districts , mentioned below :
Ludhiana , Moga.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of 7089
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
(2)
(1)
Bank , Jaipur , PNB House, 2 Nehru Place , Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015.
37. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Bharatpur, Punjab National Bank , Bharatpur , PNB House , Super Bazar,Bharatpur-302001
38. AGM/DGM , Circle Office, Jodhpur, Punjab National Bank , Jodhpur, 802, 1st Floor, Chopasini Road, Jodhpur-302003.
39. AGM/DGM, Circle Office, Sriganganagar , Punjab National Bank , Sriganganagar, PNB House, Meera Marg , Jawaharnagar , Sriganganagar- 335001.
40. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Chennai , Punjab National Bank , Chennai , IZO Royala Towers Third Floor, New No. 158 , Salai Chennai -600002.
41. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Trichy, Punjab National Bark , Trichy, PNB House , BHEL Kailashpuram, Tanjore Road , Trichy-620014.
42. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Agra, Punjab National Bank, Agra , 1-2 , Raghunath Nagar, M. G Road, Agra-282002.
43. AGM/DGM , Circle Office, Bareilly, Punjab National Bank , Bareilly, 156 , Civil Lines , Station Road, Bareilly-243001 .
(3)
Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office, Jaipur, in the State of Rajasthan , presently consisting 7 Districts, mentioned below:
Jaipur, Dausa, Tonk , Kota , Bundhi , Baran , Jhalawar.
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalfof Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Bharatpur, in the State of Rajasthan , presently consisting 4 Districts, mentioned below:
Bharatpur, Dholpur, Sawai Madhopur, Karauli .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Jodhpur, in the State of Rajasthan , presently consisting 15 Districts , mentioned below :
Ajmer , Banswara, Barmer, Bhilwara , Chittorgarh . Dungarpur, Jaisalmer, Jalore , Jodhpur , Nagore , Pali , Pratapgarh , Rajasmand, Sirohi , Udaipur .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalfof Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Sriganganagar, in the State of Rajasthan , presently consisting 5 Districts, mentioned below : Bikaner, Churu , Jhunjhunu , Hanumangarh , Sriganga- nagar.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Chennai , in the State of Tamilnadu, presently consisting 7 Districts , mentioned below: Chennai , Kanchipuram, Pondicherry, Tiruvallur, Vellore. Villupuram, Tiruvanamalai .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Trichy, in the State of Tamilnadu , presently consisting 26 Districts , mentioned below: Ariyalur , Coimbatore , Cuddalore , Dindigul , Erode , Kanyakumari , Karur, Madurai , Nagapatinam , Namakkal , Nilgiris, Pudukottai , Ramanathapuram , Salem , Sivaganga, Thanjavur, Theni , Thirunelveli, Tiruvarur, Trichy, Tuticorin, Virudunagar, Dharampuri , Krishnagiri , Perambalur, Tirupur.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle OfficeAgra, in the State of Uttar Pradesh, presently consisting 9 Districts, mentioned below: Agra , Etah , Firozabad , Mainpuri , Mathura , Etawah , Hathras , Kasiram Nagar, Farrukhabad .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Barelilly, in the State of Uttar Pradesh , presently consisting 6 Districts , mentioned below :
7090
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
(1)
(2)
44. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Bulandshahr, Punjab National Bank , Bulandshahr , PNB House, Yamunapurarını,Bulandshahr- 203001 .
45. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Jhansi , Punjab National Bank , Kanpur Road, Jihansi -284001.
46. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Lucknow, Punjab National Bank , Lucknow, 94 , M.G. Road , Lucknow-226001 .
47. AGM/DGM, Circle Office, Gorakhpur, Purijab National Bank, Gorakhpur, Alladpur Opposite Tulsi InterCollege , Gorakhpur- 273001.
48. AGM/DGM , Circle Office, Varanasi , Funjab National Bank , Varanasi , S - 20/56- D , The Mall , CanadyRoad, Varanasi Cantt . -22: 002 .
49: AGM/DGM . Circle Office , Kamper Punjab National: Hani . Капри , 59/29, Birhana Road, Kanpur-206001.
50. AGM/ DGM, Circle Office, Me r . , Punjab National Bank, Meerut, Eası Kahehri Read Meerut-260001 .
51. AGM/ DGM, Circle Office , Moradal National Bank , Moradabad, Cint Lines . Moradabad -244001 .
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(3)
Bareilly, Budaun, Lakhimpur Kheri , Piliblut, Shahjahanpur, Hardoi.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Bulandhahr, in the State of Uttar Pradesh , presently consisting 2 Districts , mentioned below :
Bulandshahr , Aligarh .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Jhansi , in the State of Uttar Pradesh, presently consisting 7 Districts , mentioned below :
Jhansi , Lalitpur, Mahoba , Banda, Chitrakoot , Hamirpur, Jalaun.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Lucknow, in the State of Uttar Pradesh , presently consisting 5 Districts , mentioned below :
Lucknow, Barabanki , Sitapur, Raebareli , Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj Nagar.
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Gorakhpur, in the State of Uttar Pradesh , presently consisting 5 Districts, mentioned below:
Gorakhpur, Deoria , Maharajganj , Kushinagar, Sant Kabir Nagar.
Promises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Varanasi , in the State of Uttar Pradesh , presently consisting 13 Districts , mentioned below :
Allahabad , Azamgarh , Kaushambi , Ballia, Bhadohi . Chandaul , Ghazipur, Jaunpur, Mau, Mirzapur, Pratapgarh . Sonbhadra . Varanasi .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Kanpur, in the State of Uttar Pradesh , presently consisting 6 Districts , mentioned below:
Fatehpur, Auriya . Kannauj , Kanpur City. Kanpur Dehat . Unnao.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Meerut , in the State of Uttar Pradesh . presently consisting 3 Districts . mentioned below:
Baghpat , Ghaziabad, Meerut .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Moradabad , in the State of Uttar Pradesh .
7091
भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
(2)
52. AGM/DGM, Circle Office, Muzaffarnagar,, Punjab National Bank , Muzaffarnagar, 68 Kumbal Wala Bagh, Muzafffarnager -251001 .
53. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Dehradun , Punjab National Bank , Dehradun , PNB House , Paltan Bazar, Dehradun -248001 .
54. AGM/DGM , Circle Office , Hardwar, Punjab National Bank , Hardwar, PNB House , Sector -4 , BHLComplex , Hardwar.
55. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Kashipur, Punjab National Bank , Kashipur, Bazar Road, Kashipur- 244713.
56. AGM/ DGM , Circle Office , Kolkata , Punjab National Bank , Kolkata, 4th Floor, APJ House . 15, Park Strect , Kolkata - 700016.
57. AGM/ DGM, Circle Office, Burdwan , Punjab National Bank, Burdwan, Fancy Market Complex, Burdwan-713101 .
58. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Midnapore , Punjab National Bank , Midnapur , Vidyasagar Road, Batala Chowk , Midpur -721001
59. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , South Delhi , Punjab National Bank , New Delhi .
(3)
presently consisting 4 Districts , mentioned below: Bijnor, Moradabad, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Rampur .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Muzaffarnagar , in the State of Uttar Pradesh , presently consisting 2 Districts , mentioned below:
Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of PunjabNational Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Dehradun, in the State of Uttarakhand, presently consisting 3 Districts , mentioned below:
Dehradun , Uttarkashi , Tchri .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within ' he administrative control of Circle Office Hardwar, in the State of Uttarakhand , presently consisting 4 Districts , mentioned below:
Hardwar, Chamoli , Pauri , Rudraprayag.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Kashipur, in the State of Uttarakhand. presently consisting 6 Districts , mentioned below:
Almora. Nainital , Udham Singh Nagar, Pithoragarh , Bageshwar, Champawat .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Kolkata , in the State of West Wengal , presently consisting 5 Districts , mentioned below:
Kolkata , 24 Parganas ( South ) , 24 Parganas (North), Howrah , South Andaman ( Port Blair) .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Burdwan, in the State of West Bengal , presently consisting 12 Districts , mentioned below:
Burdwan, Bankura , Darjeeling, Birbhum, Malda , Dakshin Dinajpur, Hoogly, Jalpaiguri , Murshidabad, Uttar Dinajpur, Nadia, Gangtok .
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Midnapore , in the State of West Bengal , presently consisting 3 Districts , mentioned below:
WestMidnapore , East Midnapore , Purulia .
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalfof Punjab Nationa. Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office South Delhi , in the State of Delhi , Haryana , presently consisting 7 Districts , mentioned below:
7092
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
(1)
(2)
60. AGM /DGM, Circle Office , Faizabad , Punjab National Bank, Faizabad Raidganj , Devkali Road, AcharyaNarendra Dev Nagar, Faizabad - 224001 (U.P. )
61. AGM/DGM , Circle Office , Kapoorthala , Punjab National Bank, Kapoorthala , PNB House , Satya Narain Mandir Road, Kapoorthala- 144601 .
62. AGM/DGM , Circle Office , Patiala , Punjab National Bank , Patiala Karam Complex , Sirhind Road, Patiala - 147001 (Punjab ).
63. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Kurukshetra , Punjab National Bank , Kurukshetra ; Chhata Complex. Pipili Road, Kurukshetra - 136118 (Haryana)
64. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Alwar Punjab National Bank, Alwar Harsil Tower, 29 , Naru Marg, Hawai AddaRoad,Alwar- 301001 (Rajasthan)
65. AGM/DGM, Circle Office , Ernakulam , Punjab National Bank, Ernakulam, 40/1461 Market Road, Ernakulam -682011 .
नई दिल्ली , 13 सितम्बर , 2012
का. आ. 2905. दिनांक 22-9-2010 की अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में, राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक अधिनियम , 1987 ( 1987 का 53 )
की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ङ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्रीमती विजया श्रीवास्तव , संयुक्त सचिव , भारत सरकार, ग्रामीण आवास विंग , ग्रामीण विकास विभाग , को श्री संजय कुमार राकेश , संयुक्त सचिव ( एसए ) , भारत सरकार , ग्रामीण विकास मंत्रालय , के स्थान पर तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक राष्ट्रीय आवास बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[फा. सं. 24/ 17/2010- आईएफ- II ] रमण कुमार गौड़ , अवर सचिव
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
South Delhi , New Delhi , South-West Delhi , Gurgaon , Palwal , Faridabad , Mewat .
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Faizabad , in the State of Uttar Pradesh, presently consisting 9 Districts , mentioned below:
Basti , Siddarthnagar, Balrampur, Ambedkar Nagar , Sultanpur, Bahraich , Faizabad , Gorda, Srawasti
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Kapoorthala, in the State ofPunjab , presently consisting 2 Districts , mentioned below :
Gurdaspur, Kapoorthala
Premisesbelonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Patiala , in the State of Punjab , presently consisting 6 Districts , mentioned below:
Sangrur , Fatehgarh Sahib, Ropar, Mohali , Patiala, Mansa. Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalfof Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Kurukshetra , in the State of Haryana . presently consisting 4 Districts , mentioned below : Kaithal, Kurukshetra, Yamunagar, Jind.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Alwar, in the State of Rajasthan , presently consisting 2 Districts , mentioned below:
Alwar, Sikar.
Premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of Punjab National Bank within the administrative control of Circle Office Ernakulam , in the State of Kerala , presently consisting 8 Districts , mentioned below:
Alapuzha , Ernakulam , Idukki , Kottayam , Pathanmitha, Quilon/Kollam , Trichur, Trivendram.
[F. N. No. 4/ 1 /2012 -BOA]
M. M. DAWLA , Under Secy .
New Delhi , the 13th September, 2012
S.O. 2905. In continuation of the Notification dated 22-9-2010 , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( e) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the National Housing Bank Act , 1987 (53 of 1987 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Smt . Vijaya Srivastava , Joint Secretaryto the Governinent of India . Rural Housing Wing, Department of Rural Development as a Director on the Board of Directors of National Housing Bank in place of Shri Sanjay Kumar Rakesh , Joint Secretary ( SA ) to the Government of India , Ministry of Rural Development , with immediate effect and until further orders .
[F. No. 24/ 17/2010 - II - III RAMAN KUMAR, GAUR, Under Secy.
7093 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
क्रम सं.
नाम
अन्तरिक्ष विभाग
बेंगलूर, 12 सितम्बर , 2012
1. श्री सा. रा. गोविन्दु
2. श्रीमती हेमा चौधरी
3. श्रीमती विजयालक्ष्मी सिंह
4. श्रीमती सी. एम. महालक्ष्मी
5. श्री डी. के. रामाकृष्णा
का. आ. 2906.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय . प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अन्तरिक्ष विभाग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है ।
6. श्री एस. वी. सुरेश
1. इस्ट्रैक भूकेन्द्र
7. श्री एस. मधु कुमार
8. श्री पी . एस. गणेश्वर एतल
पी.ओ.सेक्टर-सी सीतापुर रोड स्कीम , कुर्सी रोड लखनऊ -226021 ( उत्तर प्रदेश )
9. श्री थॉमस डिसूजा
2. इस्ट्रैक भूकेन्द्र
[फा. सं. 809/4/2011- एफ ( सी) ] निरुपमा कोतरू , निदेशक ( फिल्म) अन्तरिक्ष विभाग डॉली गंज पोर्ट ब्लेयर -744 103
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
NewDelhi , the 24th February, 2012 [फा.सं. 8/ 1/10/2011-हि. ] एन. पट्टाभि रामन , अवर सचिव
DEPARTMENT OF SPACE Bangalore, the 12th September, 2012
S. O. 2906.- In pursuance of Sub- rule (4) of the Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rule , 1976 , the Central Government , hereby notifies the following Offices of the Department of Space, whereof more than 80 per cent staff have acquired the working knowlepge ofHindi .
S. O. 2907. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number, dated 19.01.2012 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Bangalore Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier:
1.
Name
SI . No.
1. Shri Sa. Ra. Govindu
ISTRAC Ground Station P. O. Sector -C SitapurRoad Scheme , Kursi Road Lucknow - 226021 (U.P)
2. Smt . Hema Chowdari
2. ISTRAC Ground Station
3. Smt .Vijayalakshmi Singh
4. Smt . C. S. Mahalakshmi
5. Shri D.K. Ramakrishna
Department of Space DollyGanj PortBlair- 744 103
6. Shri S. V. Suresh
[ F. No. 8 /1 / 10/2011 -H ]
7. Shri S. Madhu Kumar
N. PATTABHI RAMAN, Under Secy.
8. Shri P.S. Gnaneshwar Aithal
9. Shri Thomas D'Souza
सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी , 2012
[F. No. 809/4/2011 -F(C) ]
NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films)
नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2012
का. आ. 2907. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 19-1-2012 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के बंगलौर सलाहकार पैनल में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :
का. आ. 2908.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 22-2-2012 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के 7094
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
चेन्नै सलाहकार पैनल से श्रीमती ए. कमला अनबारासु के नाम को तत्काल प्रभाव से निष्कासित करती है । [फा. सं. 809/7/2011- एफ ( सी ) ] निरुपमा कोतरू , निदेशक ( ल्म) New Delhi , the 29th March, 2012
S. O. 2908.-In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number dated 22-2-2012 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government hereby removes the name of Smt. A. Kamala Anbarasu from the Chennai Advisory Panel of Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect .
NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Directos ( Films) [F. No. 809/7/2011 PIC) ]
नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2012
का. आ. 2909. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 22-2-2012 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र शिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) यारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार केंद्रीय फि प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नै सलाहकार पैनल में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाब से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो, सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :
नाम
क्रम सं.
1. कलाइमामानी वजहुवूर रजि
2. कलाइमामानी एम. कुमारीमुथु
3. श्री गुनानीति अमीरत्म
4. श्री शिवाशक्ति एस. डी. पांडियन
5. श्री एन. रामास्वामी
6. श्री के. एस. रविचन्द्रन
7. श्री आई. पारान्तामेन
8. श्री आर. गिरिराजन
9. श्री पी. नागारद्रिम
10. श्री एम. ए. मुरूगेश
11. श्री विदुतालाई
12. श्री जी. श्रीनिवासन
13. श्रीमती विजया तायाबन
14. श्री एस. गोपीनाथ
15. श्रीमती शंकरावल्ली
16. श्री हसन मोहम्मद मिनाह
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]
क्रम सं.
नाम
17. श्री डी. ईलान्गो
18. श्री वेला रामामूर्ति
19. डॉ. एन. एस. के. पदमिनी
20. श्री टी. एम. राजेन्द्रन
21. श्री आर. आन्नद
22. श्री आर. लक्ष्मी आनंदन
23. श्री पी . सुरेश कुमार
24. श्री ईल्लायाब्राती
25. श्रीमती पी. महालक्ष्मी
26. श्री आर. मुरूगेसन
27. श्री पी.टी. पांडीचेलवन
28. श्री एम. सेलवम
29. श्री के. प्रेम कुमार
30. श्री एम. अरिवुदाई नाम्बी
31 . श्री एस. ए. हिदयातुल्ला
32. श्री ए. एन. पुरूषोत्तम
33. श्री त्यागराजन
34. श्री मुरूगन
35. श्री एस. अरुमुगापनदिअन
36. श्री सतीश कुमार
37. श्री आर. गणेश
38. श्री पी.वी. सुधाकर
39. श्री के. सुरेश
40. श्री एन. वेल्मुरूगन
41. श्री एन. मलाईराजा
42. श्री एम. मोहम्मद जलाउदीन
43. सुश्री बी. कन्निगा
44. श्री धनशेखरन
45. श्री ए. मंसूर अली
46. श्री एस. जे. सिमोन बलदेसिंह
47. श्रीमती टी. शांति
48. श्री आर. एन. अमृतराजा
49. श्री एस. वेन्मनी अरूल
50. श्री ए. वेकटचलम
[फा. सं. 809/7/2011- एफ ( सी ) ] निरुपमा कोतरू, निदेशक (फिल्म) [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
7095
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012 /भाद्र 31 , 1934
36. Shri Sathish Kumar
NewDelhi , the 29th March, 2012
37. Shri R.Ganesh
38. Shri P. V. Sudakar
39. Shri.K. Suresh
40. Shri.N. Velmurugan
41. Shri N.Malairaja
42. Shri M.Mohamed Jalaudeen
Ms.B. Kanniga 43.
S.O. 2909.-In continuation of Ministry's Notification ofeven number dated 22-2-2012 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons asmembers of Chennai Advisory Panel ofCentral Board ofFilm Certification with immediate effect for a period oftwo years or until further, whichever is earlier:
44. Shri Dhanasekaran
1 . Kalaimamani Vazhuvoor Ravi
45. Shri A. Mansoor Ali
2. Kalaimamani M.Kumarimuthu
46. Shri S. J. Simon Baldesingh
3. Shri . Gunanithi Amirtham
47. Smt . T. Shanthi
4. Shri . Sivasakthi S.D.Pandiyan
48. Shri R.N. Amirtharaja
5. Shri.N.Ramaswamy
49. Shri S. Venmani Arul
6. Shri.K.S.Ravichandran
50. Shri A. Venkatachalam
7. Shri.I.Paranthamen
[F. No. 809/7 /2011 -F(C) ] & Shri.R.Girirajan
NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films)
9. Shri.P.Nagarathinam
नई दिल्ली , 2 अप्रैल , 2012
10. Shri.M.A.Murugesh
11. Shri. Viduthalai
12. Shri.GSrinivasan
13. Smt . Vijaya Thayanban
14. Shri.S.Gopinath
15. Smt. Sankaravalli
16. Shri . Hassan Mohamed Jinnah
17. Shri.D.Ilango
का. आ. 2910. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 16-2-2012 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :
18. Shri .Vela Kamamoorthy
क्रम सं. नाम
19 . Dr.N.S.K.Padmini
1. श्री पैदी श्रीनिवास राव
20. Shri T.M.Rajendran
2. श्री पेबबिलि रवि कुमार
21. Shri.R.Anand
22. Shri R.Lakshmi Anandan
3. श्री बनामा वेंकटेश्वरलु
23. Shri P.Suresh Kumar
24. Shri Ilaiyabarati
[फा. सं. 809/5/2011- एफ ( सी ) ] निरुपमा कोतरू, निदेशक ( फिल्म )
25. Smt. P.Mahalakshmi
26. Shri . R. Murugesan
New Delhi , the 2ndApril , 2012
27. Shri . P.T.Pandichelvan
28. Shri . M.Selvam
29. Shri.K.Prem Kumar
30. Shri.M. Arivudai Nambi
31. Shri SA.Hidyathulla
32. Shri A.N.Purusotham
33. Shri . Thiyagarajan
34. Shri . Murugan
S.O. 2910. In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number dated 16-2-2012 and in exercise ofthepowers conferred by sub -section ( 1) of Section 5 of theCinematograph Act, 1952 ( 37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of Hyderabad Advisory Panel of Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders whichever isearlier:
35. Shri. S. Arumugapandian
3417 GI/12-4 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 7096
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
S.No. Name
1. Shri Paidi Srinivas Rao
2. Shri Pebbili Ravi Kumar
का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नै सलाहकार पैनल में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :
3. Shri Vanama Venkateshwarlu
नाम
क्रम सं.
[F. No. 809 /5/2011 -F(C) ]
NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films)
1. श्री एन. मुरूगन
नई दिल्ली , 3 अप्रैल , 2012
2. श्री वी. वेदागिरि
[फा. सं. 809/7/2011- एफ ( सी ) ] निरुपमाःकोतरू , निदेशक ( फिल्म)
New Delhi , the 4th April , 2012 का. आ. 2911.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 19-1-2012 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के बंगलोर सलाहकार पैनल में निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है :
नाम
क्रम सं.
1. श्रीमती श्यामला भंडारी
S. O. 2912.- In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number dated 22-2-2012 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of Chennai Advisory Panel ofCentral Boardof Film Certification with immediate effect for aperiod oftwo years or until further order whichever is earlier:
2. श्रीमती शशिकला पद्मनाभन
S. No. Name
3. श्रीमती तारा
1. Shri N. Murugan
4. श्री एच. मोहम्मद गौसे
2. Shri V. Vedagiri
[F. No. 809/7/2011 -F( C) | NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films) [फा. सं. 809/4/2011 - एफ ( सी) ] निरुपमा कोतरू , निदेशक (फिल्म)
New Delhi , the 3rd April , 2012
वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय
S.O. 2911. In continuation of Ministry's
(वाणिज्य विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 7 सितम्बर , 2012 Notification of even number dated 19-1-2012 and in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of theCinematograph Act, 1952 ( 37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of Bangalore Advisory Panel of Central Boardof Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further order , whichever is earlier:
S.No. Name
का.आ. 2913. केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारत सरकार की वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , ( वाणिज्य विभाग ) की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 2744 , तारीख 2 जुलाई 1983 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: - 1. Smt: Shayamala Bhandari
2. Smt. Shashikala Padmanabha
3. Smt. Tara
4. Shri H. Mohammad Ghouse
उक्तअधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध सारणी के स्तंभ । में, " वित्तीय सलाहकार और मुख्य लेखा अधिकारी " शब्दों के स्थान पर " विशेष कार्य अधिकारी ( मेला सेवाएं । और विपणन ) " शब्द, कोष्ठक और अंक रखे जाएंगे ।
[F. No. 809/4/2011 - F (C) ]
NIRUPAMA KOTRU , Director (Films)
[फा. सं. 1 ( 1 )/2006-टीपी ]
नई दिल्ली, 4 अप्रैल , 2012
आर. के. ओझा , निदेशक
टिप्पण:-मूल अधिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र में, का.आ. सं. 2744 ( अ ) तारीख 2 जुलाई, 1983 द्वारा प्रकाशित की गई थी और तत्पश्चात् का.आ. सं. 1754 , तारीख 30 जून , 1990 , का.आ.
का. आ. 2912.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 22-2-2012 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 व 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों 7097
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]
1304 (अ) , तारीख 14 अगस्त , 2006 और का. आ. 4711 , तारीख 9 दिसम्बर, 2006 द्वारा संशोधित की गई थी ।
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
NewDelhi, the 7th September , 2012
S. O. 2913.- In exercise ofthe powers conferredby Section3ofthePublic Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, (Department of Commerce ) number S.O. 2744, datedthe 2nd July, 1983, namely: -
Inthetable appended to the said notification, in column 1 , for the words "Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer" brackets and letters, the words " Officer on Special Duty(FairServices-I and Marketing) " shall be substituted.
[F. No.1 (1 )/2006-TP ]
R. K. OJHA, Director
Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, vide number S.O. 2744 , dated the 2nd July, 1983 and subsequently was amended vide numbers S.O.1754, dated the 30th June, 1990; S.O.1304(E) , dated 14th August, 2006 and S.O.4711 , dated the 9th December , 2006.
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )
नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 2914.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
क्रम सं
लाइसेंस संख्या
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता
स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि वर्ष/माह
(3)
(2)
(4)
(1)
1.
31-7-2012
3857177
भगवती इलेक्ट्रीकल
257 , गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह
इण्डस्ट्रीयल इस्टेट,
भामा.सं./भाग/खण्ड/वर्ष भारतीय मानक-का शीर्षक
(6)
(5)
भा. मा. 3854: 1997 घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों
केलिएस्विचे
वेस्टर्न एक्सप्रेस हाइवे के सामने
गोरेगाँव-पूर्व
मुंबई-400063.महाराष्ट्र
[सं. केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13 : 11 ]
ए. एस. जामखिंडीकर, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एम डी एम- III )
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department ofConsumerAffairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
NewDelhi, the 3rd September, 2012
S.O. 2914.-In pursuance of sub -regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:-
7098
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
SCHEDULE
Product
ISNo./Part/Sec/Year GrantDate
Sl: No.
Licence No.
Name and Address (factory) of the party
(4)
(5)
(6) (1) (2)
(3)
1. 3857177
31-7-2012
IS 3854: 1997 Bhagwati Electrical
Switches for domestic and similar purposes
257, Guru Govind Singh Indl.Estate, Opp- Western Express Highway Goregaon- East Mumbai -400063 , Maharashtra
[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]
A. S. JAMKHINDIKAR, Scientist ' F' & Head( MDM - III )
नई दिल्ली, 3 सितम्बर, 2012
का.आ. 2915.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गए है , वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंसधारी का नाम
लाइसेंस संख्या
लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
क्र. सं
एवं पता
(5)
(4)
(1) (2)
(3)
7-8-2012
भा मा 3854 : 1997
1. 3774072
घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिएस्विचें
क्रिश्ना इण्डस्ट्रीज , ब्लॉक सं. 47 , पहला माला , अरमान शॉपी के नजदीक , रोड सं. 10 , मोतीलाल नगर सं. 1 , गोरेगांव-पश्चिम, मुंबई -400104
[सं. केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13 : 13 ]
ए. एस. जामखिंडीकर , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एम डी एम- III )
NewDelhi , the 3rd September, 2012
S.O. 2915. In pursuance ofsub- regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :---
SCHEDULE
Sl . No.
Dateof Cancellation Licence No.
Name and Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the Licence
(5) (1)
(3)
(4)
(2)
7-8-2012 L 3774072 Krishna Industries
IS 3854 : 1997
Switches for Domestic &
Block No. 47, 1st Floor,
NearArman
SimilarPurposes
Shoppi , Road No. 10 ,
Motilal Nagar No. 1 , Goregaon west Mumbai -400104 , Maharashtra
[No. CMD/13: 13 ]
A. S. JAMKHINDIKAR, Scientist ' F ' & Head (MDM -JII ) 7099
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 5 सितम्बर, 2012
का.आ. 2916.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप- नियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
भामा सं. भाग
खण्ड वर्ष लाइसेंस संख्या
भारतीय मानक
काशीर्षक
क्रम सं
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता
स्वीकृति करने कीतिथि वर्ष /माह
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(7) (8) (9)
(5)
(6)
1. 3858179 6-8-2012
12701
1996
घूर्णनात्मक मोल्डित
हक्कुक्रिएशन
पॉलिथिलीन जल
गाला नं. 11 , नीलकंठ
संग्रहण टकियां
इण्ड. इस्टेट
विलेज-धामनी,
तालुका-खालापुर
जिला: रायगढ़-410202
2.
3-8-2012
2006 3861269
15658
देशाई कॉक्रिट कास्टिंग खड़ंजे के लिए पूर्व
सर्वे नं. 3/1 , पीलीम विलेज , ढलित कंक्रीट श्रेणी
भुमिका टेम्पल रोड,
उसागो-टीस्क,
उत्तर गोवा , गोवा-403401
[सं. केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13 : 11 ]
टी. कलैवाणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( प्रमाणन विभाग- II )
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2012
S.O. 2916. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:-
SCHEDULE
GOLDate
ISProduct
IS No. Part Sec . Year Sl. No.
CML No.
Licensee Name and Address
(6)
(9)
(4)
(5)
(1) (2)
(7) (8) (3)
1. 3858179 6-8-2012 Hakku Creations
Rotational
12701
1996
Moulded
GalaNo. 11 , Neelkanth
Indl .Estate, Taluka
Polyethylene Water
Storage Tanks
Khalapur,Village Dhamni
Distt: Raigarh -410202
2 3861269 3-8-2012
15658
2006 Desai Concrete Casting Precast Concrete Blocks for Paving
SurveyNo.3/ 1 , Pilliem Village
Bhumika Temple Road,
Usgao -tisk,
Sangeum, South Goa
Goa-403401
[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ' F ' & Head (MDM- II) [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7100
नई दिल्ली, 5 सितम्बर, 2012
का.आ. 2917.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
रद्द करने की तिथि
लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता
क्र. सं
लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल
(5)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
2-8-2012 7143259
1.
सुवाह्य अग्निशामक यांत्रिक झाग किस्म
भारती फायर इंजिनिअर्स प्लॉट नं. ए 427 , टी.टी.सी. इण्ड. एरिया, एमआयडीसी, म्हापे बस डिपो के नजदीक, नवी मुंबई, जिला : थाणे 400709
2-8-2012
2. 7296486
शुष्क पावडर किस्म सुवाह्य अग्नि शामक (संग्रहित दाब)
इनटाइम फायर अप्लाएंसेस प्रा.लि. डी-24/6 ,, टी.टी.सी. इण्ड. एरिया , एमआयडीसी, तुर्भे, नवी मुंबई-400705
2-8-2012 7515270
3.
शुष्कपावडर किस्म सुवाह्य अग्निशामक (संग्रहित दाब)
महावीर इण्डस्ट्रिज, 30और 130 , आनंदराज इण्ड. इस्टेट , एशियन पेन्ट के पीछे , सोनापूर लेन , भांडुप-400078
[सं. केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/ 13:11 ]
टी. कलैवाणन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( प्रमाणन विभाग- II )
NewDelhi , the 5th September, 2012
S. O. 2917. In pursuance of sub- regulation (6 ) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each : -
SCHEDULE
Sl . No.
Date of Cancellation Name and Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled/ suspension
Licence No. CM/L-No .
(5)
(4)
(3)
(1) (2)
2-8-2012
Portable Fire
7143259
1.
Extinguisher Mechanical foam type
Bharati Fire Engineers Plot No. A 427 TTC Industrial Area, MIDC Mahape , Near Mahape Bus Depot , Navi Mumbai , Distt: Thane - 400709
2-8-2012
7296486
2
Portable Fire Extinguisher Dry Powder Type ( Constant pressure)
Intime Fire Appliances Pvt . Ltd. D-24/6, TTC Indl . Area, MIDC, Turbhe Navi Mumbai , 400705
2-8-2012
7515270
3.
Portable Fire Extinguisher Dry Powder Type( Constant Pressure )
Mahavir Industries 30&130, Anandraj Indl . estate, BehindAsian Paints , Sonapur Lane,Bhandup- 400078
[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]
T. KALAIVANAN , Scientist ' F ' & Head (MDM - II ) 7101
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 5 सितम्बर , 2012
का. आ. 2918.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप - नियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
अनुभाग वर्ष
भाग
भामा संख्या
भारतीय मानक
काशीर्षक
लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता
स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि
संख्या लाइसेंस
क्रम सं
( 9 )
(7) (8 )
(6)
(5)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
2004
14543
1 .
मेसर्स संपदा एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज
3796082 26-7-2012
गट सं. 576/1
पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )
मालेगांव
तालुका-बारशी
जिला -सोलापुर
महाराष्ट्र
1998
मलाई निकाला हुआ दूध 13334 01 27-7-2012
2. 3856074
पावडर- विशिष्ट- भाग
मेसर्स माता मोहतादेवी मिल्क एंड मिल्क प्रॉडक्ट्स प्रा.लि.
1 : मानक श्रेणी
गट नं. 120/4 जावखेडे खलासा तालुका पाथार्डी जिला- अहमदनगर महाराष्ट्र
414505
2004
14543
पैकेजबंद पेयजल
मेसर्स मौर्या बेवरेजेज प्रा.लि.
30-7-2012
3. 3816668
प्लॉट नं. डी-60
(पैकेजबंद प्राकृक्तिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )
- विशिष्टि
एमआईडीसी, सूपा तालुका पारनेर जिला अहमदनगर
महाराष्ट्र
325 1996
तीन फेजीय प्रेरण मोटर्स
मेसर्स हेमाटिक मोटर्स प्रा.लि.
4.
3-8-2012
3857480
बी-67/68
एमआईडीसीतासवडे
तालुका कराड जिला सतारा महाराष्ट्र 415109
2008
1786
30-7-2012 मेसर्स एपल स्पॉन्ज एंड
3857985
5.
पावर लि.
कांक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्चसामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात की छड़ें और तारें
सी-4, फाइव स्टार
एमआईडीसी इंड. एरिया
कागल
जिला कोल्हापुर
महाराष्ट्र 418216 7102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
(2)
(3)
(1)
(4)
(5)
(7)
(6)
( 9 )
(8)
6-8-2012
6. 3839680
14543
2004 मेसर्स वॉटरवेज इंडस्ट्रीज पैकेजबंद पेयजल
5-28-119/पी/2
स्टेंडर्ड सिल्क मिल्स कंपाउंड
(पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )
-विशिष्टि
वेस्टऑफ ओवर ब्रिज पैटन रोड जिला औरंगाबाद महाराष्ट्र 431005
7. 3750563 1-8-2012
मेसर्स तारा हेल्थकेयर
14543
2004
गट सं. 926
पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा) - विशिष्टि
कारंदी तालुका शिरूर जिला पुणे महाराष्ट्र
412208
8. 3861774 22-8-2012
मेसर्स कमल पॉलीप्लास्ट
4984
1995
स. नं. 2/6/1
पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए उच्च घनत्व के पॉलीइथाइलीन पाइप्स
मिलकत नं. 128 वडाचीवाडी, तालुका हवेली
जिला पुणे महाराष्ट्र 411060
9. 3861875 13-8-2012
1786
2008
कांक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्चसामर्थ्य विकसित इस्पात की छड़ें और तारें
मेसर्स कनकधारा स्टील रि-रोलिंग मिल प्लॉट नं एफ-24 और एफ -29 अतिरिक्त एमआईडीसी फेज II जिला जालना महाराष्ट्र 431203
[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11]
बी. एम. हनीफ , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi , the 5th September, 2012
S.O. 2918. In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :-
SCHEDULE
Sl.
GrantDate
IS No. Part Sec . Year
No.
Licence No.
Title of the Standard
Name and Address of theParty
(1)
(3)
(2)
(4)
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
1. 3796082 26-7-2012
2004
14543
M/s. SampadaAgro Industries GatNo. 576/1 Malegaon
Packaged drinking water(Otherthan packaged natural 7103
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
(4)
( 1)
(2)
TalukaBarshi DistrictSolapur Maharashtra
2. 3856074 27-7-2012
(8 )
(5)
(6 ) (7)
(9)
mineralwater)
1998
M/s. Mata Mohatadevi Milk
&Milk Products Pvt Ltd GutNo. 120/4 Javkhehe Khalasa Taluka Pathardi District Ahmednagar Maharashtra 414505
30-7-2012
3. 3816668
13334 01
Skimmed milk powder Specification -Part 1 Standardgrade
2004
M/s.Morya Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
PlotNo. D-60 Midc Supa Taluka Parner District Ahmednagar Maharashtra
4.
3-8-2012
3857480
Packaged drinking 14543
water(Other than packagednatural mineralwater)
325
1996
M/s. Hematic Motors Pvt . Ltd.
B67/68
Midc Taswade Taluka Karad District Satara Maharashtra 415109
30-7-2012
3857985
5.
M/s.Apple Sponge & PowerLtd. C-4, Five Star MIDC Indl . Area Kagal District Kolhapur Maharashtra 418216
6-8-2012
6. 3839680
Three phase induction motors
2008
1786
High strength deformed steel bars and wires for concrete reinforcement
2004
M/s. Waterways Industries
14543
Packaged drinking
water(Other than packaged natural mineral water) Specification
5-28-119/P/2 Standard SilkMills Compound West ofOver Bridge PaithanRoad DistrictAurangabad Maharashtra 431005
7.
1-8-2012
M/s. Tara Healthcare 3750563
GatNo. 926 Karandi Taluka Shirur District Pune Maharashtra- 412208
3417 Gl/12-5
2004
14543
Packaged drinking
water(Other than packaged natural mineral water)- Specification 7104
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
(4)
(1) (2)
(3)
(6)
(5)
(7) (8) (9)
8. 3861774
22-8-2012
4984
1995
High density
polyethylene pipes for potable water
supplies
M/ s. Kamal Polyplast S.No. 2/6/1 Milkat No. 128 Wadachiwadi Taluka Haveli District Pune Maharashtra 411060
:
9. 3861875 13-8-2012 M/s . Kanakdhara Steel
1786
2008
High strength
Plot No. F -24 & F- 29
bars and wires
deformed steel for concrete reinforcement
Re-RollingMill Addi , MIDC Phase II District Jalna Maharashtra 431203
[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]
B. M. HANEEF, Scientist ' F ' & Head
नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर, 2012
का. आ. 2919.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 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
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा
क्रम सं. स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक
अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
1.
जुलाई 2012
तुरंत आई एस 3196 ( भाग 3 ) : 2012 द्रवणीय गैसों के लिये 5 लिटर से अधिक जल क्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिंडर भाग 3 परीक्षण पद्धतियां ( पाँचवाँ 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 । भारतीय मानकों को http://www.standardsbis.in द्वारा इंटरनैट पर खरीदा जा सकता है ।
[संदर्भ एमईडी/जी-2: 1 ]
बी. एम. हनीफ , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख 7105 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012 /भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 7th September , 2012
S. O. 2919. 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 have been established on the date indicated against each :-
SCHEDULE
Date of Establishment Sl. No. No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards Established
No. and Year of Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standards
(3)
(4)
(2)
( 1)
With immediate effect
July 2012
1. IS 3196 (Part 3 ) : 2012 Welded Low Carbon Steel Cylinders Exceeding 5LitreWater Capacity for Low Pressure Liquefiable Gases , Pt. 3 Methods ofTest (Fifth Revision)
Copy of these standards are 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. On - line purchase of Indian Standard can be made at : http: // www.standardsbis.in .
[Ref. MED/G - 2 : 1 ]
B. M. HANEEF, Scientist ' F ' & Head
कोयला मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर , 2012
का.आ. 2920.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है , कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त होने की संभावना है ;
और पूर्वोक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के ब्यौरे रेखांक संख्या राजस्व /02 /2012 , तारीख 18 मई, 2012 का निरीक्षण महा प्रबंधक ( भूमि और राजस्व ) , दरभंगा हाउस , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , रांची , या महाप्रबंधक , एन. के. क्षेत्र , उपायुक्त, रांची, झारखंड, मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( खोज प्रभाग ) ,केन्द्रीय खान आयोजन एवं डिजाइन इन्स्टीच्यूट लिमिटेड , गोंदवाना पैलेस , कांके रोड , रांची या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , कांउसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता 700 001 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;
अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि से कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;
उक्तअनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति-
(i ) संपूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग के अर्जन या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों के अर्जन के प्रति आक्षेप कर सकेगा;
या
( ii ) भूमि में के किसी हित के प्रतिकर या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का दावा कर सकेगा; या
(iii ) प्रभावहीन हो गई पूर्वेक्षण अनुज्ञप्तियों, खनन पट्टों के अधीन अर्जित किये जाने पर अधिकारों के लिए प्रतिकर प्राप्त कर सकेगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट भूमि के कोरों से संग्रहण या अन्य खनिज नमूनों तथा उनकं सम्यक्विश्लेषण को तथा किसी अन्य सुसंगत अभिलेख या सामग्रियों की निर्मित से संबंधित सभी मानचित्र, चार्ट और अन्य दस्तावेज परिदत्त कर सकेगा ।
इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , महाप्रबंधक, एन. के. क्षेत्र , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , रांची, (झारखंड ) , या महाप्रबंधक, भूमि और राजस्व , सेंट्रल कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , दरभंगा हाउस , रांची-834 029 ( झारखंड ) को भेजेंगे ।.
7106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
अनुसूची
के. डी. एच. विस्तार ब्लॉक
जिला-रांची, झारखंड
[रेखांक संख्या राजस्व /02/2012 , तारीख 18 मई , 2012 ]
ब्लॉक
ग्राम
थाना
थाना नं.
क्रम सं
1
2
4
5
3
1 . क
15
बुढ़मू
विश्रामपुर
06
बुढ़मू
करकट्टा
2. ख
15
बुढ़मू
विश्रामपुर
सीमा वर्णन :
ब्लॉक-क:
क-ख
जिला
क्षेत्र
टिप्पण क्षेत्र हेक्टर में (लगभग)
एकड़ में ( लगभग )
6
7
8
9
रांची
80.06
भाग
197.83
रांची
73.19
180.87
भाग
रांची
4.96
12.25 भाग
कुल: - 158.21 ( लगभग )
390.95 ( लगभग )
रेखा बिन्दु ' क' से आरंभ होती है और करकट्टा ग्राम के भाग से हो कर गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है ।
ख -ग रेखा बिन्दु ' ख' से आरंभ होती है और करकट्टा एवं विश्रामपुर ग्राम के भाग से हो कर गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है।
ग-घ रेखा बिन्दु ' ग ' से आरंभ होती है और विश्रामपुर एवं बुकबुका ग्राम के भाग के सीमा से गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है।
घ-ङ रेखा बिन्दु ' घ ' से आरंभ होती है और विश्रामपुर ग्राम के भाग से गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ङ ' पर मिलती है ।
ङ -क रेखा बिन्दु ' ङ' से आरंभ होती है और विश्रामपुर एवं करकट्टा ग्राम के भाग से गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है।
ब्लॉक-ख:
च-छ रेखा बिन्दु ' च ' से आरंभ होती है और विश्रामपुर ग्राम के भाग से गुजरती है एवं बिन्दु ' छ ' पर मिलती है ।
छ-ज रेखा बिन्दु ' छ ' से आरंभ होती है और विश्रामपुर एवं चुरी ग्राम की सम्मिलित सीमा से गुजरती है एवं त्रिन्दु ' ज ' पर मिलती है।
ज-च रेखा बिन्दु ' ज' से आरंभ होती है और विश्रामपुर ग्राम से गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' च ' पर मिलती है ।
[फा. सं. 43015/ 12/2012-पी. आर. आई .डब्ल्यू. - 1 ]
ए. के. दास , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi , the 14th September, 2012
S. O. 2920. Whereas, it appcarsto the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto,
And , whereas, the plan bearing number Rev./02/2012 dated the 18th May, 2012 containing the details of the area described in the aforesaid Schedule can be inspected in the office of the General Manager ( Land and Revenue ) . Darbhanga House, Central Coalfields Limited , Ranchi or General Manager , NK Arca or Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi , Jharkhand or in the office of the Chief General Manager ( Exploration Division ), Central Mine Planning Design Institute , Gondwana Palace . Kanke Road , Ranchi or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1. Council House Street . Kolkata -700001
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Arcas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 ( 20 of 1957) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal from lands described in the aforesaid Schedule:
7107
भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Any persons interested in the land described in the said Schedule may
(i ) object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land , or of any rights in or over such land, or
(ii) claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land, or
(iii) seek compensation for prospecting licences ceasing to have effect, rights under mining leases being acquired, and deliver all maps , charts and other documents relating to the land, collection from the land of cores or other mineral samples and due analysis thereof and the preparation of any other relevant record or materials referred to in sub-section (7) of section 13 ofthe said Act,
to the office ofthe General Manager, NK Area, Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or General Manager, Land and Revenue, Central Coalfields Limited, Darbhanga House , Ranchi -834 029 (Jharkhand) , within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SCHEDULE
KDH ExtensionBlock,
District-Ranchi ( Jharkhand)
(Planbearing number Rev./02/2012 dated the 18th May, 2012)
Remarks
District
Thana
Block
Village
Thana number
Sl. No.
Area in acres ( approxi mately)
Areain hectares (approxi mately)
197.83 Part
80.06
Ranchi
15
1. A
Bishrampur Burmu
180.87 Part
73.19
Ranchi
Karkatta Burmu 06
4.96
12.25 Part
Ranchi
15
2. B
Bishrampur Burmu
Total:
390.95 (approximately)
158. 21 (approximately)
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :-
BLOCK-A:
A-B Line starts from point ' A' and passes through part village of Karkatta and meets at point 'B' .
B-C Line starts from point 'B' and passes through part villages of Karkatta and Bishrampur and meets at point 'C' .
C-D Line starts from point ' C' and passes through part common boundary of villages Bishrampur and Bukbuka and meets at point'D' .
D-E Line starts from point 'D ' and passes through part village of Bishrampur and meets at point 'E' .
E-A Line starts from point 'E' and passes through part village of Bishrampur and Karkatta and meets at starting point 'A' .
BLOCK-B:
F-G Line starts from point 'F' and passes through part village Bishrampur and meets at point 'G' .
G-H Line starts from point 'G' and passes through common boundary of villages Bishrampur and Churi and meets at point'H'.
H-F Line starts from point 'H' and passes through village Bishrampur and meets at starting point 'F' .
[F. No. 43015/12/2012-PRIW- I ) A.K. DAS , Under Secy.
7108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012 /BHADRA 31 , 1934 [PART II--SEC . 3( ii) ]
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2012
personnel No. 024735 / FS Section is just fair and legal ? What relief the applicant concerned is entitled to? "
का.आ. 2921.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जनरल मैनेजर , आर्डनेन्स इक्यूपमैन्ट फैक्ट्री, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
3. Brief facts are that despite several opportunities given to the claimant , claimant Sri Ashish Kushwaha did not file the claim statement . Opposite party has also not filed the reply or any written statement , as there was no claim statement so opposite party was also not in position to file the written statement . In such circumstances when there is no claim statement, the reference could not be decided in favour of the claimant . In such circumstances it is to be held that the action of the opposite party is just and fair and the claimant is not entitled for any relief.
[सं. एल -14011 / 12/2010- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
4. Reference is answered accordingly against the claimant.
New Delhi , the 23rd August , 2012
RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2012
S.O. 2921. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2011 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute betweenthe employers in relation to the General Manager , Ordnance Equipment Factory and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-8-2012 .
का.आ. 2922.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैनेजमैन्ट आफटेलीकॉम , डिस्ट्रिक्ट मैनेजर , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[No. L- 14011 /12/2010 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
[सं. एल-40012/416/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी ANNEXURE
New Delhi , the 23rd August , 2012
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 24 of 2011
Between
S.O. 2922.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom District Manager and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-8-2012 .
Sri Ashis Kushwaha , Son of Late Puttan Babu , 119/509 , Darhan Purwa, Kanpur
Versus
[No. L-40012/416/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer ANNEXURE
The General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factory, Phoolbagh, Kanpur
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . I , DHANBAD
AWARD
In the matter of an application U/s . 10 ( 1 )( d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .
Reference No. 16 of 2001
1. Central Government , Mol , vide Notification No. 1.-1-4011 / 12/2010- IR ( DU ), dated 20-4-2011 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of Telecom . DistrictManager AND
2. "Whether the action of the management of the Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur , not considering the request for compassionate appointment of Sri Ashish Kushwaha on the death of his father Late Puttan Babu , Chargeman Gr . II
TheirWorkmen 7109
भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
PRESENT :
Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers : Shri Z. Azam , Advocate
FortheWorkman Shri U. N. Lal , Advocate
State: Bihar
Industry: Telecom
Dated, the 17th July, 2012
AWARD
basis for one year only on three occasions separately to work as Computer Operator purely on contract basis against the remuneration fixed at Rs . 2600 per month and continued with the contract work from January, 1996 to December, 1998 and ceased to work as such ever since December , 1998. The concerned workman had filed a case before Central Administrative Tribunal , Patna , bearing OA No. 254/99 dated 3/17-1-2000 and an order was passed by the Tribunal with an observation that we are confident that the engagement of the applicant was of pure and simple in nature of contract and probably there existed no regular post against which he could have sought for appointment . The O.A. is accordingly dismissed at the admission state. The case of the concerned workman is not maintainable either in law or on facts under I.D. Act , 1947 , hence he does not deserve any relief.
By Order No. L- 40012/416/ 2000/ IR ( DU ) dated 27-12-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :
Accordingly it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom . in terminating the services of Sh . Sujeet Kr. Singh w.e.f. 6-7-99 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
In rejoinder to the written statement of the workman, the management has stated almost same things as have been stated in its written statement .
4. The concerned workman produced himself as WW- 1 and the documents filed on behalf ofthe concerned workman have been marked as Exts . W- 1 to W-5 .
No oral evidence has been produced by the management.
5. Argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he was appointed as Computer Operator on 1-1-96 and worked upto December, 1998. He has worked morethan 240 days in a calendar year, but the management isnot regularising him.
6. The management argued that the concerned workman had been appointed as Computer Operator on contract basis on a remuneration of Rs . 2600 per month and continued from January, 1996 to December, 1998 and after that he ceased to work since December, 1998.
Ithasbeen argued on behalf of the management that the concerned workman filed a case before Central Administrative Tribunal , Patna , bearing No. OA- 753/99 dated 1 / 17-1-2000 which has been dismissed.
2. The case of the concerned workman is that he had been working as permanent Computer Operator since 1-1-1996 against permanent vacancy and had put in more than 240 days attendance in each calendar year . The management with an ulteriror motive to victimise and to exploit the helplessness of the concerned workman had been preparing paper arrangement to camouflage the real issue . The consistant demand of the concerned workman for regularisation had annoyed the management to the extent of terminating his service without assigning any reason and without affording him any opportunity. The management terminated his service orally without issuing any charge sheet and without conducting any enquiry. The management terminated his service without complying withthe mandatory provision of Sec. 25 - F and 25 - N ofthe 1.D. Act. The concerned workman represented before the management several times for his reinstatement with full backwages but without any effect . So , an industrial dispute was raised before A.L.C. ( C ) which ended in failure . Thereafter, the present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government for adjudication . Theaction ofthe management in terminating the service of the concernedworkman w.e.f. 6-7-1999 is not justified.
It has also been argued that the Telecommunication Department is not an Industry under the I.D. Act .
Under such circumstances , it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award by directing the management to re - instate the concerned workman with full back wages .
In this respect the concerned workman has filed papers , Ext . W-2 is regarding representation made before the management, Ext . W-2 is letter for engaging the workman oncontract basis and he worked w.e.f. 1-1-96 to 31-12-98 which was sent by the management to A.L.C. Patna , Ext. W-3 isorderby C.A.T. , Ext . W-4 is circular issued by the management on 29-9-2000 for regularisation of casual labourers and Ext . W-5 shows that other many casual 2. The case of the management is that the concerned workman had once been engaged by letter dated 22nd December, 1995 for a period ofone year w.e.f. 1-1-1996 and willingness and request of the workman next 1-1-1997 and 2-1-1998 to December, 1998 simply engaged on contract 7110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
persons have been regularised . It shows that the management is regularising casual workers and the concerned workman has stated on oath as WW- 1 that he wasworking on regular post as Computer Operator against permanent vacancy and had put in more than 240 days attendance in a calendar year till the date of stoppage upto 6-7-99. Against this there is no evidence given by the management which can be ignored.
The concerned workman has worked more than 240 days w.e.f. 1-1-96 to December, 1998 which has been accepted by the management . No person has been regularised by the management as per Ext . W-4 the management issued circular for regularisation of persons in casual labours who have worked for more than 240days in ayear.
7. Considering the above facts and circumstances I hold that the action of the management of Telecom in terminating the services of Sh . Sujeet Kr . Singh w.e.f. 6-7-99 is not justified. He is entitled for re - instatement in service without back wages because no evidence has been given regarding back wages . The management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman within 30 days from the date ofpublication ofthe award in the Gazette of India.
ThisismyAward.
H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 23 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2923.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डायरेक्टर, सेन्ट्रल इन्सटीट्यूट ऑफ कॉटन रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी. आई.टी. /एन.जी.पी./45/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[स. एल-42012/ 14/1996- आई आर (डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 23rd August , 2012
S.O. 2923. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/45 /2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between The Director , Central Institute for Cotton Research and their workman , whichwas received by the Central Government on 23-8-2012.
[No. L -42012/ 14/ 1996- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/45/2002
Date: 31-7-2012
PARTY NO . 1 :
TheDirector,
Central Institute for Cotton Research , Panjari Farm, PO : Rui , Wardha Road,
Nagpur
Versus
PARTY NO . 2:
Shri Vinayak Bajirao Amle , R/oRui Panjari , PO: Rui , via Ajni , Tah . and Distt . Nagpur
AWARD (Dated: 31st July, 2012)
Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act" in short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of C.I.C.R. and their workman , Shri Vinayak Amle, toCGIT-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur for adjudication, asper letter No. L -42012/ 14/ 96 - IR (DU) dated 4-3-1997, with the following schedule :
"Whether the action of the Director, Central Institute for Cotton Research , Wardha Road , Nagpur in removing Shri Vinayak , a daily paid labour from service w.e.f. 3-5-1984 by way of suspending from service , is legal , proper and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
Subsequently, the case was transfered to this Tribunal foradjudication in accordance with law.
2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , shri Vinayak Amle . ("theworkman " in short ) , filed the statement ofclaim and the management of C.I.C.R. , (" Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement .
The case of the workman as projected in the statement ofclaim is that the party No. 1 is an establishment engaged in the business of producing high and scientific qualityofcotton seeds and marketing and sale of the same to the needy persons /institutes and is also engaged in the business of exporting the cotton seeds and therefore, the party no. I is an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j ) oftheAct and the party no . 1 , for production of high quality
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
7111
of cotton seeds, engages workers to work manually and to the said averment, no order of removal came to be issued
protect the farms used for production and research ofcotton till this date andfrom the facts as stated above , it will be
seeds etc. and he was engaged by the party no. 1 as a class seen that the entire exercise adopted by the party no. 1 to
IV employee and is a workman as per the meaning of Section remove him from services is unilateral and arbitrary and
2(s) ofthe Act and he came to be appointed by party no. 1 therefore is illegal .
on 18-4-1978 and his services was utilized as a watchman
on the farm owned by party no . I and other duties of class It isalso pleaded by the workman that he had put in
IV were also extracted from him and initially he was being six years of continuous service and had put in more than
paid wages on monthly basis in cash at the rate of Rs . 3.75 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of
per day, which was subsequently came to be enhanced removal from the services and provisions of Section 25 - F
and the party no . 1 was obtaining his signature on the of the Act are therefore , very much attracted and party
muster roll maintained by it and the post on which , he came no. I had neither issued one month's notice nor paid one
to be appointed was of a permanent nature . month's pay in lieu of notice nor paid the retrenchment
compensation and there were many other junior employees
Thefurther case of the workman is that while he was in service of party no. 1 and the entire actions of the party
in continuous service of party no . 1 , a false and fabricated no. I amount to wrongful termination and on that ground
criminal complaint came to be filed against him, due to local alone, the action is liable to be set aside .
politics ofthe village and a criminal case under Section 295
read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code was initiated It isalso pleaded by the workman that though party
against him and he faced the trial before the court of Judicial no. I suspended him w.e.f. 3-5-1984 , did not pay him any
subsistence allowance and though the departmental
Magistrate, First Class , Court No. 10 , Nagpur along with enquiry was instituted against him , no enquiry was made
two others and he was acquitted in the said case , by and as such , the action of party no . I treating him to have
judgment dated 8-7-1994 and pending investigation of the beenremoved from services , lack of logic , rational and law
said criminal case , he came to be suspended by party no. 1 and in view of his acquittal in the criminal case, the entire
w.e.f. 3-5-1994, by order bearing no . F.No. XI (63 ) Admn/84/
action of the party no . I came to be frustrated and the
6320 dated 3-5-1984 (wrongly mentioned as 3-5-1994 in entire actions undertaken by party no . I become in-
the statement of claim ) and after placing him under fructuous , inoperative and illegal and therefore , he is
suspension and before the pronouncement ofthe judgment entitled for reinstatement in the service with all benefits of
in the criminal case , party no . 1 decided to initiate a wages, fixation of wages , seniority, leave and all other
disciplinary proceedings against him and in the process , benefits w.e.f. 3-5-1984.
departmental enquiry came to be ordered against him by
party no . I vide its order dated 20th April , 1985 and one 3. The party no . 1 in the written statement has
Shri Aneja, Senior Administrative Officer, National Bureau pleaded inter - alia that it is purely a reserch institute and is
of Soil Survey and Land Use , Planning , Nagpur was not engaged in any activity, which can be called business ,
appointed as the enquiry officer to hold the departmental trade or manufacture and is not engaged in commercial or
enquiry into the charges levelled against him in the charge industrial activity and it is more an institute discharging
sheet dated 21-1-1985 and the said charge sheet was Government functions and its functions are purely in the
purported to be issued by shri N. L. Bhala, the Director of interest of the nation and its development and it is under
party no . I and he denied each and every allegation levelled the control of the Ministry of Agriculture and is included
inthe charge sheet vide his letter dated 25-3-1985 and the in the sovereign functions of the state and therefore , not
enquiry officer appointed to make the enquiry, never an " industry " as defined under Section 2(j ) of the Act and
intimated him any date of enquiry, resultantly, till this date, consequently, the workman ( mentioned as party no. 2 in
the said departmental enquiry appears to have been kept the written statement ) is not a workman as defined under
in abeyance and he does not know the reasons as to why Section 2 ( s ) of the Act and therefore , the reference is not
the enquiry was not continued , but his suspension maintainable and is liable to be answered in negative.
continued till date and it was unfortunate that party no . 1 It is further pleaded by the party no. I that it has its
decided to keep him under suspension w.e.f. 3-5-1984 till own Rules and Bye - Laws and Chapter III of the Bye- Laws
this date without payment of any suspension allowance or contain conditions of service applicable to its permanent
subsistence allowance , so he was constrained to file an
and temporary employees and under clause 30 , it is stated
application under Section 33 - C( 2 ) of the Act, for recovery that the service conditions of its employees shall be
of the subsistence allowance in the First Labour Court ,
Regulated by the Central Civil Services ( Classification ,
Nagpur and his application was registered as C.G - IDA No. Control and Appeal ) Rules and the Central Civil Services
185/1986 and the same is still pending and for the first time, (Conduct ) Rules of the Government of India and wherever
the party no. I in the reply submitted before the labour thereis reference as to Government Servant in these Rules ,
court declared that it was deemed by them that he itshall be construed as officers and employees of the society
(workman) had been removed from their services and except and it is stated therein that except in regard to the matters
3417 Gl /12-6
7112
[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
for which specific provision has been made or issued by the society, the service and financial rules framed by the Government of India and such other rules and orders issued bythe Government of India, from time to time, apply mutatis- mutandis to the employees of the society in regard to the matters concerning their conditions of service and as such , by specific application, the conditions of service governed bythe Civil Services ( Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rulesand Central Civil Services (Conduct ) Rules apply to its employees .
The further case of the party no . 1 is that the workman was engaged as a casual labourer on daily rate of wages some - time in the year 1978 for the work at Panjri farm and his services were used for the number of days he was called for doing the work as and when the work was available and infact , he was initially engaged during the cotton season and his services were never utilized as a watchman and the claim of the workman that the post on which, he was appointed was of a permanent nature is not true and on 1-5-1984 , a written complaint addressed to the Director was received from 15 residents of village Panjri and according to the said complaint, on 29-4-1984 between 9 PM to 10 PM , when the villagers were asleep in their houses , a jeep bearing No. MTG - 1553 being driven by Hanumant Ugale and carrying some other persons came to the village and broke the idol of Lord Buddha and when the villagers shouted at them , some of them put pointed weapons on their chest and threatened them of their lives and by letter dated 2-5-1984 , the police station incharge , Hingna Police Station informed it about the arrest of the workman and three others on 1-5-1984 and submission of the charge sheet in the court against them and it was also further informed by the police about registration of crime case no . 16/84 under section 295/34 of the IPC and investigation to have been made against them and police also requested it (party no . 1) to initiate disciplinary enquiry against its employees alleged to be involved in the commission of the crime , so , the workman and other employees involved in the case were put under suspension by an order dated 3-5-1984 and intimation of such action was given to the office- in -charge of the police station , Hingna vide letter dated 4-5-1984 and the P.S.I. was requested by it to send a copy of the charge sheet dated 11-5-1984 alongwith the offence letter dated 2-5-1984 and the F.I.R. dated 30-4-1984 and as the workman was involved in criminal act , he was immediately suspended pending investigation and he being a casual and daily paid labourer, there was no need to hold a departmental enquiry, as he does not get any protection under article 311 ( 2 ) of the Constitution of India and his suspension was temporary termination of service and the action taken against the workman was for the reasons of his involvement in commission of criminal offences of hurting the feelings of Harijans by destroying the idol of Lord Buddha and even otherwise , a daily paid casual labourer has no right to be continued in Government service and there is also no question of reinstating him , because he was arrested, by the police in crime case no. 16/84 and he is disqualified for Government service and mere acquittal in the criminal case doesnot come in the way of the disciplinary action taken by it and the suspension of the workman amounted to termination from service , because he was a daily paid casual labourer and the order passed by the First Labour Court, Nagpur has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur and the workman had not completed 240 days of work and the provisions of section 25 - F and 25 -G of the Act are not attracted and the termination does not amount to retrenchment and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence, both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective claims . The workman has examined himself as a witness in support of his case . In his examination - in-chief, which is on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim . The workman , in the cross -examination has stated that on 18-4-1978 , he was appointed as a casual labour on daily wages and there was a complaint against him on the allegation of damaging the statue of Lord Buddha and police had informed the office about his arrest . The workman has further stated that management had not issued any termination order.
5. One Mr. Vithal Ramraoji Jawalkar, an Assistant Administrative Officer of party no. I has been examined as awitness on behalf of party no . 1. The examination - in- chiefofthis witness is also on affidavit . This witness in his examination - in-chief has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement . In his cross - examination , this witness has admitted that a suspension order was issued against theworkman by the management on 3-5-1984 and Ext . W- 5 isthe copy of the said suspension order and on the report ofDr. N. L. Bhale , the Director, a police case was registered against the workman and the workman was acquitted in the criminal case by the judicial court and a departmental enquiry was ordered against the workman and two others byMr. Bhale and one Mr. Aneja , Sr. Administrative officer wasappointed as the enquiry officer and management has not filed any documents of the enquiry proceedings and he cannot say if any departmental enquiry was conducted against the workman or not and he has not seen any documents regarding conduction of departmental enquiry against the workman .
6. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that party no . I has not disputed that the workman was appointed on 18-4-1978 and that while he was working with party no . 1 , on 3-5-1984, he was suspended by party no . 1 , on the allegation of registration of a criminal case and his arrest in the same and though charge sheet was submitted against 7113 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II ---खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
the workman and enquiry officer was appointed, further action was not taken in that matter and subsistence allowance was not paid to the workman and when the workman filed a complaint in the Labour Court for subsistence allowance , for the first time, the party no . 1 mentioned in the reply that the order of suspension be deemed as order of termination of the workman and the action ofthe party no. I is illegal and provisions ofSection 25-F ofthe Act were not complied with and as such , the so calledtermination of the workman is illegal and such action amounts to retrenchment and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and all other benefits .
termination as claimed by the party no. 1. It appears from the record that the action of the party no . 1 was quite illegal . Party no . 1 though initiated the departmental enquiry, didnot proceed with the same and also did not intimate the workman the reason of not proceeding with the enquiry. Party no. I did not pay any subsistence allowance to the workman. No specific order of termination of the services ofthe workman was passed . It is also not disputed that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the workman forregistration ofthe criminal case against him and he was also suspended for the same and the workman has already been acquitted in the criminal case . Hence , the so called termination ofthe workman from services w.e.f. 3-5-1984 is quite illegal and amounts to retrenchment . Taking the entire facts and circumstances or the case into consideration , I think that this is a fit case , where the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and all other consequential benefits . Hence , it is ordered :
ORDER
7. On the other hand , the learned advocate for the party no. I submitted that the party no . I is not an industry as defined under Section 2(j ) of the Act and consequently the workman is not a workman as per the definition of Section 2 (s ) of the Act and therefore , the reference is not maintainable and the workman was a daily paid casual labour and he was arrested in a criminal case and he does not have any right to claim service in Government department and as such , none of the provisions , much less , section 25 - F and Section 25 -G of the Act are applicable and as the workman was a daily paid casual labourer, the order of suspension itself amounted to termination and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
The action of the Director , Central Institute for Cotton Research , Wardha Road , Nagpur in removing Shri Vinayak, a daily paid labour from service w.e.f. 3-5-1984 by way of suspending from service , is illegal , improper and unjustified. The workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity from the date of his suspension i.e. 3-5-1984 and full back wages and all other consequential benefits .
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 23 अगस्त, 2012
8. Perused the record including the evidence adduced by the parties . So far the first contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that party no. 1 is not an industry is concerned , by taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply Vs. Rajappa , reported in 1978 LAB IC -467 , which has been cited in the written statement,to the present case in hand , it is found that the party no . I is an industry and there is no force in the contention raised bythe learned advocate for the party no. 1 .
का.आ. 2924.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चीफ जरनल मैनेजर , टेलीकाम महाराष्ट्र सर्किल , मुम्बई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. /एन.जी.पी./04/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40011/31/2008- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 23rd August , 2012
S.O. 2924. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/04/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the Chief General Manager, Telecom Maharashtra Circle , Mumbai and others and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-8-2012 .
9. It is found from the materials on record that there is no dispute that the workman was appointed in the services of the party no . 1 on 18-4-1978 and he was suspended on 3-5-1984 , on the ground of pending investigation of a criminal offence and thereafter, though charge sheet was submitted and enquiry officer was appointed , no further action was taken by party no . 1 in the said departmental enquiry. It is also not disputed that no subsistence allowance was given to the workman , even though he was suspended and the workman was not served with any order of termination of the services and he was also not taken back in service and when the workman approached the labour court for subsistence allowance , the party no . 1 declared that the order of suspension be treated as termination order. It is also not disputed that the provisions ofSection 25 - F of the Act were not complied with at the time of suspension of the workman or the deemed order of
[No. L-40011 /31 /2008 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA KUMAR, Section Officer 7114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
filed the statement of claim on behalf of all the 71 workmen (As per annexure ' A' ) and the management of Telecom Maharashtra Circle, (" Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement .
Case No. CGIT/NGP/04 /2009
Date: 18-7-2012
Parties No. 1 (a) : The Chief General Manager,
Telecom. Maharashtra Circle, 8th Floor, Fountain Telecom Exchange Building, II , M.C. Road , Fort, Mumbai-400001 .
1 (b) : The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Nagpur Telecom District , Telecom, Zero Miles,
Nagpur-440001 .
1( c) : The Chairman , Telecom Commission , Sanchar Bhawan , 20 Ashok Road , NewDelhi .
1 (d) : The Chief Managing Director , BSNL, Stateman House , Bara Khamba Road, NewDelhi .
Versus
PartyNo. 2 : TheDistrict Secretary,
National Federation ofTelecom employees , Nagpur Telecom, CTOCompound , Nagpur-440001 .
AWARD
(Dated: 18th July, 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( "the Act" in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Telecom Maharashtra Circle and their 71 workmen , for adjudication , as per letter No. L-40011/ 31/2008 - IR ( DU) dated 16-2-2009 , with the following schedule :
"Whether the demand of the National Federation of Telecom Employees for grant of status of full time casual labour to 71 workmen, as per Annexure , by the. management of Principal General Manager , Telecom , BSNL , Nagpur, is legal & justified ? Ifyes , to what relief is the workmen are entitled ?"
The case of the 71 workmen as presented by the union in the statement of claim is that all the 71 workmen areworking from the respective dates as mentioned against their names in annexure ' A' and all of them are in continuous and uninterrupted service till today and generally they are being assigned duties on part time for 3 to 4 hours daily and at times upto 4 to 8 hours and the Government of India, Department of Telecom Services under circular letter No. 269/13/99 STN . II , dated 25-8-2000 issued direction to all the Chief General Managers including party no . 1 to convert all part time casual labourers working for less than 4hours duty per day to full time casual labours , but party no. I did not take any action on the basis of the said circular and in persuasion to the above mentioned circular, the department of Telecom issued another circular bearing no . 269-94 -STN - II dated 29-09-2000 directing all the Chief General Manager , Telecoms to regularize the casual labourers , who were working for less than four hours per day and who were converted to full time casual labours as perletter dated 25-08-2000 and the issue of absorption of casual labourers including part time labourers was discussed by the Head Quarters union , New Delhi with the Chief Managing Director , BSNL, New Delhi on 2-1-2001 and it was decided in the meeting that the left out cases , if any would be settled by the BSNL in accordance with circular no . 269 dated 29-09-2000 and the record of discussion and decision was circulated under BSNL/4 / SR/2000 dated 2-1-2001 and as per letter no . BSNL / 4/SR/ 2000 dated 5-3-2001 , option were called for from group'C ' and group ' D' employees of BSNL on the ground of requirement of such option to declare all the casual labourers regularized in terms of order dated 29-09-2000 as government employees and they (union ) submitted a list of 113 part time employees to party no . I for converting them into full time casual workers, but party no . I neither converted them into full time casual workers nor granted them temporary status or regularized them as group ' D ' employees and after submission ofthe list of 113 part time labourers , a committee consisting of the Assistant General Manager and vigilance officer of the office of P.G.M.T. , Nagpur and the General Secretary of the union was constituted, for verification of such part time worker and under letter no. AGM ( A) WLF / W - I / DRM /VFN/2002/ 19 dated 8-8-2002 direction was given to the committee to complete the job at the earliest and party no . I by letterNo. HRD/E -22- court cases/ 18 dated 29-10-2002 directed all the subordinate officers not to remove any part time employee till submission of the report by the above stated committee and to take back the removed part time labourer , if any, on dutyimmediately and the three members committee visited allthe places, where part- time labourers were working and 2.Onreceipt ofthe reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement in response to which , the union , " National Federation of Telecom Employees" , ( "the Union " in short), [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7115
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
after verification of records and the statements ofthe staff, submitted their report on 10-12-2002 to the party no . 1 and the ChiefGeneral Manager directed the party no . 1 under this letter no . A/Rectt - III /p /Tel /Report/ Vol . II/41 dated 14-11-2002 to submit the report for consideration and necessary action, but party no . 1 delayed the submission of the report for seven months and lastly submitted the same under letter no . 269-94/98- STN - II/Pers - IV ( Vol . III ) M - II dated 3-10-2003 for regularisation of some part time workers and ignored completely the workman involved in the dispute and the Chief General Manager, Telecom under his letter no . SA/ Recruitment - 11 /7 /CCS /LOC/Volume - III dated 7-1-2004 had called for the status report from party no. 1 and the said report was to be submitted in consultation with the above stated committee and the committee members were directed by the Dy. General Manager, of the office of the party no . 1 under letter no . AGM( A ) W- 1 /DRM/VFN/52 dated 16-1-2004 to submit their report after re- verification .
Thefurther case of the union is that the name of Shri Udar S/ o . Ganpat Gautel , a part time worker was initially included in the list of 113 workmen, but his name was excluded from the final list of 71 part time workers, because his case for full time worker and regularisation was subjudiced before the Hon'ble High Court , Nagpur bench inwrit petition no . 4586/03 and as per the judgment ofthe Hon'ble High Court in writ petition no . 4586/03 , the name ofShri Udar was included in the list of 71 part time workers and a final list of72 part time workers was submitted by the three members committee to the PGMT, Nagpur and the same was then forwarded to the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Mumbai by the PGMT under letter no . HRD/E- 22/Court cases/39 dated 12-4-2004 and the Chief General Manager by letter A/ Rectt - II.Cor /Nagpur/Vol . 114 , dated 25-3-2004 recommended the Telecom Board, New Delhi only for conversion of Shri Udar Goutel to full time worker and then for regularisation and accordingly, the Telecom Board, New Delhi approved the conversion of Shri Udhar into full time worker under letter No. 272-08/2005 - pers - IV dated 25-05-2005 and ignored and claim ofthe remaining 71 workmen for conversion into full full time workers and the Telecom Board vide letter dated 18-2-2005 sought clarification from party no. 1 and to reconcile the difference in the names of the workers in the list submitted by them vide letter dated 30-4-2004 and it was explained that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition no . 4586/03 , name of Shri Uday was included in the list of 71 part time workers as per the instruction of the ChiefGeneral Manager, Mumbai and their Head quarters union took up the matter with the Board's office, New Delhi and requested for conversion of all the 72 part time workers into full time workers , under the letter dated 6-4-2005 and the Chief General Manager under his letter dated 27-5-2005 directed the party no. 1 to convert services of Shri Uday into full time worker and accordingly party no. 1 issued orders for conversion of Sri Uday into full timeworker under letter no. STE -22/STN - 33/2000/03 , dated 28-3-2005 and thus it was a case of hostile discrimination and violation of Articles- 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in order to terminate the services of the 71 workmen , ignoring the recommendations of the three members committee's report and direction of the Government, the party no. 1 invited tenders for cleaning, sweeping and other menial work and finalized the tender and they ( union) is along demanding that unless and until all the 71 workmen are regularized, no work should be given on contract to outside agency and the action of party no. I to give the works on contract basis shows that there are sufficient work to absorb the 71 workmen as full time workers and the 71 workmen are entitled for conversion for conversion to full time workers .
3. The party no . I in its written statement has pleaded inter- alia that the union has no legal right to represent the cause of the alleged part time workers , as there is no relationship of employer and employee between it and the said workers and the union can only represent the grievance of its members and none of the 71 workmen have been appointed by the selection process and in accordance with the procedure for selection Department of Telecommunication (BSNL at present ) and it a " State " within the meaning of article 12 of the Indian Constitution and is bound by the rules and procedure in the matter of employment and now, it is well settled that engagement or appointment of any person in breach of the rules or procedure is not legal and it does not vest any legal right in such person and a ban was imposed on engaging casual labourers by the then department of Telecom's letter No. 270-6/1984- STN dated 30-3-1985 and in view of the said ban, it was not open for any of the officers to engage casual labour and engagement of all such casual labour was illegal being without any authority and violation by the ban. It is further pleaded by party no . 1 that a scheme for regularisation of casual labourers called , " casual labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) " scheme was framed by the Department of Telecom vide circular No. 269-10/ 1989 - STN dated 7-11-1998 and as per the said scheme, casual labourers meeting the eligibility conditions/ criteria as mentioned below were to be granted temporary status and subsequently regularisation , by keeping the Recruitment Rules for the post of group ' D ' in abeyance and the conditions/criteria were :
(a) The casual labour should have rendered 240 days of service in a year (206 days in office following five days week pattern )
(b) The casual labour should be currently employed i.e. should have been in service on 7-11-89.
(c) The casual labour should have been engaged before 30-3-1985 .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7116
Itisalso pleaded by the party no . 1 that the grant of temporary status and regularisation was extended by the department ofTelecom vide letter no. 269-4/93 STN - II dated 17-12-1993 and casual labourers meeting the following eligibility conditions were to be granted temporary status and subsequent regularisation :
(a) The casual labour should have been engaged between 31-3-1985 to 22-6-1988 .
(b) The casual labour should be currently engaged i.e. be in engagement as on 17-12-1993 .
(c) The casual labour should have rendered 240 days of service in a year (206 days in office following five days week pattern)
and the scheme of grant of temporary status and regularisation was further extended by the department ofTelecom vide circular no . 269-4/ 93 - STN - II dated 12-2-1999 and for the same , the following eligibility conditions were stipulated:
(a) The casual labour should have been engaged as on 1-8-1998 .
(b) The casual labour should have rendered 240 daysof service (206 days in office following fivedays week) in a year.
AndDepartment of Telecom vide letter no . 269-13/ 99- STN - 11 dated 19-9-1999 and letter no . 269-13 /99 - STN - II dated 25-8-2000 issued orders for converting the part time casual labours to full time casual labours , who had been working for four hours and more than four hours and less than four hours respectively and under those orders , where there was shortage of group ' D ' staff, the casual labourers , who had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months were to be converted to full time based on suitability and in the event of no shortage in group ' D ' staff, the part time casual labourers were not to be converted into full time casual labourers and the entire exercise was to be worked out to the extent of the numbers indicated in the annexure to the above said letters and Department of Telecom issued letter no . 269-94/ 1998 - STN - 11 dated 29-9-2000 on the basis ofgrant of temporary status scheme of 1989 and as per these instructions , casual labourers , including those who have been granted temporary status are to be regularized w.e.f. 1-10-2000 , in the following orders , subject to their eligibility and availability of posts .
(i) All casual labourers who have been granted temporary status up to the issuance of order no . 269-4/93 STN - II dated 12-2-1999 and further vide letter no . 269-13 / 99 STN - II dated 12-2-1999 and further vide letter no . 269-13/99 STN- II dated 9-6-2000.
(ii) All full time casual labourers as indicated in the annexure to the letter dated 29-9-2000
(iii) All part time casual labourers who were working for four or more hours per day and converted to full time casual labourers vide letter no . 269-13 /99 - STN - II dated 25-8-2000.
(iv) All part time casual labourers who were working for less than four hours per day and converted into full time casual labourers vide letter 269-13/ 99 STN - II dated 25-8-2000 .
(v) All Ayas and Supervisors converted into full time casual workers as per order no . 269-10/ 97 - STN - II dated 29-9-2000 and BSNL was following the above mentioned rules in so far regularisation of casual labourers and conversion ofpart time casual labourers to full time casual labourers till 10-4-2006, but on 10-4-2006, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and others held that regularisation of casual labourers dehors the recruitment rules in unconstitutional and illegal and in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision and in the decision in the case of state ofUP Vs. Niraj Awasthi and other (2006 )( 1 ) SCC 667 , Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Ranjodh Singh and other decisions, the scheme for grant of temporary status and regularisation , 1989 of the Department of Telecom and all the above said related orders became legally untenable and were not being followed by BSNL .
The party no. 1 in their written statement has denied the claim that the workmen as per the list , annexure ' A' are working under them from the dates mentioned against their names and that they are in continuous and uninterrupted service . The further case of the party no . 1 is that circular dated 25-8-2000 was issued for conversion of part time casual employees to full time category and according to the said circular, the part time casual employees then existing andwere working for less than four hours per day and worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding 12 months were to be considered for conversion to full time category, subject to qualification and availability of vacancies indicated against respective circles and as the then existing part time casual workers either failed to fulfil the requisite conditions or due to non availability of vacancy, they could not be converted into full time casual workers and could not have been regularized and though circular dated 2-1-2001 was issued , the part time casual employees could not be converted to full time casual employee and further regularized for non - fulfillment of 7117
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
4. The union in the rejoinder has pleaded that the party no. I did not raise the point of locus standi of the union at the time of the conciliation before the Labour Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) and have raised the point in the written statement only to mislead the Tribunal and though party no . I have mentioned about various orders in the written statement, copies ofthe same have not been furnished and in absence ofthe documents , the statement cannot be accepted and though party no . 1 have pleaded that there was ban on engagement ofpart time casual labourers from 1984 , copy of such an order has not been annexed and such claim is factually not correct and the O.M. in question was issued to review the policy of recruitment of casual workers and persons on daily wages and it is clear from the said O.М. that there was no complete ban on recruitment of casual workers and party no. 1 have most probably misread the judgement ofHon'ble Apex Court in Uma Devi's case , as in paragraph 53 ofthe said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court have observed that , " That long years of service does create a right to regularisation " and as one time exception to their above judgement have directed the Union of India, State Governments and their instrumentalities to take steps to regularize the services of such irregularly appointed workmen, who have worked for ten years or more and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofU.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Puranchandra Pandey (All India Service land Journal) 2008 ( 1 )314 have directed that courts should not apply Uma Devi's case mechanically and Uma Devi's case does not apply to regularisation claimed as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The union has denied the pleadings made in the written statement .
5. The union in support of its claims has examined Shri A.K. Meshram , the Secretary of the union and the workman, Shri Dhanraj Shibuaji Raut as the two witnesses . The examination - in- chief of both the witnesses is on affidavit. The witness , Shri Meshram in his examination- in-chiefhas reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement ofclaim. In his cross-examination, Shri Meshram has stated that he had made the list of 113 part time employees and no appointment order has been filed in respect of the 71 workmen and except the list filed by him , there is no document to show as to where and for how many days the 71 workmen had worked and the list of 113 persons including the 71 workmen was prepared by him on the basis of the informations given by the persons named in the list and the list of 71 persons does not bear the signature of any of them , in support of the correctness of the informations given in the same and no document has been filed on record to show that any of the 71 petitioners had worked for 240 days in any calendar year and annexure -E filed by him does not show that the committee was constituted to consider the case of 113 persons , whose list had been filed by him and the 71 petitioners did not produce any appointment order before the committee and no requisite conditions and want of vacancies and the three members committee was formed for verification of casual labourers engaged by the field officers and the same was fact finding committee and no assurance was given by them regarding conversion or absorption and the said committee visited their different offices in Nagpur SSA and submitted the report dated 10-12-2003 to PGMT, Nagpur, about 88 part time casual workers and the said report was not supported with any document and in most ofthe cases, "no office record is available " , "No official Confirmation" and "No Confirmation from office incharge " etc. were mentioned and in absence of supporting documents and records, it was impossible to determine as to whether the said part time workers were fulfilling the requisite conditions and during the period ofthe alleged engagement in service, there was complete ban in employment even of the part time casual workers and during the period of ban, the engagement ofpart time casual worker by the concerned officer was without any legal authority and due to deficiencies in the report of the committee , the list could not be finalized and the CGMT, Maharashtra Circle directed the party no. 1 (A) to submit the report on the part time casual labourers and party no . 1 (A) forwarded the report regarding 72 part time casual labours the CGMT, Maharashtra Circle and the CMD, BSNL, New Delhi vide letter dated 3-10-2003 accorded approval for conversion/ regularisation of some the casual labourers/PTCLS pertaining to other SSAS and the CMD had sought further explanation from PGMT, Nagpur, which was duly replied vide letter dated 12-4-2004 and the Hon'ble High Court vide their final order dated 2-12-2003 in the writ petition no. 4586/2003 had directed to regularize the services of Shri U.G. Gautel as per existing norms and policy of the department on maturity of his turn and the union included the name of Shri Gautel in order to derive benefit for other part time casual labourers , who were not eligible for such benefit and the corporate office at New Delhi approved the conversion of Shri Gautel into full time casual labourer videletter dated 25-5-2005 . The further case ofparty no . 1 isthat most of the part time casual labourers left the job of their own accord and the workmen were engaged by the field officers illegally violating the ban order and they were engaged without following the rules and procedures for selection and appointment and there is also no supporting records in regard to their engagement , so they have no legal right either to be converted into full time casual labourers or regularization thereafter and due to the total ban on recruitment of labour as per their policy, the work has to be got done through private agency to maintain upkeepment of the buildings and to maintain hygienic conditions for the working employees and for that tender was floated by them and there was no discrimination against the workman and there was also no violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the workmen are not entitled for any relief.
7118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
document was submitted in accordance with annexure " B " to show that the 71 petitioners were eligible for consideration of their full time appointment and he cannot say if the 71 petitioners were not appointed or engaged by following the regular procedure of appointment .
6. The workman, Dhanraj Shibudji Raut in his examination - in - chief has stated about his working as a part time casual worker at Kalamna Telegraph Office , Nagpur since 26-07-1990 and that he was called by the telegraph office on 26-7-1990 and was directed to sweep thefloor, store the drinking water and to do all other menial work and he is performing duties daily for 4 to 5 hours and sometimes even up to eight hours and he is being paid his wages regularly on ACG 17 form . In his cross -examination , the workman has admitted that he has not filed any appointment letter showing his appointment in Telecom Department .
7. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the party no . 1. Party No. I have relied on the documents , Exits. M - 1 to M - VII .
8. In the written notes of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the 71 workmen are working from different dates ranging from 1987 to 2000 as mentioned against their names in annexure "A" and they are in continuous and uninterrupted service till date, but they are being assigned duty on part time daily 3 to 4 hours and sometimes up to 4 to 8 hours and the Governinent of India, Department of Telecom taking cognizance ofthe miserable plight ofthe part time labourers issued the circular dated 25-8-2000 to convert all part time casual labourers , who were working for less than four hours per day to full time casual labourers and circular dated 29-9-2000 to regularize the casual labourers , who were converted into full time casual labourers as per the circular dated 25-8-2000, but Party No. I did not take any action in the matter, so this issue was raisedby the Headquarter union with the CMD , BSNL, New Delhi on 22-01-2001 and itwas agreed to settle the left out cases in accordance with the order dated 29-9-2000 and the union submitted a list of 113 part time casual labourers to Party No. I and in view ofthe submission of such list , Party No. 1 constituted a three members committee for verification of the list for regularization of the part time casual labourers and the Secretary of the Union was a member of the said committee and the committee after verification , submitted its report on 10-12-2002 with recommendation for regularization of the 71 workmen and Party No. I submitted the status report to the authority, but the 71 workmen were not considered for conversion into full time worker, which was an act of hostile discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India .
It was further contended by the learned advocate for the union that the orders of the year 1985 , 1989, 1999
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
and 2000 , on which reliance has been placed by PartyNo. I have already become obsolete and have no bearing in the case and in the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi had made exception in the case of persons who were in service for 10 or more years and observed that their services should be regularized as one time exception and in the cross- examination of the witnesses , questions have been asked aboutappointment order and about working for 240 days in any year, but these informations have already been highlighted by the own authority of Party No. 1 in the letter No. HRD/E - 22 /court cases/30 dated 19-6-2003 of the Asstt . General Manager (Admn .) PGMT, Nagpur and Party No. I were aware of these short comings in their stand, hence they choose not to produce any witness on their behalf, otherwise all these questions would be got admitted again during their cross -examination and on the basis of documents , the union stands on sound footing and it is necessary to answer the reference in favour of the workmen. Reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the union on the decision reported in All India Services Law Journal IX 2006 ( 3 )-1 , (Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi) .
9. Per contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that though the union has relied on various documents in the statement of claim and has filed the same on record, the union has failed to prove those documents in accordance with law, hence those documents cannot be considered for deciding the reference, except annexures B and E and list of persons, about which reference has been made in the cross- examination and the persons for whom , the union is making the grievance are not employees of the Party No. 1 and therefore they cannot be said to be legal members of the union and as such , the reference at the behest of such persons through the union is not maintainable and from the cross-examination of the witness no . I examined to behalf of the union , it has been brought on record that no appointment order has been filed in respect of the 71 employees and except the list of the 71 employees , there is no document to show as to where and for how many days the said 71 petitioners had worked and the list of 113 persons including the 71 petitioners was prepared on the basisof the informations given by them and there is no document to show that any of the 71 petitioners had worked for 240 days in any calendar year and the union has failed to prove that the 71 petitioners are entitled for regularization in terms of annexure - B and therefore , the reference is required to be answered in negative . The learned advocate for the Party No. 1 in support of such contentions placed reliance on the decisions reported in ( 2009 ) II SCC - 342 ( State of Karnataka Vs. F.V. Chandrashekar) , ( 2007 ) 1 SCC - 408 ( Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman ) , ( 2009 ) 17 SCC -473 (Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Vs. T.V. Anadappa ) , [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
7119
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
(2002) 8 SCC-400 ( Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar) and(2006) 9 SCC-697 ( Krishna Bhagya Lal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd . Rafi ).
10. The first contentions raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. I is that as the documents filed by the union have not been proved in accordance with law, the same cannot be considered for deciding the reference . However, on perusal of the pleadings of Party No. I in the written statement , it is found that Party No. 1 have admitted the issuance of almost all the documents . The genuineness of the documents has not been denied in the written statement . Hence , there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 and there is no hindrance to consider the documents referred in the statement of claim and filed on record by the union for deciding the reference .
11. So far the maintainability of the reference at the behest of the petitioners through the union is concerned; itisfound from record that the industrial dispute was raised bythe union on behalf of the petitioners before the Labour Commissioner and the Party No. I did not raised any objection to the same . It is also found from the materials on record that the 71 petitioners are workmen. In view of the provision of Section 36(3 ) of the Act, the union is found to be competent to represent the workmen in this reference . Hence , the submission made by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 on this score fails .
12.Onperusal ofthe pleading ofthe parties, evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by them and all other materials on record , it is found that the entire claim ofthe union for regularization of the workmen is based on the circulars, annexures " B " and " C" filed along with the statement of claim . Annexure "B " is a circular issued by theGovernment of India, Department of Telecom services dated25-8-2000 for conversion of part time casual labourers working for less than 4 hours per day into full time casual labourers . It is to be mentioned here that in accordance withthe said circular, the part time casual employees then existingandwere working for less than four hours per day were to be converted to full time casual labourers subject to the conditions that they should have worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months and availability of vacancies indicated against respective circles . In the said circular, other conditions were also mentioned for such conversion and the conditions were that they should be engaged as casual labourers subject to suitability and. they should be engaged as casual labourers only where there is shortage ofgroup " D " staff [ i.e. existence ofvacant Gr. "D" posts after accounting for all temporary status mazdoors ( TSMS) and existing full time casual labourers and no posts should be created for this purpose ) and in the event there is no shortage in Gr. " D " at the station wherethe casual labourers are working, the part time casual labourers will not be converted into full time casual labourers.
3417 GI/12-7
Annexure " C " is the circular issued by the Department of Telecom Services , New Delhi dated 29-9-2000 regarding regularization of casual labourers including all the part time casual labourers who were working for less than four hours per day and , were converted into full time casual labourers vide letter No. 269-13/99-STN- 11 dated 25-8-2000 ( annexure-B ) .
It is necessary to mention here that in annexure D(a), which is the record ofdiscussions held on 2-1-2001 in the meeting with the three federations presided by the CMD. BSNL itwas decided to settle the claim of absorption of casual labourers of left out cases in accordance with the order annexure " C" . The subsequent actions taken by Party No. I regarding forming of the committee to verify the cases of casual labourers , submission of status reports etc. were also done on the basis of the circulars annexures "B" and " C" .
13. It is clear from annexures " B" , " C" and " D( a) " that for conversion of the 71 workmen , who were working as casual labourers in different establishments and offices ofPartyNo. 1 for less than four hours, as per the claim of the union, to prove that the said workmen were suitable for conversion to full time casual labourers , there were vacancies in the circles, where such workmen were working and there was shortage ofGroup " D" employees and most importantly, the workmen had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of issuance of annexure "B" i.e. 25-8-2000 . However, in the statement of claim such facts have not been mentioned . The two witnesses examined by union have also not whispered a single word about the same in their evidence .
The union has tried to show that annexure " F - i " ( the report ofthethree members committee submitted to PGMT dated 10-12-2002 ) , annexure " H" (the informations submitted by the Asstt. General Manager (Admn . ) , office of PGMT, Nagpur to the office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom , Maharashtra Circle , Mumbai dated 19-6-2003 ) and the tenders given by Party No. 1 for maintenance of housekeeping and hygienic condition are sufficient to prove that the workmen are entitled for conversion to full time casual workers and then for regularization.
It isnecessary to mention here that the informations submitted under annexure " H " by the Asstt. General Manager(Admn) is completely based on annexure " F- i " , the report submitted by the three members committee. So, it isto be found out if annexure " F- i " is sufficient to prove the facts as required under annexure "B" .
Onperusal of annexure , " F - I " , it is found that the said report does not have any information about any vacancy in group " D" posts in different units of Party No. 1 and that the workmen had completed 240 days of work in the preceding 12 months of 25-8-2000. In most of the cases, 7120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
thedates from which the workmen were working have not been mentioned . No document or even statement of any official witness are filed in support of the observations made by the committee . It is also found that in most of the cases, the informations given by the committee were not confirmed by the concerned authorities of the unit . Workmen as mentioned from serial Nos . 64 to 71 were engagedto contract basis for delivery of telegrams .
After scrutiny ofthe documents annexures "B" , " C" , " F - I " , " H " and the tenders , it is found that neither the union nor the workmen have been able to prove that the workmen are entitled for their conversion as full time casual workers and then for regularization . The documents regarding the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 4586/03 filed by Shri Gautel have not been filed by the parties , in absence of which, it is not possible to give any opinion as to whether there was any discrimination against the workmen as claimed . However, from the materials on record and the discussions made above, it is already held that the claim made by the union for regularization ofthe workmen is not sustainable . Hence, itisordered :
ORDER
The demand of the National Federation of Telecom Employees for grant of status of full time casual labour to 71 workmen , as per Annexure, by the management of PrincipalGeneral Manager, Telecom , BSNL , Nagpur, is illegal & unjustified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer ANNEXURE " A"
List of Casual Labourers
Dt . of
Sl . Unit Name
Whether
No.
appointment
No. of working wkg. as hours on date
To
From
(7)
(4)
(1) ( 2) (3)
(5) (6)
Yes 1. Nagpur Charote N. B. 15-5-1997 Till Less date than
4 hours
Till Less
Yes
than
2. Nagpur Masram Arti 1-2-1999 Keshav
date
4 hours
Yes 3. Nagpur Gajghate Smt . 4-5-1996 Till Less P.Y. date than
4hours
Yes 4.Nagpur Narad Smt . 20-9-2000 Till Less Malu M. date than
4 hours
Yes 5. Nagpur Aldban Smt. 15-9-1994 Till Less Kamal R. date than
4 hours
Yes 6. Nagpur Golait S.H. Apr. 93 Till Less date than 4 hours
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
(4)
(1) (2) (3)
(5) (6)
(7)
Yes 7. Nagpur Bashir Smt . Kusum Syed 12-6-1999 Till Less date than 4hours
8. Nagpur Paunikar J.S. 1995 Till Less date than Yes
4 hours
Yes
9. Nagpur Bhaisare Smt . 14-7-1998 Till Less Nallni D. date than
4hours
10. Nagpur Nitnaware Smt.27-5-1996 Till Vaishali G Less Yes date than 4hours
11.Nagpur Undirkar Sau . 1-4-1994 Nanda Till Less Yes date than 4 hours
12. Nagpur Nandeshwar 1995 Smt . F.Y. Yes
Till Less date than 4hours
13. Nagpur Kawale Smt . May, 1999 Till Less Baby G. Yes
date than 4 hours
14.Nagpur Bhawte Sau . 6-2-1995 Shanta Till Less Yes date than 4 hours
15. Nagpur Rajurkar Smt . 1997 Parwati K. Yes
Till Less date than 4 hours
16.Nagpur Kale Smt . Shashikala T. 1994 Yes
Till Less date than 4 hours
17.Nagpur Munjewar Smt . 21-4-1988 Till Manda M. date Less than 4 hours Yes
18.Nagpur Makrande Shekhar K. 1997 Yes
Till Less date than 4 hours
25-5-1998 Till Less
19. Nagpur Prajapati Raju R. Yes
date than 4 hours
20. Nagpur Batha Jitendra 27-5-1998 Till Less Yes Uttamlal date than 4hours
21. Nagpur Gajbhiye Smt. 7-8-1993 Nirmala M. Till Less date than 4 hours Yes
22. Nagpur Thul Smt . Kunda B. Apr. 1997 Till Less date than Yes 4 hours
23.Nagpur Maundekar Mar. 1997 Till Smt. Sunder date Less than 4 hours Yes
24.Nagpur Parmal Smt. 13-12-1994 Till Less Yes S.U. date than 4 hours
1-2-2000
25.Nagpur Borkar Yes Gunderao B.
Till Less date than 4 hours [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7121
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
(1 ) (2) (3)
(4)
(5) (6)
(7)
2-5-1997
Yes 26.Nagpur Raut . Smt.
Till date
Annapurna R.
Less than 4hours
Yes
18-8-1997 Till
27.Nagpur Chorewar Ν.Η.
Less date than 4hours
Yes 28.Nagpur Ambadare Smt . 19-2-1995
Μ.Μ.
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
Till
29.Nagpur Changole Smt . 1-6-1998
Shanta P.
date
Less than 4 hours
Yes 30. Nagpur Khadse Smt . 18-7-1997 Till
Indubai P.
Less date than 4hours
No
31. Nagpur Khobragade 18-7-1995
Jagdish G
Dis- con- tinued
No
32. Nagpur Chaure Motilal 1995
Indal.
Dis- con- tinued
17-3-1998
No 33.Nagpur Chavan Smt .
Ramabai T.
Dis- con- tinued
1998
Yes 34.Nagpur Khaka
Till date
Less than 4hours Parasnath Mangan
Yes
35.Nagpur
Sept. 1996
Smt . Panchabudhe
Till date
Less than 4hours
Ranjana
No
36. Nagpur Jamkar Ramu 1987 Manu .
Dis- con- tinued
3-7-1998
Yes 37. Nagpur Patil Suraj Govindrao
Till date
Less than 4hours
Yes
7-9-1999 Till
Nanda O. 38. Nagpur Khichar Smt .
date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
Jan. 1996
39. Nagpur Rane Sanjeev Sitaram
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
1-9-1993 Till
40. Nagpur Mahale Shobha G
Less date than
4 hours
Yes
Jun . 1999
41. Nagpur Moon Smt . Kusum S.
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
Sept. 1999 Till
Κ. 42.Nagpur Aole Manohar
date
Less than 4hours
Yes
July, 1998 Tilt
43.Nagpur Belekar Smt . Prabhawati .
Less than
date
4hours
1-4-1997 Till
Yes 44.Nagpur Raut Smt . Rasika A.
Less date than 4hours (1) (2)
(7) (3)
(4)
(5) (6)
No
Nov. 1995
45. Nagpur Kajale Smt . S.G
Dis- con- tinued
Yes
Apr. 1999
46.Nagpur Borkar
Narendra R.
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
Apr. 1999
47. Nagpur Dhupe Amit
P
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
1-10-1994
48. Nagpur Waghmare
Smt.
Till date
Shanta M.
Less than 4 hours
Yes
13-9-1989 Till
49. Nagpur Waghmare
Smt . Yashodha
G
Less date than 4hours
Yes
10-9-1993
50. Nagpur Dangoria
Satish S.
Till date
Less than 4hours
Yes
2-4-1994
51. Nagpur Wade Smt .
Sunanda P
Till date
Less than
4 hours
No
10-9-1993
52. Nagpur Ninoriya Ajay N.
Less than 4 hours
Dis- con- tinu- ed
10-9-1993
Yes
53.Nagpur Shendre V.P.
Till date
Less than 4hours
Yes
10-9-1993
54.Nagpur Mahato Smt . Sunita B.
Till date
Less than 4hours
Yes
1-6-1994
55.Nagpur Raut
Kamalabi S.
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
1-12-1993
56.Nagpur Khandpasode Sunita.
Till date
Less than 4hours
Yes
10-7-1993
57. Nagpur Jambhulkar Smt . K.M.
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
3-4-1991
58. Nagpur Nagpure Smt . Kusum R.
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
4-4-1991 Till date
59.Nagpur Wankhede Smt . Vijaya R.
Less than 4 hours
Yes
26-7-1990
60.Nagpur Raut .
Till date
Dhanbaji S.
Less than 4 hours
1-3-1991
Yes
61. Nagpur Nagpure D.M.
Till Less date than
4hours 7122
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
(7)
(5) (6)
Yes
1-5-1987 Till date
62.Nagpur Nagrare Smt. Manoram K.
Less than 4 hours
Yes S. 63. Nagpur Thul Deepak 3-4-1992 Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
7-12-1998
64. Nagpur Yadav Rajesh G
Till date
Less than 4hours
Yes
11-1-1999 Till date
65.Nagpur Meshram Rajhesh
Less than 4 hours
Yes
6-1-2000 Till date
66. Nagpur Nimgade Prashant
Less than 4 hours
Yes
28-5-1998
67. Nagpur Nehare Murlidhar
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
1-12-1998 Till date
S 68. Nagpur Lohia Gajendra
Less than 4hours
Yes 69.Nagpur Raut Prashant 13-7-1999
G
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes
27-5-1998
70.Nagpur Ladaskar R.B.
Till date
Less than 4 hours
Yes 71. Nagpur Meshram SureshA.
27-5-1998 Till date
Less than 4hours
नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2925. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पूर्व 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 10/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/207/2003- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]
रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 23rd August, 2012
S.O. 2925. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 10/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Lucknow, now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of N. Eastern Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-8-2012 .
[No. L-41012/207/2003 - IR ( B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Dr. Manju Nigam , Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 10/2004
Ref. No. L-41012/207/2003 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated:2-1-2004
BETWEEN
The Divisonal President , N. Eastern Railway Shramik Sangh , 96/196, Old Ganeshganj , Lucknow (U.P . )- 226001
(Espousing cause of Shri Ram Sewak )
AND
1. The Sr. Divl . Engineer ,
North Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow ( U.P. )- 226001
2. The Assistant Engineer , Sitapur
Sr. Section Engineer ( Railpath), Lakhimpur
AWARD
By Order No. L - 41012/207/ 2003 - IR ( B - I) dated 2-1-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the Divisional President , N. Eastern Railway Shramik Sangh , 96/196 , Old Ganeshganj , Lucknow and the Sr. Divl . Engineer, North Eastern Railway, DRM Office , Ashok Marg , Lucknow and the Assistant Engineer, Sitapur and Sr. Section Engineer (Railpath ), Lakhimpur for adjudication .
2. The reference under adjudication is:
" KYA PUROTTAR RAILWAY PRABANDHAN DWARA SHRI RAM SEWAK PUTRA SHRI DEENDAYAL PRAVAR GANGMAN , GRAAM KHADOSIA, POST BHALIA BUJURG, DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR KO JANUARY, 2000 SE VARISHTHATA KRAM MAIN VARIYATA ANUSAAR KEYMAN KE PAD PAR PADDONNAT NA KIYA JANA TATHA USE KANISHTH KARMKAARON KO KEY MAN KE PAD KA [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7123
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
PADDONNAΤΙ ΚΑΑΒΗ ANUMANYA KRAYA JANA UCHIT TATHA NAYYSANGAT HAI ? YADI NAHI TO KAAMGAAR KIS RAAHAT KO PANE KA ADHIKAARI HAI ? "
3. The case of the workman's union , in brief, is that the workman , Ram Sewak had been employed with the opposite party since 17-1-1973 ; but the management had denied him promotion ; whereas other workman , junior to him were promoted w.e.f. January, 2000 viz. Shri Shri Ram , Chote Lal , Bihari , Ram Prasad, Dulare and Gullu whose date ofemployment is 21-5-73 , 23-1-73 , 4-10-73 , 31-1-73 , 8-9-75 and 17-1-73 respectively. The workman's union has alleged that workman , being senior most out of all above mentioned workmen, should have been promoted to the postofKey Man at first ofall ; but the managementdeprived him of the said benefit; hence the action of the management being against the principles of natural justice is liable tobe quashed; and accordingly has prayed that the management be directed that the workman be given benefits of the post ofKey Man , treating him promoted w.e.f. January, 2000.
4.The management ofthe railway has filed its written statement, denying the claim of the workman's union ; wherein it has submitted that the workman while working as Gangman at Biswan , Sitapur was mutually transferred to Kheri at his own request vide order dated 12-2-98; wherein it was specifically mentioned that the workman shall be given seniority as per Rules . Accordingly, he was given seniority as Rule 312 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual , hence , on his joining at Kheri , all the workmen, claimed to be junior by the workman , became senior to the workman; and accordingly, they were given promotion , therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the management . Thus , the management of railways -has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected without any relief to the workman concerned.
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder; wherein it has not brought any new fact apart from reiterating the averments already made by it in its statement of claim.
6. The workman's union has field photocopy of certain documents in support of its claim vide list of documents dated NIL, Paper No. C- 17 , which includes photocopy of pay slips in respect of the workman and other workmen claimed to be junior by the workman . He has not filed any original document . On the contrary the management has filed photocopy of the order 12-2-08 regarding mutual transfer of the workman.
7.After completion of the pleading 11-10-2006 was fixed for filing evidence by the workman's union , which it did not file even after lapse of several dates then vide order dated 31-3-2007 it was presumed that the workman does not want to file any evidence and accordingly, the opposite partywas called upon to file its evidence on 31-3-2007. The workman moved application C-41 , to recall the ex - parte order dated 31-3-2007, which was allowed, giving opportunityto the workman to file its evidence on 28-6-2007 . The workman's union again failed to file any evidence ; and accordingly after passing of several dates ; opportunity to file workman's evidence was closed vide order dated 24-9-2008 and 15-12-2008 was fixed for management's evidence.
Theworkman'sunion again filed application C -44 to recall ex-parte order dated 24-9-2008 , which was rejected in default of non - persuasion and date for management's evdencewas fixed. The workman's union once again filled to recall application W-45 , which was allowed vide order dated 19-8-2009. Also , the workman's evidence was filed on the same date ; hence next date 9-10-2009 was fixed for cross-examination of the workman's witness . Neither authorized representative nor workman appeared on 9-10-2009 and 27-11-2009 for cross-examination, which led to ex-parte order against the workman and next date 24-12- 2010, was fixed for management's evidence .
The management also did not turn up on several dates to file its evidence; and accordingly, it was presumed tha the opposite party is not interested in filing evidence, hence the opportunity of evidence was closed vide order dated 21-11-2010 and next date 15-12-2010 was fixed for argument.
8. The case is being listed for arguments since 15-12-2000 and since then neither of the parties come forward to make their oral submissions. Accordingly, the file is reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the parties to contest their case and the fact that the case pertain to year 2004.
9. It was the case of the workman's union that the workman has been deprived of promotion ; whereas juniors tohim had been promoted by the management of the railway. The workman's union has filed photocopy of certain documents in support of his contention ; but has not proved them . It has filed its evidence but has not turned up for cross-examination .
10. Per contra, the management of the railway has disputed the claim of the workman's union and has submitted that since the workman had been transferred mutually on his own request, therefore, he become junior to the confirmed Gangmans at joining station ; and accordingly, the workmen who are being claimed to bejunior became senior to the workman and hence , they were promoted ignoring the workman . The management has filed photocopy of the transfer order in support of their case, though has not produced any witness in support thereto.
11. I have scanned entire , evidence on record . The workman's union has come forward with the case that the workman had not been given promotion ; whereas the juniors to him were promoted and accordingly, the management of the railways be directed to allow the 7124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
workmanbenefits , treating him promoted w.e.f. January, 2000 when juniors to him were promoted. For this , it was incumbent upon the workman's union to lead an evidence to the effect that he was actually senior to the workmen who have been promoted by the management through cogent evidence.
12. The workman's union though filed affidavit of the workman but has not turned up for cross - examination, which led to non-appreciation of his affidavit in evidence. Thus, there was no oral or documentary evidence to support the case to substantiate his pleadings that alleged injustice was done to him . Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was obligatory on the part of workman to come forward with the case that the alleged illegality was done to him, ignoring Rules ; but the workman failed to put forward any evidence in support of its claim , as it did not turn up for cross - examination.
13. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced by the party, invoking jurisdiction of the court , must fail . In the present case burden was on the workman's union to set out the grounds to challenge the validity of the attitude of the management ofrailways regarding not promoting him before hisjuniors . It was the case of the workman's union that the workman has been deprived of the fruits of the promotion to which he was entitled whereas the juniors to him were promoted by the railway administration . This claim has beendenied by the management ; therefore , it was for the workman's union to lead evidence to show that the alleged injustice was being done to the workman .
14. In 2008( 118) FLR 1164 M/s . Uptron Powertronics Employees ' Union , Ghaziabad through its Secretary Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II ), Ghaziabad and others , Hon'ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex Court in 1979 (39) FLR 70 ( SC ) Sanker Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. , 1979 (39 ) FLR 70 (SC ) V. K. Raj Industries Vs. Labour Court and Others , 1984 ( 49 ) FLR 38 Airtech Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and others and 1996 (74) FLR 2004 (Alld .) Meritech India Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others ; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:
" that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf oftheworkman the reference is bound to be answered by the Court against the workman . In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all . The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation . The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led . "
15. As per Rule 312 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual , stipulates the relevant provisions for ' Transfer on Request ' ; and the manner in which the
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
applicant's seniority will be allotted in cases . The said Rule is reproduced hereunder :
312. Transfer on Request - The seniority of Railway Servants transferred at their own request from on Railway to another should be allotted below that of the existing confirmed , temporary and officiating Railway Servants in the relevant Grade in the promotion Group in the new establishment irrespective of the date of confirmation or length of officiating or temporary service of the transferred railway servants.
Note : ( i ) This applies also to cases of transfer on request from on cadre/division to another cadre / division on the same railway.
(Rly. Bd. No. E(NG) 1-85 SR 6/14 of 21-1-1986)
Abare perusal of the above Rule clarifies the position that on transfer of the workman from Biswan, Sitapur to Kheri at his own request vide order dated 12-2-98 , he became junior to all confirmed employees of the grade at Kheri ; and the said position was clearly mentioned in the transfer order dated 12-2-98 .
16. In the present case the workman's union has not turned up to substantiate its case by way of oral evidence. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was obligatory on the part of workman's union to come forward with the case that the workman had not been promoted whereas other workmen junior to him had been promoted by the management ; but the workman's union failed to forward any substantive evidence in support of its claim , as it did not turn up for cross - examination before this Tribunal . There is no reliable material for recording findings that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the action of the management of the North Eastern Railway, in not promoting the workman , Ram Sewak w.e.f. January, 2000 was illegal and unjustified.
17. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the workman'sunion ; and as such , I come to the conclusion thatthe workman , Ram Sewak is not entitled to any of the relief claimed by him .
18. Award as above .
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2926.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पूर्व 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 109/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41011/8/2003- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7125 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012
2. The reference under adjudication is :
S.O. 2926.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 109/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, and their workman , whch was receivedby the Central Government on 24-8-2012 .
3 " KYA PRABANDHAN PUROTTAR RAILWAY LUCKNOW DWARA SHRI CHANDRA KISHORE PUTRA SWA . MADAN LAL , VALVEMAN VETANMAAN 2650-4000 KO 1986 SE LIPIK PAD KE PADDONNATI LAABH SE VANCHITRAKHNA EVAM 7 KANISHTHA KARMKAAR KO LIPIK KE PAD KA PADONNATI LAABH DIYA JAANA UCHIT TATHA VAIDHANIK HAI ? YADI NAHI TO SAMBANDHIT KARMKAAR KIS ANUTOSH KA ADHIKAARI HAI ? "
[No. L-41011 /8/2003 - IR(B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT:
Dr. Manju Nigam , Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 109/2003
Ref. No. L-41011 /8 /2003 - IR (B- I ) dated : 26-9-2003
BETWEEN
Member :
3. The case of the workman's union , in brief, is that the workman, Chandra Kishore had initially been employed w.e.f. 16-10-65 and later appointed permanently w.e.f. 25-11-71 on the post of Gang Man . It has been submitted that the work of Stores Clerk had been taken from the workman since 25-11-71 to 12-1-76 for which approval had been taken. It had been alleged that when the workman requested for giving benefits available to the post ofClerk in the year 1976 , he was removed from the office without any fault in July, 1976. It has been further alleged that the workman participated in the Trade Test for Clerk in the year 1986; and he succeeded also but he was not promoted by the management; whereas juniors to him were promoted bymaking alteration in the seniority list whereby the name of the workman was shifted from Serial No. 4 to 58 . Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that the action of the management in not promoting the workman since 1986 be declared invalid and he be deemed promoted since year 1986 with consequential benefits.
Central Working Committee, Eastern Railway Shramik Sangh , 96/196, Old Ganeshganj , Lucknow (U.P. )-226001 (Espousing cause of Shri Chandra Kishore)
AND
4. The management of the railway has filed its written statement, denying the claim of the workman's union; wherein it has submitted that the post of Valveman comes under category of Group ' D' post whereas that of a clerk comes under Group 'C ' category and for promotion from Group ' D' to Group ' C ' category a workman has to pass the prescribed test, and since the workman never passed the selection/test for promotion , he was not promoted from Valveman toClerk; and accordingly his claim is liable to be rejected without any claim to the workman's union.
The Divisional Railway Manager ( W) , Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg , Lucknow/ Asstt. Engineer, O/oAsstt . Engineer , Eastern Railway, Sitapur
AWARD
5. The workman's union has filed its rejoinder: wherein it has not brought any new fact apart from reiterating the averments already made by it in its statement of claim.
6. The workman's union has field photocopy of certain documents in support of its claim vide list of documents dated 25-4-2005 , paper No. C- 19 , which includes list of employees for selection from Class IV to Class III , Clerk Grade under 33 and 1 /3 % quota and list of employees found suitable for interview after written examination . The management has also filed documents in support of their stand.
By Order No. L -41011 / 8/2003 - IR ( B - I ) dated 26-9-2003 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between the Member, Central Working Committee, Eastern Railway Shramik Sangh , 96/196 , Old Ganeshganj , Lucknow and the Divisional Railway Manager (W), Eastern Railway, DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow/ Asstt. Engineer, O/ o Asstt . Engineer, Eastern Railway, Sitapur for adjudication.
7126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
7.Themanagement of the railways filed evidence of Shri R. Sahai , Asstt . Divisional Engineer on 19-12-2006 and subsequently that of Shri Rajeev Pachauri , Asstt . Divisional Engineer on 20-5-2009 ; but could not produce any its witness for cross - examination on several dates on one pretext or the other, and accordingly, the case was fixed for argument on 8-9-2011 . On subsequent date the management moved application, D-44 for permitting to produce its witness for cross -examination , which was allowed and 18-11-2011 was fixed for cross - examination of the management witness . The management witness , Shri Rajeev Pachauri was present on 18-11-2011 and 9-1-2012 but the workman did not avail the opportunity ; in as much as the workman as well as his authorized representative remained absent on 9-01-2012 ; and accordingly, the opportunity to cross -examine the management witness was closed and 29-2-2012 was fixed for argument .
8. The case is listing for arguments since 29-2-2012. and since then neither of the parties come forward to make . theiroral submissions .Accordingly, the file is reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of the parties to contest their case and the fact that the case pertain to year 2003.
9. It was the case of the workman's union that the workman has been deprived of fruits of promotion by making alterations in the seniority list; whereby the juniors to him had been promoted by the management of the railway. The workman's union has filed photocopy of certain documents in support of his contention.
10. Per contra, the management of the railway has disputed the claim of the workman's union and has submittedthat there is prescribed procedure for promotion from Group ' D' to Group ' C ' category and the post of Volveman comes under category of Group ' D ' post whereas that of a Clerk comes under Group ' C' category and for promotion from Group ' D' to Group ' C' category a workman has to pass the prescribed test, and since the workman never passed the selection/ test for promotion , he was not promoted from Valveman to Clerk. The management has filedphotocopy of certain documents in support of their case and has proved them through their witness ás per details given hereunder:
(i) Circular No. E/11/210/Minis/Eng. dated 24-2-1989 regarding selection under 33-1 /3% quota from Class IV category to Class III category of Clerk/ Time Keeper/Store Clerk (950-1500 ) , paper No. 28/4 and 28/5 .
(ii ) Circular dated 27-4-89 , notification regarding date, time and place etc. for the written test and interview with the list of candidates , paper No. 28/6 to 28/10 .
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
( iii) Notification No. E/ SS/Engg/Selection/Class III / 89 dated 26-5-1989 , list of successful candidates , paperNo. 28/11 and 28/12.
11. The workman's union has come forward with the case that the workman had not been given promotion by making alteration in the seniority list ; whereas the juniors tohim were promoted and accordingly; the management of the railways be directed to allow the workman benefits of the post of clerk since 1986.
12. The workman's union has examined the workman in supportport of their case who has stated on oath that he worked as stores clerk from 25-11-1971 to 12-1-1976 ; whereas he was paid for the salary of Gangman . He further stated that when he requested for benefits available to the post of clerk, he was separated from the work of clerk . He stated that he appeared in the trade test for the post of clerk in the year 1986 and got succeeded in the same; but wasdeprived of the benefits of promotion . He also stated that his name was at serial no . 4 in the list of persons who succeeded in the written examination and found eligible for interview. He further stated that the railway administration disturbed the said seniority list and altered hisseniority; whereby his name was replaced from serial No. 4 to 58 and accordingly, he was deprived of promotion whereas one Shri Jai Narayan who was at serial No. 27 was promoted from class IV to class III . In cross - examination he has stated that he appeared in written test in the year 1986, 1990 and 1992 and he succeeded in the year 1986 and 1992. He further stated that he did not give any written representation; but kept on requesting orally on which he was assured but was not promoted . He also stated that he neverworked in the store and that he came to know of the mistake in the seniority list in the year 1992 ; but he did not move any written representation for making correction in the seniority list . He stated that when he appeared for promotion test for the three times then he found no irregularity in it . He further stated that he is aware that for promotion from class IV to class III , interview is necessary. During cross -examination the workman could not answer as towhat was his age in the year 1956 or when did he pass theHigh School Examination .
13. In rebuttal , the management filed evidence of Shri Rajeev Pachauri , Asstt . Divisional Engineer who stated on oath that it is only after passing the prescribed written test/selection process , prescribed for promotion of a Group ' D' staffto Group ' C ' , an employee can be promoted from Group ' D' staff to Group ' C ' and since the workman never succeeded to be eligible for promotion as a clerk (Class III ) he was not promoted . He has annexed documents insupport of his statements . The workman's union did not turn up for cross- examination of the management witness .
14. The workman's union has come forward with the case that the workman though appeared in the trade test in the year 1986 , 1990 and 1992 and got succeeded in the year 7127 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
for the argument sake that the seniority list was defective thentheworkman must have come forward with his cause, inwriting, to facilitate the management in scrutinizing his claim and making necessary correction, if required. The failure of the workman is making repersentation may be presumed to be his acceptance to the seniority list and now he cannot agitate the veracity of the case at this point oftime.
18.Moreover, the workman himself has certified that genuineness of the selection procedures , adopted in the years 1986, 1990 and 1992, then there lefts no dispute regarding foul play on the part of the management of the railways.
1986 and 1992 but he was not promoted as the management of the railways altered his seniority from serial No. 4 to serial No. 58, which resulted into his non -promotion ; whereas thejuniors to him were promoted . He has relied on the notification dated 18-2-1992, paper No. 20/10 to 20/12; wherein his name finds reference at serial No. 4. He has also relied on the list dated Nil , paper No. 20/6 to 20/9; wherein his name finds reference at serial No. 58. The workman has claimed that above two lists are seniority list, the first one is with his name at serial No. 4 whereas the management after making alteration in the same has reflected his name at serial No. 58 in the second list, paper No. 20/6, to20/9, just todeprive the workman ofthe promotion . These lists are the sole basis of the contention of the workman that his seniority had been disturbed by the management, resulting into his non-promotion.
15. Per contra, the management of the railways has denied ofmaking any alteration and has submitted that the workman actually could not qualify the trade test which resulted into his non -promotion .
19. In view of the discussions , made above , I am of the considered opinion that for promotion from Ches IV to Class III, it was obligatory to the workman to go through the due selection procedure/trade test and the workman undergone the same; but due his failure to succeed the same,he could not be promoted from valveman , Class IV post to Clerk, Class III post . In the circumstance , the reference order is answered in positive , in favour of the management and I come to the conclusion that the action ofthe management ofthe North Eastern Railway, Lucknow indepriving the workman from the benefit ofthe promotion is not unjust and illegal ; and accordingly, the workman , Chandra Kishore , is not entitled for any relief.
20.Award as above .
Lucknow
6-8-2012
16. I have scanned entire evidence on record, documentary as well as oral , in the light of rival contentions ofthe parties . The sole contention ofthe workman regarding depriving him ofthe benefits of promotion is based on the alleged alteration of the seniority list. He has relied on the paper No. 20/6 to 20/12 in this regard . But on scrutinizing the paper No. 20/10 to 20/12 , it comes out that it is not a seniority list but is simply a notification , notifying the narres of the candidates who have qualified the written test and arefound eligible for interview. Further , the paper No. 20/6 to 20/9 , claimed to be the altered seniority list, is actually list of employees / candidates for selection from Class IV to Class III , Clerk and the same is not a seniority list .
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2012
Furthermore, the workman in his cross - examination has stated that he came to know of the mistake in the seniority list in the year 1992; but he did not move any written representation for making correction in the seniority list . He stated that when the appeared for promotion test for the three times then he found no irregularity in it . He has also stated that he is aware that for promotion from class IV to class III , interview is necessary.
का. आ. 2927.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीसीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/54/2008- आई आर ( सीएम-1 ) ] अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012
S.O. 2927. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/ 2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- 17. Thus, from the testimony ofthe workman himself it becomes apparent that there was no irregularity or infirmity with the selection procedure adopted by the management as the workman himself has certified the same . Further, whenthe workman first came to know ofthe mistake in the seniority list in the year 1992 then it was incumbent upon him to represent before the concerned authority for necessary correction as the main motto of notifying the seniority list is to make the employees know of their seniority and to call for objections , ifany. But the workman in his evidence has admitted that he never made anywritten representation to correct the mistake in the seniority list, which is fault on the part ofthe workman . Even if it is taken
3417 GI /12-8 7128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )]
Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management ofM /s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-2012.
Area Office Branch , PO- Kusunda, Dhanbad , Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld . Advocate for the management is present . It appears that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the union representative/workman never appeared to pursue the case on account of their disinterestedness .
[No. L-20012/54/2008 - IR (CM - I) ] AJEET KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
In view of the aforesaid facts , proceeding with the case for uncertainty is worthless and wastage of time . Therefore , the case is closed and accordingly an order of no industrial dispute existent is passed .
KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, DHANBAD
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
PRESENT :
Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute U/ s . 10( 1 ) (d) ofthe
I.D. Act , 1947
Reference No. 40 of 2008
PARTIES :
का. आ. 2928. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल एवियेशन कार्पोरेशन ऑफ इण्डिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकोंऔर उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 17/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd.
[सं. एल -11012/58/2009- आई आर ( सीएम-1 ) ] अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी APPEARANCES :
New Delhi , the 24th August , 2012 Onbehalf of the Workman : None
Onbehalf of the Employers : Mr. D. K. Verma,
Advocate
STATE : Jharkhand
INDUSTRY : Coal
Dhandbad, the 20th March , 2012
ORDER
S.O. 2928.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 17/2010) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of NACIL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-2012.
[No. L- 11012/58 /2009- IR (CM - I ) ] AJEET KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/54/ 2008 - IR ( CM - I ) , dated, the 1st July, 2008 .
SCHEDULE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 8th day ofApril , 2011 "Whether the action of the management of Sendra Bansjora Colliery under Sijua Area of M / s . BCCL in dismissing Sh . Lakhan Chauhan , SDL Operator from the services ofthe company w.e.f. 13-10-2007 is legal and justified ? ( ii ) To what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? " .
Industrial Dispute No. 17/2010
BETWEEN :
TheRegional Secretary,
AirCorporation Employees Union ,
Indian Airlines Limited,
... Petitioner
Hyderabad-500016
AND
2. None represented either workman or their sponsoring union . Perused the case record , I find that the case has been pending for filling Written Statement of the workman since 31-3-2011 , for which Registered notices dated31-1-2011,20-5-2011,27-9-2011 and 9-2-2012 and Show Cause notice dated 4-11-2011 were issued to their Union Representative on its address as noted the Reference . The Branch President, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Kusunda [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7129 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
1. The General Manager (Finance), Southern Region , NACIL , Airlines House, Meenambakkam , Chennai
अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 122/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2. The DGM ( Finance) ,
NACIL, Police Lines, Begumpet , Hyderabad - 500016
Respondents
[सं. एल-20012/541/2000- आई आर ( सी एम-1 ) ] अजीत कुमार , अनुभाग अधिकारी
APPEARANCES :
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012
Forthe Petitioner
: NIL
For the Respondent : M/s . K. Srinivasa Murthy, V. Umadevi & MV L Narsaiah , Advocates
AWARD
S.O. 2929. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 122/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 24-8-2012 .
[No. L-20012/541 /2000- IR ( CM - 1) ] AJEET KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 11012 / 58 /2009 - IR ( CM - 1 ) dated 30-3-2010 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 )( d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of NACIL and their workman. The reference is as under :
SCHEDULE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD
Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .
Reference No. 122 of 2001
"Whether the demand of Air Corporations Employees' Union from the Management ofNational Aviation Company of India Limited for promotion of Ms. M. Bhagyalaxmi , Accounts Superintendent as Accounts Superintendent ( SG ) grade 9 w.e.f. 1-11-2007 is justified and legal ? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "
PARTIES:
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 17/2010 and notices were issued to the parties .
Employer in relation to the management of Jeenagora Colliery of M/ s . BCCL and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf ofthe Workman : Mr. D. Mukherji , Ld . Advocate 2. Petitioner absent even after service of notice through register post . On 8-4-2011 both parties called absent . In absence of parties the reference is answered in negative . Accordingly a ' Nil ' Award is passed, Transmit .
Onbehalfofthe Employer
VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer
: Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld . Advocate Appendix ofevidence
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for for the Respondent
Dhanbad, the 11th April , 2012
NIL
NIL
AWARD
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/541 /2000 (CM- 1 ) dated 29-3-2001 .
NIL
SCHEDULE
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
"Whether the stand of the management of Jeenagora Colliery in not accepting the date of birth of Sri Kabindra Sharma as 24-9-1953 as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate isjustified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"
का.आ. 2929.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 7130
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
2. The case of the sponsoring union for the workman Kabindra Sharma in brief is that he was originally appointed as permanent workman on 20-10-1971 . At that time, his dateof birth (DOB ) was recorded as 24-9-1953 in the Form 'B' Register of earstwhile Employer in accordance with his matriculation and School Leaving Certificate which is acceptable as per JBCCI decision , accordingto which a last opportunity is to be afforded to all the employee of the CoalIndustry for rectification of date of birth and other entries in the records of the Management, if the statutory record not properly maintained . The age as recorded in Service Excerpt would be final if no objection raised , but in the case ofan objection to it , the workman concerned would be referred to theApex Medical Board for age determination . Though he accepted his date of birth as 24-9-1953 as recorded by signing it, the management returned the same (excerpt) by overwriting ' 3 ' as ' 0 ' , interpolating the entries ofhis date ofbirth as 1950 in his back illegally. His industrial disputeraisedby the Union before the A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad on its failure in reconciliation resulted in the reference for adjudication . The action of the management in not accepting his aforesaid birth date is unjustified. The union for the workman in its rejoinder has categorically denied the allegation of the management .
3. Adversely pleaded case of the management full of specific denial is that the present case filed over delay after 28 years is unmaintainable ; that the workman was working at Jeenagora Colliery and accordingly his date of birth as 24-9-1950 was recorded in the Form ' B ' Register , which is a statutory Register under the Mines Act and the dateofbirth recorded in the Register is final . The workman put his signature in the Form Register and accepted the entries made therein just as in his Service Excerpt in the year 1987, when any objection was invited from him , but he did not raise any objection to any entry made therein . As per the Matriculation Certificate he passed Matriculation in the year 1970, but he did not produce his aforesaid certificate at the time ofhis joining or later on before raising dispute. As the official record has no discrepency, the instruction for correction of his birth date is unapplicable to the present case . Categorically pleading of the management in its rejoinder is that the birth date of the workmanwas never recorded as 24-9-1953 .
FINDING WITH REASONING
4. In this case, WW I Kabindra Sharma , the workman for the Union and MW I Jagdish Rabidas , the Clerk of Jeenagora Colliery for the management have been examined .
The perusal of the material evidences as adduced in bahalf of both the parties manifests the admitted facts as such :
(ii) At the relevant time of his appointment , the said colliery used to be operated through custodian appointed by the Central Government. After nationalisation, he got his appointment at the said colliery, but the management did not issue him any letter of appointment .
(iii) The workman though passed matriculation in 1970, got his Matriculation Certificate in the year 1984-85 .
(iv) The workman also put his signatures on his Form 'B ' Register (Ext . M. 1 ) and his Service Excerptdt . 25-9-1987 (Ext . M. 2 and Ext . W. 2) both the same .
5. Mr. D. Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate for the Union/Workman submits that Tribunal cannot widen the scope of the enquiry beyond the terms of reference [ SCLJ- V-4 page 2307 , Delhi Cloth and Gen. Mills Co. Vs. their workman LLJ ( 1 ) 1967 page 423 ( SC) ] . Factually the Tribunal has to respond/adjudicate in the terms of the reference . Further it is to submit on his behalf that as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 , age determination is to be done at the time of appointment firstly on the basis of matriculation certificate , if available , in fact the said instruction indicates that in the case of appointee , who have passed matriculation or equivalent examination , the date of birth recorded in the certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same cannot be altered under any circumstance ' [ 2005 ( 3 ) JCJR ( SC ) 209 , Awadh Singh Vs. M/s B.C.C.L. ] . But in view of the aforesaid admission of the workman that he though passed Matriculation in 1970 yet got its certificate in 1984-85 , his evidence of submitting two representationsdt . 5-9-1994 and 19-10-1987- Extt. W.3 and 3/1 respectively in the lack of such pleading is inadmissible in eye of the law. His both Service Excerpts dt. 29-5-1987 ( Ext . M -2 and W-2 , the former a carbon copy ofthe letter original one respectively) bear his date ofbirth as 24-9-1950 after correcting figure 0 over 3 as per P.F. Record under the signatures of the Authority concerned and the workman on the first and back page of the Service Excerpt respectively as also proved by M.W. 1. His alleged representation dt . 19-10-87 ( Ext . W 2/1 ) in carbon copy bears sketches of a duck flower , a child etc. on its left side margin, so it is palpably not natural one except created one for his claim. The conduct of the workman adversely proves that he did not make his Matriculation Certificate available to the Management at the relevant time of nationalisation of the erstwhile colliery where he was already appointed by the former owner thereof, so admittedly the management was no required to issue afresh appointment because as per his P.F. record, the Form ' B ' Register ( Attested copy- Ext. M.1 ) bearing the passport size photo and signature of the workman evidently stand the acceptance of his date of birth as 24-9-1950 with his all specific particulars of (i) The workman appointed as Cap Lamp Fitter at Jeenagora Colliery on 22-10-1971 since factually he started to work .
7131
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
employment. The Form- B (Ext . M - 1 ), the statutory Register of the present Colliery Management has vividly any overwriting over the figure ' 3 ' as ' 0 ' of the year 1950 as contrasted with his Service Excerpts (in duplicate) (Ext . W 2=Ext. M-1 ),
6. Relying upon these rulings :
2007 ( 114) F. L. R 7555 ( DB ) Ramanand Tiwary Vs. IISCO 2008 (3 ) JLJR 3 , Digvijay Singh V. C. C. Ltd. , Relied on 2007 (3 ) JLJR 726, Kamta Pandey Case 2010 (1) JLJR 678 , Bhagwat Singh V.C. C. Ltd. ,
(All J.H.C. )
With reference to the 1. I. No. 76 of NCWA III and 2007 ( 115) FLR 890, Raj Raangi Rabidas Vs. Chairman
(CalH.C.)
Mr.Mukherji, Learned Counsel for the Union argued thataccording to I. I. No. 76 of the NCWA III , the date of birth as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is conclusive proof of age but no other records including service ones so the workman is entitled to it .
7. Whereas the contention of Mr. Verma, the Ld . Advocate for the Management is that the workman has clearly admitted his date of birth recorded in the Form - B Register as well as his service excerpts under his signature; though the C. S. O. (Certified Standing Order) prescribes for the application of the workman for correction of his date of birth within five years of his appointment, the workman applied for it after more than 20 years which is contrary tothe law.
8. On the consideration of the materials on the record, I find that though the workman passed his Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1970 prior to his appointment and got his Matriculation Certificate in 1984- 85, he began to reck up the controversy for correction of his date ofbirth much later, yet no justice was meted out to him by theManagement . The argument ofMr. D. Mukherji , the Ld . Advocate for the Union/workman as I am also of the news as held by the Hon'ble High Court Jharkhand, preponderates that of Mr. D. K. Verma, the Ld . Counsel for the Management . Since the Management Authority is bound by the Instruction No. 76 of NCWA III in respect of thedetermination ofage of the workman as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate bearing his date of birth as 24th Sept. , 1953, and to retreat his date of birth as correct for his service.
9. Under the circumstances , it is held that the stand oftheManagement of Jeenagora Colliery in not accepting the date ofbirth of workman Kabindra Sharma as 24-9-1953 as recorded his Matriculation Certificate is totally unjustified. Hence the workman is entitled to reinstatement in his service with back wages after correcting his date of birth as recorded in his Matriculation Certificate . The Management concerned is directed to implement the award with one month from the date of its receipt after its publication in the Gazette of India.
KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2930. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल एवियेशन कार्पोरेशन ऑफ इण्डिया 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 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या सी जी आई टी-2/27 का 2010 ) . को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -11012/ 13/2010- आई आर ( सी एम-1 ) ] अजीत कुमार, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012
S.O. 2930.-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/ 27 of2010 ) 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 NACIL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-2012 .
[No. L- 11012/ 13/2010- IR (CM- I ) ] AJEET KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT:
K. B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer. Reference No. CGIT- 2/27 of 2010
Employers in relation to the management of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. , (Air India Ltd.).
TheChairman and Managing Director, National Aviation Co. of India Ltd. (AirIndia Ltd. ) AirIndia Building Mumbai-400 021 .
AND
TheirWorkman .
Shri Deepak Prabhu H. No. 504, OmKrishna Co-op . Hsg . Society Ltd. , RiverPark Complex Rawalpada, Dahisar (East) Mumbai -400068 .
7132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012 /BHADRA 31 , 1934
APPEARANCES :
FortheEmployer : Mr. L. L. D'Souza , Representative.
Forthe Workmen : Adv. Ms. Gayatri Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhavana Mhatre , Also inperson.
Mumbai , date the 31st March , 2011 .
AWARD PART- II
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment by its Order No. L- 11012/ 13 /2010 - IR(CM - I ) , dated 25-3-2010 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 industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of National Aviation Company of India Ltd. , Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Deepak Prabhu , Sr.
Storekeeper w.e.f. 25-2-2000 is legal and justified ?
( ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"
2. After receipt of the Reference, both the parties were served with notices . In response to the notice, the Second Party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex . 9 According to him , he is in the service of the first party company since July, 1986. He was confirmed in the service in March , 1987. He was promoted in the year 1992 , to the postof Senior Storekeeper, after considering his good and unblemished service record .According to him , he was active member of Air India Employees Guild Union , recognised by First Party Company. In December 1996 the leadership of the Union was changed and new office bearers took over the charge .
3. According to him on 18-1-1996 the First Party Company issued a charge sheet against him making number offalse allegations . The charge sheet was vague , false and fabricated . It was issued in order to victimise him . The Second Party workman replied the charges sheet vide his letter dated 21-9-1996 . He denied all the charges and allegations levelled against him . The First Party Company has not accepted the explanation of Second Party workman and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him . They did not follow the enquiry procedure . One of the Officer Mr. Lakhra though has no concern with the enquiry proceedings started interfering in the enquiry proceedings .
4. The Second Party workman moved to Conciliation Officerunder theprovisions of I.D. Act . A settlement dated 17-1-1997 was signed by the parties . It was agreed that Mr. Lakhra and Mr. Kohli the Enquiry Officer would neither be theConveyor nor the Member of Enquiry Committee, in the enquiry against the workman . They issued second
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
charge sheet dated 20-1-1998 with four additional charges . Pending enquiry they illegally suspended the Second Party workmanw.e.f. 20-2-1998 . He replied the suspension order. Fourmonths thereafter the First Party issued third charge sheetdated 18-5-1998 . The Second Party workman replied the same vide his reply dated 16-6-1998 . They did not consider the replies and initiated the enquiry in respect of the charges in the charge sheet dated 18-1-1996 and dated 20-1-1998 . They simultaneously constituted two more Enquiry Committees . Both the enquiries were conducted parallel and simultaneously with a view to harass the workman. They closed the enquiries hurriedly and abruptly.
5. In respect of enquiry of the third charge sheet dated 18-5-1998 notice of hearing was not given to the Second Party workman or his defence representative . It was concluded hastily, ex - parte and without following the procedure . All the three enquiries were conducted without following due process of law. They are illegal and unfair . The First Party did not produce the documents asked for by the Second Party. They examined the witnesses other than the witnesses listed . They did not examine the relevant witnesses . The Enquiry Committee submitted its undated reports holding the Second Party workman guilty of the charges levelled against him . The Second Party workman submitted his final statement in defence . However, they did not consider his explanation and sent a showcause notice dated 10-12-1999 for the punishment . The Second Party workman replied the show cause notice . However , they did not consider the reply and illegally dismissed the Second Party from the services of the first party. The punishment is not as has been prescribed in clause 20 of the Certified Standing Orders .
6. They did not take into consideration the gravity and extent ofmisconduct while awarding the punishment . Instead of original order they served on him the xerox copy of the order so as to deprive him from availing remedy of appeal . The services of Second Party workman was abruptly terminated with immediate effect . The said order is illegal and void .
7. The approval application was filed before dismissal order. It was also not served upon the Second Party workman . Termination letter dated 7-7-2000 was served on the Second Party workman much latter. The approval application was not filed at the same time . They have not paid the suspension allowance as per the rules . The approval application is illegal .
8. As the services of Second Party workman was illegally terminated he raised industrial dispute vide his letter dated 10-9-2007 . The dispute has been closed by Conciliation Officer ex- parte . At the instance ofthe A. L. C. the Labour of Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal . The Second Party workınan prays that both the enquiries be declared unfair and illegal and also prays that findings of both the enquiries be declared perverse . He 7133 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
also prays to quash and set aside the order of dismissal dated 25-2-2000 and the order of termination dated 7-7-2000 . He also prays for direction to reinstate him in the service with full back wages and all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 7-7-2000 .
not be accepted and as to why appropriate punishment should not be imposed. The Competent Authority found, his reply was not satisfactory, thus they terminated the services of the Second Party workman . They have also filed an application for approval . They have followed the procedure and legally terminated the services ofthe Second Partyworkman. Therefore , they pray that the Reference be rejected.
13. The Second Party workman filed his Rejoinder at Ex . 12. He denied all the allegations in the W. S. He deniedall the charges levelled against him . In addition to it he also repeated the contents in the statement of claim .
14. In the light of rival pleadings ofthe parties , My Ld. Predecessor has framed the Issues at Ex. 13. He decided Issue No. 6 as a Preliminary Issue in the affirmative in respect of maintainability of the reference . My Ld . Predecessor also decided Issue Nos . 1 and 2 by his Part - I Award dated 20-9-2010 , wherein he held that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the findings of both the enquiries were found to be perverse .
9. The First Party company resisted the statement of claim vide its W. S. Ex . 11. According to them the Reference is not maintainable as the Second Party workman had withdrawn the earlier Reference CGri - 11 of 2005. The Second Party workman was neglecting the work and his output was very poor. He was in a habit of missing from the place of his work without prior approval of his superior and without proper justification . Intimation to that effect was given to him by letters dated 21-11-1995 and 27-11-1995 . He was also informed that he used to report his duty late and instead of 7.30 A.M. at 8.00 A.M. and on wards. His punching card often used to be found missing from its regular place . Once he was also found with Mr. K. Ravi dealing with business of Passport and on questioning by Dy. Store Manager Mr. C. Kujur he replied arrogantly that in tea time he was free to carry out any kind of private work.
15. In this Part - II Award, I recorded evidence of both the parties . Following Issue Nos . 3 to 5 are the remaining issuesfor my determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow :
Issues
Findings
Yes.
(3) Whether action of the management isjust and proper ?
No. 10. The Second Party workman was seen to have entered in the cabin of Dy. Manager, 747 Maintenance Stores and in his absence and made personal telephone calls from his cabin . On 20-2-1998 he reported his duty on 9.15 A.M. instead of 7.30 A.M. His time card was not available at the specified slot . He had kept his time card at an unauthorised place . He was nominated to attend Hindi Classfrom July, 1997 to November, 1997 on all working days. The Hindi Section reported that he was absent on 17 days intermittently. He also used to be found missing from the place of his work besides late reporting.
(4) Is second party entitled for reinstatement and back wages ?
(5) What order ?
Reference stands dismissed.
REASONS
11. He used to commit breach of rules . His behaviour during working hours was disorderly. He was habitual negligence or neglecting his work. Therefore he was called upon to submit his explanation . By way of explanation he denied all the charges . Competent Authority found his reply unsatisfactory. Therefore they decided to hold enquiry into the charges levelled against the Second Party workman . The Competent Authority constituted and reconstituted Enquiry Committees . The Enquiry Committees have commenced their proceedings on 22-5-1998 . The enquiries wereconcluded on 21-6-1999 in 33 sittings . Second Party defended by defence Counsel of his choice . Ten management witnesses were examined . The Enquiry Committee found the Second Party workman guilty of all the charges levelled against him except disorderly behaviour in the premises of establishment .
16. Issue Nos . 3 and 4 : Both these Issues are interlinked . Therefore , they are discussed and decided simultaneously. In part- 1 Award the enquiries were held unfair and unjust and finding were found to be perverse . Thus in this part - II Award I have recorded the evidence of both the parties to examine the charges levelled against the second party workman and this tribunal is supposed to find out the truth therein . The said points are before the Tribunal and the evidence is recorded thereon . I have to examine the charges levelled against the workman in the light of the evidence on record . This tribunal is also supposed to record finding as to whether the action of termination of the services of the workman is just, proper and adequate . That is the scope of this Award .
12. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report to the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority forwarded copy of report of Enquiry Committee with show cause notice to the Second Party workman and he was called upon to submit his say as to why the report should
17. In this respect I would like to refer all the three charge sheets categorically and in the light evidence on 7134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
record I would like to record the findings on each of the charges levelled against the Second Party workman . The first charge sheet dated 18-1-1996 is on record at Ex. 95. As per this charge sheet , following charges were levelled against the Second Party workman . They are :
(i) The workman was alleged to be often found missing from the place ofhis work without prior approval of superior and without proper justification and used to neglect his work and his output was very poor.
(ii) For the period 27-11-1995 to 15-12-1995 workman was reporting his duty often later than 8.00 a.m. at the place of his work instead of7.30 a.m. and his punching card was often found to be missing from its regular place and hewas also often found missing from the place ofhiswork .
(iii) On 8-12-1995 at about 9.15 a.m. he was found with Mr. K. Ravi dealing with business of Passport. WhenDy. Stores Manager Mr. Kujur asked about the same he replied arrogantly that in tea time he was free to do any private work. It is alleged that all these acts amount to misconducts .
18. The second charge- sheet (Ex-98 ) dt . 18-5-1998 , the charges were :
(i) On 16-2-1998 , in between 11.30 to 11.45 hrs the workman alleged to have unauthorisedly entered in the cabin of Dy. Manager, 747 Maintenance Stores in his absence and unauthorisedly made personal calls from his cabin. It is also alleged that he has taken away official rubber stamp of Dy. Manager which was lying on his table .
(ii) Late reporting of duty on 20-2-1998 . Instead of 7.30 a.m. he reported duty at 9.15 a.m. On verification oftime card rack, it is reported that his time card was not available at the specified slot and the same was not traceable . It is alleged that he was keeping the card at unauthorised location unknown to the time- office and the department.
(iii) The third charge is during the period July 1997 to November 1997, the second party workman was nominated to attend Hindi classes . However, it was reported from Hindi Section that he did not attend the classes on 17 days intermittently and remained absent unauthorisedly from the assigned place of work.
(iv) It was alleged that during the year 1997-98, the workman reported late to the Section though
[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii )]
the time card indicate that the same was punched at normal reporting time . Besides late reporting , he was also found missing from his placeofwork . The details thereof are given in the charge sheet at Ex - 98 . Ex - 97 is in respect of the charges levelled against the workman dated 18-1-1996. It is part of the first chargesheet .
19. I would like to verify these charges categorically inthe light of evidence on record . First party has examined as many as 8 witnesses to prove the charges . The first witnessMr. Girish Kadam has deposed at Ex . 36. He says on oath that he was working in Jet Stores since 31-8-1990 till the year 2000. He further says that the Second Party workman Mr. Prabhu also working in the same Jet Stores . He further says that he observed that Mr. Prabhu was doing his personal work during working hours . He further says that Mr. Prabhu did not concentrate on the work of the department as a result of which workload on him and on his colleagues was increased . He further says that requisitions handed over to him were never attended by him to time. He further says that workman Mr. Prabhu used to attend only 4 - 5 requisitions in a shift whereas the other co -workers and he himself used to attend about 35-40 requisitions on an average . He further says that whenever he used to receive telephone calls he used to leave the section sometimes without informing. Though this witness in his cross - examination admitted that Mr. Prabhu is not responsible for all that , however , these averments in his affidavit that he did not concentrate on the work of the department and was never attending the requisition in time . These averments in his affidavit are not specifically denied in his cross - examination . The averment in his affidavit is also not specifically denied that , the workman Mr. Prabhu used to attend only 4 -5 requisitions in a shift whereas the other co - workers and this witness himself used to attend about 35 40 requisitions . The version of this witness support the charge against the workman that he was negligent towards his duty and his work output was poor.
20. The next witness is Mr. Arvind Shivkar, Ex . 37. In hisaffidavit he says that , in the year 1996 he was working as a Store Supervisor in Jet Stores and second party workman Mr. Prabhu was working there as a Senior Storekeeper . He says that , he used to receive many complaints from his subordinates against Mr. Prabhu concerning his conduct and work in the section . He further says that Mr. Prabhu used to attend only two or three requisitions per day and most of the times he used to sit near telephone and used to attend several personal calls related to passport work . He further says that he (Mr. Prabhu) used to go missing from his place of work frequently for 1 to 2 hours . He used to refuse to attend the work of cold room items causing inconvenience and hardship to other employees in the Section as they were required to attend the said work . He further says that Mr.
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934 7135
Prabhu never used to attend group requisitions containing thereport Ex -61 & joint report Ex -62 and memo Ex -63 which
8 to 10 items in one requisition . indicates that inspite of direction of superior Mr. Prabhu
refused to work on counter. Ex-61 indicates that he was
21. He further says in his affidavit para 4 thereof
that he has personally warned Mr. Prabhu several times engaged in attending private telephone calls and causing
with regards to his aforesaid conduct in performing his disturbance the others . Ex- 62 support the version of thé
duties. However he says that inspite of that Mr. Prabhu did witness that Mr. Prabhu was late in attending his duties
not show any improvement . He further says that he and also used to be missing from the place of his work and
reported the aforesaid behaviour of Mr. Prabhu to the then used to attend phone calls on the counter . There are
Manager, Mr. Banerjee . The copies of his notes are on documents on record to support the version of this
witness . Further more there is also no reason to discard the
record at Ex - 6-1 and 62. Ex-61 is his report about private
calls and private talk of Mr. Prabhu on telephone causing version of this witness . He has no enemity or any other
disturbance to the Jet stores for day to day work . Whereas reason to depose against Mr. Prabhu . Therefore , the
Ex-62 is a joint report of 5 Assitant Store Managers version of this witness inspires confidence .
including Mr. Shivkar. Vide this reportdt . 18-12-1997 they 24. First party has examined MW-3 , Mr. Sidharth
jointly informed that, they found workman Mr. Prabhu
Banerjee . He was working as an officiating Assistant
reporting his duty late after 8.30 hrs . and not as per Controller , Stores and Purchase Department. He says in
schedule time. They also reported that he was found missing hisaffidavit Ex- 38 that the work and conduct of Mr. Prabhu
from the designated place ofwork. They have also reported wasnot satisfactory. He used to neglect his work and his
that while on duty he was found receiving phone calls output was very poor . Very often he was reported to be
from inside as well as outside inquiring about passport missing from his place of work without prior approval of
and he used to use the phone for his personal /passport
his superior. He further says that though his reporting time
related work causing obstruction . Counselling in this was7.30 am , he used to report at around 8.00 am . He further
respect was found fruitless . They also reported in this letter/
says that his superiors and colleagues have made several
report that the workman was also in a habit of threatening written complaints about his work and conduct . He used
his seniors and requested for suitable action .
to refuse the work allotted to him by his superiors . He says
22. This witness says that he has also issued memo that, he received complaint about Mr. Prabhu threatening
dated 27-7-1996 to second party workman ( hereinafter hissuperiors . He further says that he was involved in
referred as Mr. Prabhu ) . This memo was issued to passport related activities and was found indulging in
Mr. Prabhu as he refused to work on counter job as per the such activities during working hours . He further says that
letter oftheir Senior, Mr. S. Banerjee dated 20/21-6-1996. He due to him , work of the department was suffered . They
further says that Mr. R. J. Karbhari also had issued a letter were put to inconvenience and great hardship by the
to Mr. D. Y. Prabhu dated 7-7-96 as Mr. Prabhu refused to conduct of Mr. Prabhu . He has issued several letters and
work on counter. He further says that as Mr. Prabhu refused memos to Mr. Prabhu about his unsatisfactory work and
to work on counter , extra manpower had to be arranged to conduct . The copies of letters and memos are proved by
carry out the work at counter. He has also identified the him and they are collectively exhibited as Ex -64 . He has
signature on the letter issued by Mr. V. Kundhadia , the proved the letter Ex- 65 issued on 4-3-1996 to Mr. Prabhu
then Dy. Manager, Stores to Mr. Prabhu. He further says requesting him to do the counter work as assistance to
that as Mr. Prabhu refused to work at the counter, thus night shift duty officer . He further says that , Mr. Prabhu
they were required to arrange additional manpower and did not attend the said work and did not meet the Dy.
company was required to pay overtime for the same . It was StoresManager. Therefore he had drawn his attention to
suggested in his cross that as Mr. Prabhu was transferred hisnon co -operative attitude and counselled him about
to Master Index which is a different section , therefore he the same . He has proved the report dated 5-10-96 at Ex- 66
was not supposed to attend work of any other department . issued to Mr. Prabhu about refusal to go for short term
However this witness says that Master Index is a part of duty to Madras . According to him.
Maintenance Stores and it is in the same location. He has Mr. Prabhu accepted the letter Ex - 66 under protest and has
denied in his cross that, Master Index and Maintenance also endorsed his refusal thereon . He has also proved the
Store are different and they have separate staff and not memo/ letter Ex - 67 jointly issued by himself and by
concerned with each others . Mr. V. D. Makwana to Mr. Prabhu as he was not available at
the place of his work . He has also proved another memo
23. This witness has no reason either to harass Ex-68 issued to Mr. Prabhu for his frequent late reporting
Mr. Prabhu or to allot him more work . This witness has also the duty although cards were punched in time. He has
no reason to say that he received number of complaints proved another memo Ex -69 addressed to Mr. Prabhu for
from the sub - ordinate staff members about Mr. Prabhu that hisfrequent absence from the place of his work and for not
he used to avoid to attend requisitions and group reporting to work without intimation . He has proved two
requisitions . The version of this witness is supported by moreletters Ex - 70 & 71 issued to Mr. Prabhu in respect of
3417 GI /12-9
[PART II - SEC . 3( ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012 /BHADRA 31 , 1934
7136
allocation of work with endorsement of Mr. Prabhu for having received these letters under protest . He has proved another letter Ex- 72 issued by him to Mr. Prabhu for negligence in co - ordination in getting the spare parts . He has also proved the letter Ex- 73 issued by him to Mr. Prabhu for his unauthorised absence and for being found missing from the place of his work . Ex - 74 is for availing unapplied leave and found missing from the place of work . He has also issued memo/letter dated 7-11-1997 Ex- 75 to Mr. Prabhu for his unauthorised entries in the time card and for availing excess sick leave .
25. The evidence of this witness is not impeached or denied in his cross - examination . Therefore , evidence of this witness and the documents he has proved can safely be relied and accepted . This witness has admitted in his cross-examination at Ex - 38 that no personal threats were givento him . However it is also not his case that any threat was given to him personally. Furthermore I would like to point out that this witness is 63 years old , retired officer of Air India. He has no reason to implicate Mr. Prabhu falsely. Neither any such circumstance is brought on record nor any suggestion to that effect is put to this witness to show that he has reason to depose falsely against Mr. Prabhu . In short , the version of this witness and documents proved by him inspires confidence and can safely be relied upon .
26. MW-4 , Y. R. Rao is another witness examined by first party at Ex - 39 . He was the Manager of Stores Department . He says that , Mr. Prabhu was working under him in 747 Maintenance Stores . He says that , the work and conduct ofMr. Prabhu was not satisfactory. He frequently used to report his duties late . He was also found missing from the place of his work . He used to refuse to carry out the work allotted by his superiors . He used to make and attend several personal telephone calls and used to do passport work and connected documentation during office hours . He furthers says that on 16-2-1998 at about 11:30 hrs Dy . Manager , Kujur was not in his cabin when Mr. Prabhu entered in the cabin and was using telephone of Mr. Kujur. When he entered in the cabin, he heard conversation of Mr. Prabhu . He was talking about passport matter . Therefore he made report to his superior about the work and conduct of Mr. Prabhu . The said report is on record at Ex-76 . He has also proved joint report Ex - 77 signed by himself, Mr. S. D. Wadkar , Mr. P. D. Velankar , Mr. S. F. Pereira and Mr. V. D. Makwana . The four officers have jointly sent this report Ex - 77 to the Dy. G. M. Stores wherein they have mentioned that Mr. Prabhu was non co - operative and non -productive work wise . It is further mentioned that he was reporting at 8.30 mostly every day, instigating other staffs against the officers . He used to be frequently missing from the working place . They suspected him doing some documentation work . He often used to threaten superiors as " Dekh Loonga " . They have requested to take stern disciplinary action against him . Out of four officers , Mr. Pereira , Assistant Manager , Stores has signed this report on the point of frequently missing from the working place. He has not signed for the other misbehaviours of Mr. Prabhu . In fact it inspires confidence about the report . It indicates that they have not signed this report blindly. Mr. Pereira was not aware about the other complaints therefore he had signed only about the missing of work place.
27. This witness Mr. Rao has also sent another joint report to G.M. (Administration ) Stores and Purchase Department against Mr. Prabhu . It is at Ex - 78 . In this report, they have informed that , on that day Mr. Prabhu reported his duty at 09.40 hrs whereas his normal duty hours were 07.30 hrs to 16.55 hrs . They also reported that he was also found missing in between 10.30 hrs to 11.00 hrs and 11:05 hrs to 16:50 hrs and 16.25 hrs to 16.55 hrs on 7-1-1998 without prior permission from Assistant Duty Manager or Incharge of Section. This report was jointly signed by this witness and Mr. V. D. Makwana . This witness further says that one more joint report was sent by he himself and by Mr. Makwana to Sr. Manager , Stores in respect of refusal ofwork allotted to Mr. Prabhu . He refused to do the physical check of itemsby saying that it was not his job . The said report is on record at Ex - 79 . This witness has also proved relevant page of diversion register wherein he has made remark that on that day, Mr. Prabhu resumed at 8:45 hrs . He further says that , Mr. Prabhu made another remark and questioned him ' what is the purpose of making such remark ? It amounts to insubordination . Though this witness was cross - examined at length, much description of stores their functioning was asked to him , however these material allegations and the documents produced are not specifically denied in the cross -examination of this witness . It was suggested in his cross that he was never superior officer of Mr. Prabhu which he has denied. This witness is also a retired officer of Air India . He has retired some three years back and has no reason either to victimise Mr. Prabhu or to depose falsely against him . His version supports the charges of late attendance , missing from the workplace and charge of insubordination as he had refused to do the work given by the higher authority. His version also supports the charge of neglecting the duty during the duty hours .
28. MW- 5 , witness V. D. Makwana had deposed at Ex-40 . He was Manager of MM Stores Department , known as Material Management Department . He says in his evidence Ex - 40 that Mr. Prabhu was working under him . Hiswork was not satisfactory. He used to report frequently late at the place of work. He was found missing from the place of his work . He used to refuse to carry out the work allotted by his superior. He used to attend several personal telephone calls and used to do passport related work during office hours . He further says that he had personally seen staff coming at the counter where Mr. Prabhu was sitting and handing over money/documents /passports . He further 7137 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
says that he used to threaten his superiors including himself as " Main Tumhe Dekh Loonga" and used to threaten to kidnap his son and also used to threaten to throw him out ofthe train .
report is at Ex- 86 . These allegations and reports and notes arealso not denied specifically in the cross - examination of this witness . The version of this witness corroborates the charges of late attendance , missing from the workplace and threatening the superiors . There is no reason to discard the version of this witness .
29. He further says that he reported to his superior about the unsatisfactory work of Mr. Prabhu . He has supported the evidence of other witnesses who have proved joint reports Ex-62 , 67 , 77 to 79 & 82. They are about late reporting the duty, missing from the place of work , refusing the work allotted by his superiors and for threatening his superior officers including this witness himself. These reports are discussed above in the evidence of witnesses Shivkar and Rao .
33. MW-7 , Mr. Gajanan P. Bhosale ( Ex-48) and Mr. MW-8 , S. D. Wadkar ( Ex-49) have also corroborated the allegations and charges that the work of Mr. Prabhu was not satisfactory. He was reporting late to his duty. He used tobemissing from the place ofhis work . MW- 7 G. P. Bhosale has proved his notes Ex- 88 , 89 and the memo Ex- 90 and 91 issued to Mr. Prabhu . He has also proved the joint report Ex-87 signed by he himself and Mr. C. E. Nagvekar. Both weresuperior officers ofMr. Prabhu . Their allegations about late reporting, missing from workplace and refusal to work are not specifically denied in their respective cross- examinations at Ex -48 and 49. There is also no reason to discard the version of these witnesses .
30. Ex-83 is the report sent by this witness to Sr. Manager against Mr. Prabhu as he refused to do Inter Store Requipment by saying that it was not hisjob . This witness has proved the attendance sheet at Ex- 81 . His presence is marked against his name . Below it this witness has written the time of reporting as 08:30, 09.15 , 08.30, 08.05, 09.00, 09.15 , 09.15 . Though this witness was elaborately cross- examined and number of details and descriptions were put on record, there is no specific denial of the allegations of late attendance , missing from place of work, refusing to work as per the directions of the superior and threatening the superiors . Therefore , the allegations which are not specifically denied in cross can be said to have been proved. Furthermore , the ld representative of first party rightly pointed out that this witness is also 65 years retired officer of Air India . Neither he has any reason to depose falsely against Mr. Prabhu nor there is any such suggestion to this witness. Therefore version of this witness inspires confidence .
34. In respect of refusal to work as per the direction ofhigher officer , the workman has admitted in his cross at Ex- 57 para 40 thereof that his superiors has issued memo to him for refusal of work and he replied that immediately. He admitted that there were occasions when he used to demand memo in writing to do some work directed by the superior. He volunteers in the same para that , such occasions were when they used to give additional work other than his regular work . He admitted the memos issued to him and his endorsementsthereon at Ex -91 , 91/1 , 91/2 . His admissions in his cross support the version of first party and its witnesses that the second party workman was in a habit of refusing the work directed by his superiors . Thus I hold this charge is supported by the evidence of these witnesses and the documents produced by them that the second party workman used to refuse to do the work directed by hissuperiors .
31. MW- 6, Mr. Charles Kujur, the then Dy. Manager, Stores and Purchase Department has deposed at Ex -43 . He says that on 8-12-95 at about 9.15 hrs he found Mr. Prabhu sitting with Mr. Ravi , Technical Engineer with photocopy of passport and other documents pertaining to passport on his table. He immediately instructed Mr. Ravi and to Mr. Prabhu not to do passport related work in the office. Ravi apologised and informed that he had come to meet Mr. Prabhu for availing passport services . He further says that Mr. Prabhu replied in a very rude tone and manner. He further says that he warned him orally not to deal in passport business even in teatime or lunch break . He has made written report to the management about this incident. The said report is at Ex.-84.
32. He further says that , Mr. Prabhu used to report late, found missing from the work place and attend several personal telephone calls . He has proved the notes collectively exhibited at Ex -85 wherein he has mentioned dates, time of late reporting and missing of Mr. Prabhu from the place of work . He has also made a report about the arrogant talk and threat by Mr. Prabhu on phone. The said
35. In respect of missing from the place of his work, thiswitness has admitted in his cross at Ex - 57 para 42 that he used to leave the department frequently under pretext ofvisiting medical department or Personnel Department . Hisexplanation is that he used to obtain permission ofhis superior . All the above witnesses say on oath that Mr.Prabhu used to be missing from the place of his work . Some of them have also made detail reports thereof. He may have obtained permission once or twice from some officer. However majority of officers have deposed that he used to be missing from the place of his work for hours together. Their version is supported from the memos issued and from the reply given by the workman in his cross- examination . Furthermore , there is no specific denial ofthe allegations in the respective cross -examinations of these witnesses . Thus I hold this charge of often missing from the place of work is proved.
7138
[PART II- SEC. 3(ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
36. In this respect it was submitted on behalf of the second party workman that to prove late reporting to the duty, the first party management have not produced punching cards which are the relevant documents where time of attending the duty is reflected . In this respect the Id representative of first party rightly submitted that it has come in the evidence of the witnesses and in the reports referred above that punching card of Mr. Prabhu used to be missing from the slot of punching cards. He further pointed out that their charge is Mr. Prabhu was reporting late at the place of his duty. He may be getting his card punched in time. However he was reporting late to Maintenance Stores , 747 Stores or Jet Stores where he was working at the relevant time. In respect ofmissing from the workplace or late reporting , it is submitted on behalf ofthe second partyworkman that as per Certified Standing Orders , the management could have deducted his pay. However his pay was never deducted , therefore it is submitted that , itshows neither he was late nor missing from the place of hiswork. In this respect it was rightly pointed out that non deduction of pay does not amount to breach of Certified StandingOrders.
37. The Id representative of first party further submitted that , the officer used to report about late reporting and missing from place of work and were expecting improvement in the behaviour of the workman . Therefore they have not deducted pay of the workman. There is no reason to discard the version of the witnesses as some of them are retired from the service and have no reason to depose falsely. Thus I hold that this charge of late reporting the duty is also proved by the first party.
38. In respect of allegation of doing passport related work during the office hours , I would like to point out that the allegations to that effect are vague and based on mere suspicion and inference . The witnesses suspected that , Mr. Prabhu was dealing with passport related work as he was found discussing with Mr. Ravi regarding passport work . It is also alleged that he used to do personal calls and used to attend telephone calls and he used to be missing from the place of work therefore , these officers have drawn inference that he was doing passport related work during the office time . The version of the witness is based on suspicion and inference . Though there is no concrete evidence about doing of passport related business by the workman . However from the evidence on record and the version of these witnesses , it is clear that Mr. Prabhu was neglecting his work and his output was very poor.
39. The version of the second party workman does not stand to reasons that , the officers have victimised him as he was active member of union and he had objected to the illegal activities of the officers . No such circumstance is brought on record . It was suggested to these witnesses that Mr. Hegde is dealing with passport and visa business and was running a Travelling Company. However there is
ד no evidence about the same . Furthermore , all these officers have no reason to depose against Mr. Prabhu merely to support Mr. Hegde .
40.In respect of the charges it is submitted on behalf of second party workman that , the charges are vague therefore he cannot be punished for the same . In support ofhis argument the second party workman resorted to the Bombay High Court ruling in Griffon Laboratories V/s . Maharashtra Shramik Sena & Ors 2001 III CLR 655 wherein Hon'ble High Court set aside the punishment on the ground that charge levelled against the workman was vague . In that case allegation against the then workman was of assault . However, details , nature and particulars of assault were not given . In the circumstances , the Hon'ble Court while setting aside the inquiry and punishment observed ....... the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated because of vagueness of charge- sheet . " However in that case , name of the employee who was assaulted, details of nature of assault and particulars of time and place of incident were not given in the charge- sheet , therefore it was held that the charge - sheet was vague . In the case at hand , the charge- sheet is not vague . On the other hand , the details of charges levelled against the workmen were given , therefore , the ratio laid down in this ruling is not attracting to the set of facts of the present case . that"
41.On the point workman also referred another ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sundarlal Dhanraj Kasliwal V / s . Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sakhar Kharkhana 1994 11 CLR 1090 in that case also charge- sheet was vague . Thus the inquiry and punishment therein were quashed . However in the case at hand the charges are not vague . Thus ratio laid down in that ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the present case . The workman also referred another ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court S. N. Thampy V/s . Textiles Committee 2001 III CLR 667 wherein principles of natural justice were violated . The misconduct was not proved and punishment of dismissal was found disproportionate to the misconduct therefore Hon'ble High Court set aside the order of dismissal and petitioner therein was treated as under continuous suspension . In the case at hand , the facts are altogether different. The workman was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself and there was no violation of principles ofnatural justice . The first party has also led sufficient oral and documentary evidence about number of misconducts ofthe second party workman . Therefore ratio laid down in the above ruling is also not attracted to the set of facts of the case at hand .
42. It was submitted on behalf of second party workman that the order of dismissal is not as per the Certified Standing Orders . It is pointed out that as per the Certified Standing Order 20 (j ) the dismissal should be dismissal with or without retirement benefits in part or in full . In the case at hand, the punishment is of mere dismissal [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7139
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
from the service . There is no reference whether it is with or without retirement benefits in part or in full . Therefore it is submitted that the order of dismissal passed by competent authority is illegal and deserves to be set aside . In support ofhis argument , workman resorted to Apex Court ruling in Glaxo Laboratories ( I) Ltd. V/ s . Labour Court Meerut & Ors . 1984 I LLJ 16 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
"The contention that some other act of misconduct which would per se be an act of misconduct though not enumerate in the standing order can be still punished must be rejected . "
However in the case at hand , the second party workman was not punished for any other misconduct not enumerated inthe certified standing order as in the above referred case. Late attendance , negligence in performing duty by missing from the place of work or not attending Hindi classes as well as refusing to work as directed by the superior , all are punishable under Certified Standing Orders . The ratio laid down in the above ruling is not applicable to this case.
43.He also relied upon another Apex Court ruling in Sudhir Chandra Sarkar V/ s . Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors . 1984 III SCC 369 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that:
"As such certified standing order which statutorily prescribed conditions of service shall be deemed to be incorporated in the contract of employment of each employee with his employer."
Theratio laid down in this ruling is also not attracted to the set of facts of the case at hand as certified standing orders are verywell applicable to the workman as he is held guilty for the misconduct prescribed in certified standing orders .
44. In this respect, on behalf of second party workman , Bombay High Court ruling is resorted to in Sadhana Textiles Industries Pvt . Ltd. V/s . Gulabchand Gayadil & Ors 1993 II CLR 512 wherein in respect of the proper punishment as per the standing order, the Hon'ble Court observed that :
the punishment specified in the standing order would be proper punishment and the industrial court did not apply its mind to the relevant standing order and did not decide the quantum of punishment in the light thereof and as such the proceeding has to be remanded . "
In the case at hand , punishment of dismissal is prescribed in the certified standing order. However by mistake or by oversight the competent authority did not mention whether the dismissal was with or without retirement benefits in part or in full . Therefore it cannot be said that the order of punishment is in violation of certified standing order. Furthermore in case of any mistake in awarding the punishment by the competent authority this Tribunal can very well correct the same . For such minor mistake the punishment need not be set aside . In part - I of the award , it was held that the inquiry was not fair and proper. The findings thereof were also declared to be perverse . Therefore, the parties were allowed to lead their evidence afresh. In the aforesaid ruling it was a mistake of industrial tribunal therefore, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to remand the matter.Herethe Tribunal has not committed any mistake on the other hand Tribunal herein can correct the mistake if any committed by the competent authority. In the circumstances , the ratio laid down in the above ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the present case . While correcting the mistake , in awarding the punishment, I would like to invoke the term in the Certified Standing Order No. 20(j) and part thereof, favourable to the workman . Such as the Competent Authority has passed the order that workman is dismissed from service . Had the competent authority passed the order in consonance with Certified Standing Order 20 (j ) , looking into the gravity of charges , they would not have given any retirement benefit to the workman . In this backdrop , I think it proper to read the punishment as per the Certified Standing Order with retirement benefits in full . The order of punishment thus has to be read as follows :
"The workman is dismissed from the service of the first party with retirement benefits in full . "
It will suffice the purpose.pose. The punishment of dismissal is very well prescribed in Certified Standing Order 20 (j ) . Therefore , it cannot be said that the punishment is something else than prescribed in Certified Standing Order. The order of punishment is silent about the retirement benefits . Therefore, the order of dismissal can be read and interpreted in consonance with Certified Standing Orders and beneficial to the workman i.e. " with retirement benefits in full " . This the order of punishment cannot be called contrary to the certified standing orders as has been argued by the second party workman .
45.Another objection raised by the workman is the order was not communicated to him by the competent authority. Therefore it was argued that there was no proper serviceoforder ofdismissal . In this respect Id representative ofthe first party submitted that the termination or dismissal cannot be called bad as it was not served on him by the competent authority and served by some officer of other department. In support of his argument, Id representative ofthe first party resorted to Apex Court ruling Union of India & Ors . V/ s . Sumitra Devi and Ors wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that :
"Since the competent authority has passed the order of termination, its communication by any other authority will not make the order of termination bad." 7140
[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
In short , the argument on behalf of second party in this respect is found to be devoid of merit .
46. In the light of above discussions , i hold that following charges are proved against the second party workman Mr. Prabhu . They are ( i) Late reporting to his workplace, ( ii ) Missing from the place of work, ( iii) He was relieved from his duty to attend Hindi class from July 1997 to November 1997 , however on 17 occasions he did not attend Hindi classes . The second party workman is found guilty for all these charges . In addition to that there is also evidence on record which indicates that the workman used to refuse the work allotted to him by his superiors . There is also evidence on record as reflected from the version of the witnesses that workman used to threaten his superiors and had also refused to accept the transfer. In short he was rightly held guilty for the charges levelled against him .
47. Now I would like to examine whether the punishment is proportionate . In this respect , theId representative ofthe first party management submitted that , late attendance or missing from the place of work often, are sufficient to award punishment of dismissal . In support of his argument the Id representative resorted to Division Bench ruling of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Chandrakant Tatoba Kumbhar V/s . The Chairman , Agriculture Produce Market Committee & Ors wherein on the point of habit of attending the office as per the convenience of workman , the Hon'ble Court observed that:
" ...... the time has come that when it is necessary to observe some discipline and some norms of the bahaviour in the Government and semi Government offices. In our judgement the punishment of removal on the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be faulted with . "
48. The Id advocate also resorted to Apex Court ruling in M/s . Pearlite Liners Pvt . Ltd. V/s . Manorama Sirsi wherein Hon'ble Court in respect of non- compliance of the transfer order observed that;
" In case of such in -subordination , termination of service would be a possibility. Such a decision purely rest within the discretion of the management .
Inthe case at hand there are 3 charges proved against the workman. In addition to that , these is also evidence on record that he used to refuse to work directed by his superiors . There is also evidence that he had also refused to accept transfer. Often reporting workplace late , missing from the place ofwork and not attending Hindi class on 17 occasions for which he was relieved from duty. Each of these charges issufficient to dismiss the workman from the services .
49. In this respect the ld representative of the first party rightly submitted that, the workman under reference was serving in Air India . He was Sr. Storekeeper in the Spare Parts & other Stores of the company, where such a negligent behaviour may cause serious problems to the company as it is related to national and international aviation . Everyday company has to arrange several national and international flights . They have to maintain their schedule timings of all the flights . They are required to take timely and utmost care of their aircrafts and maintenance thereof. Therefore , they cannot afford any such negligence or delay in any of their departments . In the circumstances , Id representative of first party submitted that , such a workman can cause grave damage to the company and also to the public at large . Therefore, he rightly submitted that punishment of dismissal is adequate and proper. In this backdrop , I hold that punishment of termination is just , proper and adequate . Thus it needs no interference except the above mentioned change in the final order in consonance with the certified standing orders . Accordingly, 1 decide Issue No. 3 in the affirmative and issue No. 4 in the negative . Thus I pass the following order:
ORDER
The order of punishment is modified as follows:
The second party workman is dismissed from service w.e.f. 25-2-2000 with retirement benefits in full . With this modification in the order, the reference stands rejected with no order as to cost .
Date: 31-3-2011
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त , 2012
का. आ. 2931.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.डी.बी.आई. बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/2011) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12011 /22/2010- आई आर( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012
S.O. 2931. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/2011 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court- I , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of IDBI Bank Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-8-2012.
[No. L- 12011 /22/2010- IR ( B- I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 7141
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , MUMBAI
PRESENT :
Justice G. S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT- 1 /4 of 2011
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of IDBI Bank Ltd.
AND
Their Workman ( Pereira Piedade)
APPEARANCES :
For the Management
: Shri Joglekar, Adv.
For the Karmachari Sangh Shri S. T. Sahasra- budhe . Adv .
notification that the same remuneration and the same terms and conditions of service would be applicable to the amalgamated employees . However , the Bank issued an orderdt . 15-10-2009 whereby the second party workman came to be reverted to 1/3rd scale wages w.e.f. 16-10-2009 as payable to Class IV employees . Accordingly with effect from 16-10-2009 the second party workman is paid 1 /3rd wages.According to the statement of claim before issuing the orderdt . 15-10-2009 no notice was given under Section 9 - A of the Act and hence the order dt . 15-10-2009 is patently illegal . The second party workman has , therefore , prayed that the order dt . 15-10-2009 issued by the Bank be set aside and the Bank be directed to pay full time wages to the second party workman from 16-10-2009.
Maharashtra
STATE:
Mumbai , the 1st day of August, 2012
AWARD
1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub - section (1) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act). The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
"Whether the action of management of IDBI Bank Limited in reverting Shri Pereira Piedade , a full time Peon working at Madgaon Branch to part time Sweeper vide order dated 15-10-2009 arbitrarily is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled ? "
2. According to the statement of claim filed by General Secretary, IDBI , Karmachari Sangh , the second partyworkman Pereira Piedade was appointed as part time sub- staff by the United Western Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the U.W.B. ) at its Madgaon Branch w.e.f. 6-7-2000 . Later on due to requirement of staff he was elevated and taken on full time sub- staff vide office order dt. 12-5-2001 of Chief Manager ( Personnel and Administration ) ofthe U. W.B. The second party workman was thus working as full time sub -staff w.e.f. 15-5-2001 at theMadgaon Branch of the U. W.B. As per the notification dt.30-9-2006 issued by the Ministry of Finance , New Delhi the U.W.B. Came to be amalgamated with the Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) . It was specifically provided in Chapter V(3 ) ofthe 3.According to the written statement filed by the Bankdue to office exigencies the U.W.B. vide office order dt. 12-5-2001 utilised the services of the second party workman , a 1 /3rd scale wage sweeper posted at Madgaon , as peon as he was temporarily performing additional work ofa peon . He was compensated by grant of wages akin to thatof a peon. The aforementioned office order does not mention the word promotion which indicates that no promotion has ever taken place in respect of the second party workman . The so called promotion of the second party workman was purely temporary in nature effected due to office exigencies during the period from October 2001 to October 2009. The annual increment drawn by the second party workman was equal to the increment drawn by 1/3rd scale wage sweeper. The Bank , therefore , took a decision to place the second party workman at his original post and there was no need to give any notice under Section 9 -A ofthe Act . Thereafter the Bank by order dated 8-6-2011 has upgraded its 90 part time 1 / 3rd scale wage sweepers including the second party workman into one half scale and has increased the duty hours to 18 hours perweek w.e.f. 3-6-2011 . As such the second party workman isnot entitled to any relief.
4. The Karmachari Sangh has filed rejoinder wherein ithas reiterated its stand and has stated that the action of the Bank giving half pay of scale in place of 1 /3rd pay of scale appears to have been taken to cover the earlier arbitrary action of the Bank .
5. The Karmachari Sangh has filed affidavit of its General Secretary Shripad Gangadhar Bobde who has been cross- examined by learned counsel for the Bank and the Bank has filed affidavit of Satyavijay Bhal Chandra Rane, Dy. General Manager who has been cross - examined by learned counsel for the Karmachari Sangh .
6. Heard rival submissions .
7. It is clear from the averments made in the statement of claim as also in the written statement that the second partyworkman was appointed by the U.W.B. as part time sub - staff at its Madgaon Branch w.e.f. 6-7-2000 and 7142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
thereafter he was made full time sub - staff vide order dt. 12-5-2001 with full time wages . The amalgamation ofthe U.W.B. with the Bank became effective from 3-10-2006 as per the notification dt . 30-9-2006 . The second party workmanworked as full time sub - staff from 15-5-2001 upto 15-10-2009 and thereafter by orderdt . 15-10-2009 of the Bank he was reverted to the 1 /3rd scale wages w.e.f. 16-10-2009.
It is an admitted position that no notice was given to the second party workman under Section 9 - A of the Act before his reversion .
8. The order of the Bank dt . 15-10-2009 to revert the workman to 1 /3rd scale wages w.e.f. 16-10-2009 is not only arbitrary but it is also in clear violation of the provisions of Section 9 -A of the Act . Section 9 -A of the Act prohibits the employer to effect a change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman , and to reduce the wages of the workman to 1 /3rd is certainly a change in the conditions of service of the workman as per the Fourth schedule. The change in the conditions of service of the workman who is affected by such change cannot be brought about without following the procedure as contained in Section 9 -A of the Act . In this case no notice was given to the workman and thus no procedure was followed as laid down in Section 9-A of the Act.
9. Thus the order dt . 15-10-2009 reverting the workman to 1 /3rd scale wages w.e.f. 16-10-2009 is arbitrary, illegal and unjustified . The workman is entitled to full time wages w.e.f. 16-10-2009 as per the order dt . 12-5-2001 of the UWB .
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE G S. SARRAF , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2932.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई नं.1, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41012/24/2007- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August , 2012
S.O. 2932. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour
דיי
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
Court No. 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North Central Railway, and their workmen , which was received bythe Central Government on 24-8-2012 .
[No. L -41012/24/2007- IR (B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT NO . 1 , MUMBAI
PRESENT :
Justice G S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 1 /57 of 2007
PARTIES :
Employer in relation to the management of Central Railway Catering Services .
AND
Theirworkman(S. V. Dagle)
APPEARANCES :
For the Management : Smt . Pooja Kulkarni , Advocate State : Maharashtra
Mumbai , the 30th day of July, 2012
AWARD
1. This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Y. S. Divokar and sons , contractor for Central Railways , isjustified and legal in terminating Shri Suresh Vinayak Dagle , Cook an employee of Karjat Railway Station w.e.f. 7-11-2006 ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"
2. According to the statement of claim filed by the workman Suresh Vinayak Dagle , he joined the services of the Central Railway Catering Service as cook through the contractor Y. S. Divokar and Sons on 1-11-1976 at Karjat Railway Station . He continuously worked on the said post without any break in service though no appointment letter was issued . The contractor terminated his services w.e.f. 7-11-2006 without notice and without assigning any reason . No enquiry was held before terminating his services . His termination is , therefore, illegal and unjustified. According 7143
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]
to the statement of claim the workman had put in more than 240 days attendance in each year of his service but while terminating his services he was not given one month's notice or one month wage in lieu of such notice . He was not paid retrenchment compensation . At the time of his termination he was drawing monthly salary of Rs . 5,220 i.e. Rs . 174 per day. The action of Y. S. Divokar and Sons, contractor ofthe Central Railway Catering Service is illegal and against the principles of natural justice . He should be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service.
3. According to the written statement filed on behalf ofCentral Railway Suresh Dagle was neither appointed by Central Railway nor by any of its contractors . Y. S. Divokar was never a contractor and he was merely a licensee of Central Railway who was grantec license to occupy a small portion at Stations to run Tea Stall in consideration of license fee. Central Railway is not aware as to whether the workınan was employed by Divokar and Sons for any purpose and whether Divokar and Sons terminated the services of the workman . The Central Railway has prayed that reference be rejected.
4. The workman and the Central Railway have not adduced any evidence .
5. Heard Mrs. Pooja Kulkarni learned counsel for the Central Railway.
6. It is not the case of the workman that he was appointed by or was an employee of the Central Railway.
7. The case of the workman is that he was an employee of Y. S. Divokar and Sons and that his services wereterminated w.e.f. 7-11-2006 and Y. S. Divokar and Sons is a contractor of Central Railway. The workman has not led any evidence to prove and establish the above facts. Thus there is absolutely nothing on record to prove that Y. S. Divokar and Sons was contractor of the Central Railway and the workman was an employee of Y. S. Divokar and Sons and that his services were terminated from 7-11-2006.
relief. 8. The workman is , therefore , not entitled to any
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2933. 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 , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2012 )
3417 GI /12-10
को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/79/2011- आई आर ( बी- II. ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August , 2012
S.O. 2933.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBank of Baroda and their workman, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 16-8-2012.
[No. L- 12012/79/2011 - IR (B- II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Monday, the 13th August, 2012
PRESENT: A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 23/2012
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) ofSection 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), between the Management of Bank of Baroda and their workman )
BETWEEN
Sri J. Tamilselvam : 1st Party/Petitioner AND
The General Manager 2nd Party/Respondent
Bank ofBaroda , RegionalOffice 82, Bank Road , Coimbatore-641018
APPEARANCE :
For the 1st Party/ Petitioner : Defaulted to Appear
For the 2nd Party/Management : M/s . T. S. Gopalan and Co. Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government , Ministry of Labour and Employment vide its Order No. L- 12012 /79/2011 - IR (B- II ) dated 26-3-2012 dated referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .
7144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012 /BHADRA 31 , 1934
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Sri J. Tamilselvam w.e.f. 1-9-2004 is legal and justified ? Whatrelief the workman concerned is entitled to ? "
2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 23/2012 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their counsel and petitioner filed Claim Statement . No Counter Statement was filed by the Respondent . Thereafter when the matter stood posted from time to time for further steps and lately on today ( 13-8-2012) for enquiry, petitioner continued with his persistent absence . Nor was he represented too which was the consistent conduct.
3. Points for consideration are :
(1) " Whether the termination from service of Sri J. Tamilselvam w.e.f. 1-9-2004 is legal and justified ?"
(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?
Points ( i) and ( ii) :
4. The petitioner remained absent . He has not chosen to give any evidence or appear before this Court on due days to prove his claim . Needless to say it is upon the petitioner to substantiate his case that the punishment of termination inflicted on him by the Management is not legal and justified if it is actually so . When he wishes the Court to be satisfied and made believe that it is so for him to discharge that burden which has not been done. The inevitable conclusion is that the punishment of termination imposed on him is only legal and justified and he is not entitledto any order in his favour. Hence an award is passed for default ofthe petitioner.
5. The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13thAugust , 2012)
A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
: None Forthe 1st Party/Petitioner
None For the 2nd Party/ 1st Management :
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
On the Management's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
N/A
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2934.-औद्योगिक बिवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 274/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को2-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/272/1996- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August , 2012
S.O. 2934. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 274/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 2-8-2012.
[No. L- 12012/272/ 1996- IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX , DELHI
1. D. No. 274/2011
Shri I. M. Bakshi ,
......Workman S/ o . Late D. R. Bakshi , R/ o . H. No. 8/324 , Sector -3 , RajenderNagar, Sahibabad District , Ghaziabad U.P.
Versus
The General Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office , 43/28 , Naval Kishore Road , ' Sky Lark' , III Floor,
Lucknow.
......Management
AWARD
After discharge from military services , Shri I. Μ . Bakshi joined as clerk with Syndicate Bank (in short the 7145- भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
such debit entries and by inserting credit entries in the spaces so left blank without mentioning date . Bank had also alleged that he inserted forged credit entries in some of the accounts without being supported by any credit vouchers and allowed debits/withdrawals against the same . Itwas also alleged against him that he passed some cheques without debiting those in respective accounts as accounts did not have sufficient balance and thus extended undue pecuniary advantage to himself or third parties known to him and exposed the bank to financial loss . According to Shri Bakshi , those allegations were arbitrary, untenable and baseless .
4. Charge sheet dated 30-8-1993 was served upon him. He submitted his reply to the said charge sheet detailing therein that he had not committed any misconduct . He projected in his reply that certain procedural lapses might have occurred due to shortage of staff and his disturbed frame ofmind, with which he was suffering at the relevant time. He pointed out that the accounts got opened by him , were genuine and entire amount referred in the charge- sheets has been recovered . There was no case to allege that the bank has suffered any monetary loss .
bank) on 27-7-1972 . He remained posted at various branches ofthe bank and was lastly working as Special Assistant at AirForce Station Extension Counter, Ghaziabad . He got opened three Savings Bank account Nos . 9986, 9762 and 8185 in the names of his relatives and a Savings Bank account No. 7052 in his own name . He inserted fictitious credit entries in Savings Bank account Nos : 9388 and 9986 withoutbeing supported by creditstips and allowed debits/ withdrawals from the aforesaid accounts . He debited/ withdrew money from account Nos . 9986, 9762 and 8185 without sufficient balance in those accounts , by leaving line blank in ledger folio and credited the amount at a later date in the line, so left blank. He also passed cheques Nos . 614146 and 613198 drawn by Ms. Rama Bakshi for Rs . 15000.00 and Rs. 20000.00 respectively, without debiting the same in Savings Bank account No. 9320 , standing in the name of Shri S. Kumar and credited the aforesaid amounts to his Savings Bank account . He also made debit entries by way of debit slips without authorization from the account holders and corresponding credit entries were passed on to the accounts of his relatives . When above fraudulent acts came to light , he was suspended. Charge sheet was served upon him . Domestic enquiry was constituted. The Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment ofdismissal from service to Shri Bakshi, vide order dated 13-7-1994 . His appeal came to be dismissed. Ultimately, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L- 12012/272/96/ IR(B - II ), New Delhi dated 29-7-1997, with the following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing the services of Shri I. M. Bakshi with effect from 13-7-1994 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the said workman is entitled to ? "
5. Itwas projected by Shri Bakshi that when he joined Ghaziabad (Main) branch on 10-4-1985 , the Extension Counter had only 7000 accounts and there were total deposits of Rs . 60,000.00 in those accounts . Due to prompt service given to customers , his excellent customer relations, hard work and dedication could take total deposits to over Rs. 2.5 crore and number of accounts also increased to 11000. Projecting these facts, he claimed that proceedings may be dropped. However, the bank appointed Shri L. J. Prasad as Enquiry Officer. Even before the Enquiry Officer, headmitted procedural lapses on his part but denied having committed any fraud or major misconduct . In the enquiry, no evidence was produced to the effect that the accounts got opened by him were fictitious or fraudulent . No evidence was also brought to project that the Bank had suffered any loss. It was claimed by Shri Bakshi that on the other hand, there was evidence that the short fall , if any, had been made good by him .
2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Bakshi pleading therein that he rendered meritorious service with the Indian Army. He was awarded ' Raksha Medal 1965 ' , ' Sainya Sewa Medal' with Clasp ' Himalaya ' for his meritorious services . Hewas discharged from military services on 16-1-1970. Thereafter, he joined services with the bank as a clerk on 22-7-1972 against the quota reserved for ex - servicemen. He remained posted at Dhanora, Aligarh , Lucknow and Ghaziabad branches of the bank . Since 10-4-1980 , he was working as Special Assistant.
6. The claimant agitated that the bank issued notice dated 24-6-1994 with a pre -conceived notion . It was decided by the bank to dismiss him from its services . When bank had already made up its mind to dismiss him from service , the aforesaid show cause notice lost its relevance . Discarding his submissions made during personal hearing on 22-7-1994 , penalty ofdismissal was imposed on him . He wasdismissed from service vide order dated 13-7-1994. His appeal was also dismissed on 11-11-1994. According to him , penalty imposed by the bank was arbitrary , discriminatory and shockingly disproportionate to the acts ofhismisconduct . Punishment awarded to him is manifestly unfair, unjust and illegal. He claimsreinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .
3. Vide order dated 16-1-1993 , served upon him on 21-1-1993, he was suspended by the bank . It was alleged against him that while working as Special Assistant at Air Force Station Extension Counter, Ghaziabad, he opened Savings Bank accounts in the names of his relations . It was alleged that he manipulated certain transactions in those SB accounts by allowing debits/ withdrawals without sufficient balance , by way of leaving blank row in between 7146
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7. Bank resisted his claim pleading that from 15-4- 1985 to 6-11-1992, Shri Bakshi was posted as Special Assistant at Extension Counter, Air Force Station , Hindon, Ghaziabad. There he got opened three Savings Bank AccountNos . 9986, 9762 and 8185 in the names of his relatives and in all those accounts , address of 9/115 , Sector 3, Rajender Nagar, Ghaziabad was mentioned, which address was also mentioned in Savings Bank Account No. 7052, openedby the claimant in as own name. in above SB accounts , he debited/ withdrew money without sufficient balance in those accounts by leaving a line blank in ledger folio and credited the amounts at a later date in the line left blank earlier. He inserted fictitious entries in SB account Nos. 9388 and 9986 without being supported by credit slips and allowed debits /withdrawals of the same He made cebit entries in certain accounts by way of debit slips without authorization from the account holders and corresponding credit entries were passed on to the accounts of his relations .He passed cheque Nos . 614146 and 613198 drawn by Ms. Rama Bakshi for a sum of Rs . 15000.00 and Rs . 20000.00 respectively without debiting the above amounts inSB account No. 9320 standing in the name of Shri S. Kumar and credited those amounts in his own SB account . Signatures on authority letters , purported to have been givenby the account holder ofSB Nos . 9320 and 9986 , did not tally with the signatures lodged in the bank at the time of apening of those accounts and authority letters dated 1-1-1993 pertain to earlier transactions during the month of March'92 . When above irregularities/illegalities came to light , Shri Bakshi was suspended. Charge sheet was served upon him and his explanation was not found to be satisfactory. Enquiry Officer was appointed. During the course of enquiry, Shri Bakshi admitted the charges and pleaded his guilt . However, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and gave full opportunity to the claimant todefend himself. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. Notice of proposed punishment was served by the Disciplinary Authority, personal hearing was given and punishment of dismissal wasawarded to him, vide order dated 13-7-1994 .
8. Bank pleads that though the claimant repaid the amount and there was no financial loss , gravity of charges levelled against the claimant were serious in nature, which justified punishment of dismissal . Punishment awarded to him commensurate to the misconduct committed by him . The claimant admitted the charges levelled against him : ( a) in his reply to the charge sheet , ( b) at he time of commencement of the enquiry and (c ) after receipt of enquiry report . He pleaded his guilt vide order letter dated 21-4-1994 also . Therefore , the claim put-forth that the enquiry was arbitrary and uncalled for, has no legsto stand. Sufficient opportunities were given to the claimant to defined himself. Punishment awarded to him cannot be termed as shockingly disproportionate . Punishment was in consonance with his misconduct. He is not entitled to relief of reinstatement. The claim , being devoid of merits , may be dismissed , pleads the bank .
9. In the rejoinder , the claimant reiterates the facts pleaded by him in his claim statement .
10. On pleading ofthe parties , following issues were settled:
(i) Whether domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is fair and proper ?
(ii) As in terms of reference .
11. Vide order No. Z - 22019/ 6/2007 - IR ( C - II) , New Delhi dated 11-2-2008 , the case was transferred to Central Government Industrial No. 2, New Delhi , by the appropriate Government for adjudication . It was retransferred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government vide its order No. L- 12012/272 / 96- IR ( B - II ) dated 30-3-2011 for adjudication .
12. Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary issue . Claimant had examined himself on 8-2-2001 to establish that the enquiry was unjust and improper, Shri L. J. Prasad was examined by the bank to prove that the enquiry was fair and proper. No other witness was examined by either of the parties.
13. Shri Rajesh Mahindru , authorized representative ofthe bank, moved an application on 8-9-2011 for getting legal representatives of Shri Bakshi impleaded , since he expired on 11-8-2007 . Notice of the application was sent to the legal representatives of the deceased claimant . Shri Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate , who was representing the claimant during his life time , received the notice . Neither Shri Pandey nor legal representatives of the deceased claimant opted to appear before the Tribunal on any of the dates fixed for adjudication of the controversy.
14. Death of the claimant will not abate the proceedings , which are pending before this Tribunal . Sub- section ( 8 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 announces that no proceedings pending adjudication in relation to an industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of death of a party to the dispute being a workman and the Tribunal shall complete the proceedings and submit its award to the appropriate Government . Therefore , the Tribunal has to proceed with the adjudication process .
15. On consideration of facts testified by the claimant and Shri L.. J. Prasad , Manager, besides hearing the representative of the bank , preliminary issue was answered against the claimant and in favour of the bank, vide order dated 24-10-2011 .
16. Arguments on proportionality of punishment were heard at the bar. Shri Rajesh Mahindru , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the bank . None came forward to present facts on behalf of legal heirs of the deceased claimant . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]
7147
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
cautiously perused the records . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
IssueNo. 2:
17. Charge sheet dated 30-8-1993 projects gravamen ofmisconduct committed by Shri Bakshi . For convenience, contents ofthe charge sheet are detailed herein below:
"While you were working as special assistant at our Extension Counter Air Force Station , Hindon , Ghaziabad, you :
(a) debited/withdrew in/from certain SB accounts without sufficient balance by leaving a line in the ledger folio and remitted/credited the amounts at a later date in the lines which were left blank earlier.
(b) Inserted fictitious credit entries in certain accounts without being supported by any credit vouchers and allowed debits/ withdrawals against the same.
(c) Passed vouchers/ paid in cash without debiting in the respective accounts , as the accounts did not have sufficient balances .
(d) Made debit entries in certain accountsby way ofdebit slips (CG- 74) without any authorization from the account holder and corresponding credits of such debits were passed on to the account holders related to you.
Following circumstances appear against you on record in respect of the above transactions :
(a) that you got opened/caused to have got opened 3 SB accounts in the name of your relatives such as :
S.No.
Address SBA/ c No.
Name of the Party
1. 9986
9/151 , Sector 3 , Rajendra Nagar , Ghaziabad Mrs. Rama Bakshi Mrs.Rupali Bakshi & Mrs. Jyoti (jointly)
2. 9762
-Do- Mr. Amaranth Rai & Mrs. Sona Devi
-Do- 3. 8185 Mrs. Neelam Verma
Besides the above accounts , you also opened SB account No. 7052 in your name .
That you had debited/withdrawn in/from the above 3 accounts without sufficient balance in the accounts by leaving a line in the ledger folios and remitted/credited the amounts at a latter date in the lines which were left blank earlier. The particulars of the three accounts areasbelow:
In respect of SB Account No. 9986
on
Cheque No.
Mode ofDr/ Credited Transfer
Mode of Cr/Trs .
Date of Debit
Amount (Rs.)
15-03-91 Cash 13-01-91 606461 25,500 Cash
10,000 Cash
21-01-92 Cash 20-01-92 615300
30-01-92 Cash -1,000 Cash
24-01-92 612782
30-01-92 Cash 15,000 Cash
29-01-92 610488
08-02-92 Cash 13,000 Cash
31-01-92 610489
6,000 Cash
11-02-92 Cash 10-02-92 612784
12,000 Cash
21-02-92 Cash 11-02-92 612785
16-03-92 Cash 19,500 Cash
22-02-92 047215
10-03-92 Cash 9,000 Cash
24-02-92 613200
28-03-92 Cash 16,000 Cash
29-02-92 616156
07-04-92 Cash 10,000 Cash
03-04-92 616162
Cash
14-08-92 OCC 1,000
10-08-92 171544
14-06-91 OCC 08-06-91 0474 1,500 Cr. SB 7052
15-05-92 OCC 12-05-92 606468 3,000 Cash
(fakecredit)
10,000 Cash
23-05-92 613197
13-06-92 Tr . From SB 180
In respect of SB account No. 8185
22-10-91 Cash 10,000 Cash
21-10-91 0485617
04-01-92 LL - 8/92 03-01-92 0485618 2,400 Cash
20-08-92 SB 9986 11-08-92 0477988 14,000 Cash
7,500 Cash
22-01-92 Tr. SB- 04-01-92 611528
9986
05-01-92 Cash 13-07-92 OG - 74 10,000 Trs .
In respect of SB Account No. 9388
31-12-91 OG - 74 2,750 Tr.
03-01-92 OCC
(fakecredit)
13-04-92 Cash 31-03-92 OG - 74 10,500 Tr .
In respect of SB Account No. 2226
5,000 Tr.
28-04-92 OG - 74
18-06-92 Tr . From SB - 7052
(b) That in SB account No. 9388 and 9986, following irregularities /fraudulent actions were observed.
In respect of SB account No. 9388 , on 03-01-92, by showing a fake credit entry of Rs. 1,000.00 in the account without any support ofcredit voucher, debited/ got debited the same amount .
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 7148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
Again on 02-04-92 , a credit entry ofRs . 10,500 was inserted/got inserted in the same account without any credit voucher and debited Rs . 500 through a cheque no . 614161/01-04-1992 onthe same day.
In respect of account No. 9986 , on 10-04-92 , inserted/got inserted a credit entry of Rs . 10,000 without any actual supporting voucher and debited/got debited the same amount on the same day vide cheque no . 613199/10-04- 1992.
Also, it is alleged that the authority letters purported to have been given by the respective account holders of the SB account No. 9320, 9986 , the signatures thereondo not tallywith those lodged in the bank at the time ofopening their respective SB account and the authority letters were dated 01-01-93 but the alleged transactions were earlier to that, i.e. during the month of May, 1992. Fisrther, the cheque bookwith serial nos . 171526 to 171550 and 606461 to 606470 were issued to SB account no . 7052 in your name as per the bank records . Whereas , majority of these cheque leaves were utilized for withdrawing cash from SB account no . 9986 ofMrs. Rama Bakshi and family.
The cheque book serial nos . 611521 to 611530 was justissued without entering in cheque book issuing register and used for transactions in SB Account nos . 9986 and 8185.
(c) That on 16-04-92, a cheque no . 614146 drawn byMrs. Rama Bakshi for Rs . 15,000 was passed for payment without debiting SB account No. 9986. Also on 11-05-92 , a cheque no . 613198 for Rs. 20,000 was passed for payment without debiting the SB account No. 9986 on 11-05-92, a debit transfer slip ( OG - 74) was passed for Rs . 10,000 actually without debiting the SB account no . 9320 in the name of Mr. S. Kumar and the amount was credited to your SB account no . 7052 .
It isevident from the abov anat by resorting to the fraudulent actions of causing various fictitious debits and credits in your SB account and the SB account of your relatives as narrated above , you have derived undue pecuniary benefits to yourself or to a third party knowing to you and thus exposed the bank to financial loss .
(d) In the matter of unauthorized debits (transfer slip entries)
Date A/c . No. Dr.from Amount Credited Name Amount
The above actions on your part constitute a gross misconduct under the provisions of the Bi partite settlement ."
10,000
S-9762
10,000
SB 180 C. Jagdish
13-6-92
A. N Rani
1,500 SB-7052
1,500
8-6-91 9762
1. Μ . Bakshi
A. Ν. Rani
14,000
14,000 SB-7052
19-6-92 10070
I. M. Bakshi
Mrs. V. Shalini
1-8-92 6310
SB-9986
15,000
15,000
Rukesh Kumar
H. S. Saini
18. As projected above , Enquiry Officer was appointed by the bank. Claimant appeared before the Enquiry Officer and participated in the enquiry. Proceedings dated 24-2-1994 make it clear that the claimant admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer on the very first day and pleaded guilty. Facts unfolded by him before the Enquiry Officer are reproduced thus:
8185
22-1-92 9986 Rupesh 2.500 Kumar
Neelam 2,500 Verma
7052
2,750
31-12-91 9388 M. Mittal 2,750
IM Bakshi
10,000
10,000 7052
1. M. Bakshi
8-5-92 9320 Suresh Kumar
30,000
17-6-92 285
30,000 9986
Rama Bakshi
Ranjit Singh
30,000 9986
30,000
18-6-92 9320
" I stand by my explanation dated 20-9-1993 wherein I have admitted the charges levelled against me . Against the charge , I have no defence except to pray for mercy in view of my long service of eight years in the Army and I was given testimonials appreciating my services in the army. Copy of the same is submitted herewith , and 21 years in the bank there wasunblemished record all the while .
Rama Bakshi
Suresh Kumar
1,000
31-7-92 8185
Neelam Verma
Neelam 1,000 7052 Verma
27-8-92 9762 A. N. Rani 3,000 9986
Rama 3,000 Bakshi
10,000
10,000 9762
13-6-92 180
A. Ν. Rani
Jagdish Chander
Total 1,29,750
The alleged withdrawals were made by me in state of mental tension because of my pressing financial needs during construction of my house . I had withdrawn amount with a view to re- credit them when my loan application which was under consideration and was sanctioned. It was purely circumstances which made me a victim but not any bad intention. Accordingly, I have recredited the entire [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7149
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
amount. I wish to draw your kind attention to the fact that I had repaid the amounts before the investigation and before the bank took any action against me. Further, bank has not suffered any loss .
I have realized my mistake and I have categorically assured the bank that I will never repeat such mistakes . Due to my suspension for the past one year, I have suffered mentally, emotionally and financially and this has served as a severe punishment . Sir, I am a family man with two grown up children and my salary is my only source of income. I therefore , humbly request you to take a lenient view in my case . 1 , therefore , request you to take in consideration my long service and pardon me ."
19. The Enquiry Officer has submitted report dated 24-3-1994 wherein he found the claimant guilty of misconduct of ' doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. ' He concluded that Shri Bakshi had committed irregularities / illegalities detailed in the charge sheet and thus committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank, which is a misconduct under clause 19.5 (j ) ofthe Bi partite Settlement. In the light of these facts , it is to be considered as to what would be the quantum of punishment which ought to have been awarded to the deceased claimant . It is settled proposition of law that right of an employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is not unfettered . The punishment imposed must be commensurative with gravity of the misconduct, proved against the delinquent workman . Prior to enactment of section 11 - A of the Act, it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not commensurative with the act of misconduct . In other words , the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with the punishment as it was not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or too severe . Apex Court , in this connection , had, however, laid down in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Company [ 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 291 ] that where order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act ofthe misconduct which no reasonable employer would impose in like circumstances , that itself would lead to the inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge . But by enacting the provisions of section 11 - A of the Act, the Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer, in imposing punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is nowthe satisfaction ofthe industrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of misconduct, in cases of discharge or dismissal. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the order ofdischarge or dismissal is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case, it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment and direct reinstatement with back wages, but it has also the power to imposed certain conditions as it may deem fit and also to give relief to the workman , including award of lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal .
20. It is established law that imposing punishment
for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered withbythe Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment . But where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate , regard being had to the particular conduct and past record, or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstance , the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Labour [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 462 ] . Likewise in Management of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry [ 1971 ( II ) LLJ 630 ] the Apex Court ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be unwarranted . In Ram Kishan [ 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 982 ] the delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to the delinquent . It was ruled therein , " when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language . No straightjacket formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service . Each case has to be considered on its own facts . "
21. In B. M. Patil [ 1996 ( 11 ) LLJ 536 ) , Justice Mohan KumarofKarnatka High Court observed that in exercise of discretion, the disciplinary authority should not act like a robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and understanding. It was assess each case on its own merit and each set of fact should be decided with reference to the evidence recording the allegation , which should be basisofthe decision . The past conduct ofthe worker may be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the buswas dismissed from service for causing revenue loss of50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets . It was held that the punishment was too harsh and disproportionate to the act of misconduct.
7150
[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference cannot be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa [1995 ( 1 ) LLJ 960] .
22. After insertion of section 11 - A of the Act , the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with the Tribunal , who has to see whether punishment imposed by the employer is commensurative with the gravity of the act of misconduct . If it comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any other relief, including the award of lesser punishment , in lieu of discharge or dismissal , as the circumstance of the case may warrant. Reference can be made to a precedent in Sanatak Singh ( 1984 Lab. 1. C. 817). The discretion to award punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the decree of the guilt of the workman . Reference can be made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [ 1994 ( II ) LLJ 332 ] . Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now jurisdiction and power of substituting its own ineasure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom , once it is satisfied that the order of discharge of dismissal is not justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case . Section 11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the Industrial Tribunal , first is virtually the power of appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance, is the power of reappraisal of quanturn of punishment .
24. In the light of above legal propositions , it would be consideredwhether punishment awarded to the claimant doesnot commensurate to his misconduct ? For an answer , it has to be considered that the claimant made debit/ withdrawals without sufficient balance in various SB accounts . He passed cheques in cash without debiting the respective accounts . He inserted forged / fictitious credit entries in the accounts and debits were allowed against those entries . He made debit entries in certain accounts and amounts were withdrawn by means of OG - 74 without authorization from the parties concerned . He got opened three SB accounts in the names of his relatives , besides opening a SB account in his own name . He credited cheque Nos . 614146 and 613198 to his own account without debiting the amounts of those cheques in SB account No. 9320, standing in the name of Shri S. Kumar. The authority letter purported to be given by Shri Sarvesh Kumar contains signatures which do not tally with his specimen signatures appearing on the account opening form . He utilized cheques from serial Nos . 611521 to 611530 , though there was no entry in the cheque book issue register regarding issuance of those cheques and thus derived pecuniary benefit for himself. Thus , it is evident that the claimant committed serious acts of fraud and derived pecuniary benefits for himself. Though the amount defrauded was made good by him subsequently, yet that fact would not absolve him from accountability. Fraud or cheating is a very serious misconduct . One who commits fraud is also liable for penal consequences. By commission of fraud . an employee of the bank not only dupe his employer but the customers also . He tarnishes the image of the bank in the eyes of the general public . Such an employee makes his employer to lose faith in him . Therefore , misconduct of fraud is to be dealtwith a stern hand . Taking into account all these aspect, I am ofthe considered opinion that punishment of dismissal from service is justified. No circumstances are there over record to announce that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate or mala fide or exercise of unfair labour practice . I do not consider it to be case for indulgence by thisTribunal . In view of these reasons , punishment awarded to the deceased claimant is found to be justified. His claim isliable to be dismissed . Accordingly the claim put forward by the deceased claimant is brúshed aside. An award is . passed in favour of the bank and against the claimant . It be sent to the appropriate government for publication .
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated: 24-07-2012
23. Power to set aside order ofdischarge or dismissal and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is not untramaled power. This power has to be exercised only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissalwas not justified. This satisfaction ofthe Tribunal isobjective satisfaction and not subjective one . It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to various circumstances like nature of delinquency omitted by the workman, his past conduct , impact of delinquency on employer's business , besides length of service rendered by him. Furthermore , the Tribunal has to consider whether thedecisiontaken by the employer is just or not . Only after taking into consideration these aspects , the Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed by the employer . The quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without recording specific findings on points referred above . No indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of grave misconduct like cheating , fraud, misappropriation of [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
7151
नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त , 2012
का.आ. 2935.-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-1, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 101/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को7-8-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
records , such as withdrawal slip and relevant pages ofthe payment scroll . In the same manner , on 28-6-90, he fraudulently managed to obtain payment of Rs. 10,000.00 by writing withdrawal slip for that amount drawn on SB Account No. 6979 in the name of Shri K. K. Sehgal by forging his signatures and passing it for cash payment. Witha view to remove evidence , he destoryed all relevant records , viz . withdrawal slip and pages of payment scroll . Hedeleted/struck off relevant entries in supplementary book after cash book was written .
[सं. एल-12012/244/1999- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]
शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012
S.O. 2935.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 101/ 2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-1 , New Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Bank of Baroda.and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-8-2012 .
2. Show cause notice was served on the Special Assistant. When his reply was found to be unsatisfactory, charge sheet dated 4-8-1992 was served upon him . Domestic enquiry was conducted . He participated in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer recorded his report, wherein he held the charges stood proved . Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of dismissal to the said Special Assistant, vide his order dated 25-9-1997. His appeal came tobe dismissed. He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . As the conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide Order No. L- 12012/244/99- IR ( B - II ) , New Delhi dated 21-1-2000 with the following terms :
[No. L- 12012/244/ 1999- IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in ordering dismissal of services of Shri R. L. Kapoor, Special Assistant, vide order dated 25-9-1997 is just and legal ? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled ? "
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I. D. No. 101/2011
Shri R. L. Kapoor,
Claiment
H. No. 3D/44 , Β.Ρ. , 1st Floor , NIT, Faridabad , Haryana
Versus
Bank of Baroda , Zonal Office,
The General Manager, Parliament Street ,
New Delhi - 110001
Management
AWARD
3. The Special Assistant, namely R. L. Kapoor filed hisclaim statement , pleading therein that he was posted at Nehru Ground Branch , Faridabad , Bank of Baroda, in the year 1989-90. Show cause notice dated 13-7-1991 was served upon him , wherein it was alleged that he fraudulently managed to obtain payment of Rs . 20,000.00 on 18-11-1989 by writing withdrawal slip of the said amounts drawn on SBAccount No. 9864, by forging signature of the account holder and passing the same for cash payment . It was also alleged that on 28-6-1990 , he fraudulently obtained payment ofRs . 10,000.00 by preparing withdrawal slip ofthat amount, drawn on SB Account No. 6979 , by forging signature of the account holder and passing the said voucher for payment . It was also alleged that he had destroyed the relevant records like withdrawal slips , payment scrolls and deleted relevant entry in the subsidiary book after cash book was written . He , vide his reply dated 7-8-1991 , denied all the allegations. Charge sheet dated 4-8-1992 was served upon him . No opportunity was given to him to reply the charge sheet and in a hurry, the bank appointed Enquiry Officer on 4-8-1992 itself. Alongwith the charge sheet, relevant documents were not supplied to him . His demand for supply of documents was declined terming the documents demanded as irrelevant . Enquiry Officer failed to follow principles of natural justice . Despite his repeated A Special Assistant, posted at Nehru Ground Branch, Faridabad, Bank of Baroda ( in short the bank) , fraudulently managed to obtain payment of Rs . 20,000.00 on 18-11-1989 by preparing withdrawal slip for the said amount drawn on SB Account No. 9864 in the name of Shri S. C. Gandhi by forging signatures of the account holder, passing it for cash payment and entering payment of the aforesaid amount in payment scroll . Thereafter, with a view to remove evidence against him , he managed to destroy all relevant 3417 GI/12-11 [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7152
there is the dispute . Hence it cannot be referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication . It has also been agitated that since the claimant has been convicted and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs . 2,000.00 by the local magistrate, in thatsituation, award , if any, which can be passed in favour ofthe claimant would not be enforceable in the eyes of law.
demands , witnesses , namely, Shir A. K. Suri , Shri Mani Ram , Shri R. A. Shastri and the Investigating Officer , who conducted the preliminary enquiry, were not examined . The bankdeliberately produced Shri I. R. Goel, as witness , who had no knowledge ofthe facts . Vouchers dated 18-11-1989 and28-6-1990, pertaining to SB Account No. 9864 and 6979 repectively, were not produced . Shri S. C. Gandhi and Shri K. K. Sehgal were also not produced before the Enquiry Officer. It was so done with a motive to exonerate Shri P. C. Aggarwal , Head Cashier, Shri Mani Ram, Daftary and Shri A. K. Suri , Manager of that branch from the misconduct committedbythem.
4.Claimant projects that he was framed by the bank in a criminal case punishable under Section 420 , 468 and 471 of the Penal Code , which case was based on the same facts. He requested the Enquiry Officer that the case was of grave nature and involves complicated questions of facts and law, hence it was not advisable to proceed with the enquirytill adjudication ofthe criminal case. However, in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and ultimately Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of dismissal to him .
8. Bank presents that show cause notice dated 13-7-1991 was served on the claimant which was followed by charge sheet dated 4-8-1992 . Domestic enquiry was conducted . Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry in consonance with the principles of natural justice . Bank had discretion to proceed with the enquiry simultaneously, during pendency of a criminal trial . No illegality was committed when enquiry proceeded ahead. It has further been projected that all documents were supplied and due opportunities were given to the claimant to defend himself. Report of the Enquiry Officer is in consonance with the evidence adduced before him. Disciplinary Authority considered report of the Enquiry Officer , besides submissions made by the claimant before award of punishment ofdismissal to him. His appeal was found to be without any merit . There is no case in favour of the claimant, which may justify any indulgence by this Tribunal.
9. In his rejoinder, the claimant reiterates those very facts,which were pleaded by him in his claim statement .
10.Onpleadings ofthe parties , following issues were settled by my learned predecessor :
(i) Whether charge sheet dated 4-8-1992 issued to the workman is defective ? If so , its effects ?
(ii) Whether enquiry held against the workman is vitiated and not in accordance with law and rules ofnatural justice ?
(iii) Relief and consequential benefits .
5.The claimant projects that the report ofthe Enquiry Officer was peverse, since no positive evidence came over record relating to obtaining payment of Rs . 20,000.00 and Rs. 10,000.00 by preparation of withdrawal slips drawn on SB Account No. 9864 and 6979 respectively. He , further, projects that handwriting expert was not produced to prove that the withdrawal slips were prepared by him . According to him , Shri Mahender Kumar , who had obtained payment ofRs . 10,000.00 by mistake on 28-6-1990 and subsequently deposited that money along with interest , was not examined. Enquiry Officer had not considered the fact that the claimant had no authority to pass an instrument which exceeds Rs . 5,000.00 . The above two instruments exceeded Rs. 5,000.00 and were not within his competence to pass it for payment. Narrating a few instances as to what evidence was deficient, the claimant asserts that the enquiry report was not in consonance with the evidence brought on record.
11. Vide Order No. Z - 22019/ 6/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , New Delhi dated 11-2-2008 , appropriate Government transferred the case to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II , New Delhi for adjudication.
12. Vide Order No. Z - 22019/ 6/2007 - IR ( C - II ) , New Delhidated 30-3-2011 , the case was re -transferred by the appropriate Government to this Tribunal for adjudication.
6. He agitates that his dismissal order dated 5-9-1997 is per se illegal , arbitrary, mala fide and bad in the eyes of law. According to him, his appeal was also rejected in a mala fide manner. He presents that his dismissal order cannot stand the test of legal scrutiny. He claims reinstatement in the service of the bank with continuity and full back wages.
13. On hearing the parties , vide order dated 25-5-2011 issues were re - casted as follows :
(1 ) Whether enquiry conducted by the bank is just , fair and legal ?
(2) Whether punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate with his misconduct ?
7. Claim was resisted by the bank pleading that the dispute raised by the claimant is an individual dispute . Since no industrial dispute was existing, hence it was not within the competence of the appropriate Government to make reference of the dispute to this Tribunal . It has further beenpleaded that the grievance of a single individual are 7153
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
(3) As in terms of reference .
(4) Relief.
14. On consideration of the facts unfolded by the claimant and those deposed by Shri P. K. Kaushik and Shri S. N. Goswami , who were examined by the bank, besides submissions of the authorized representatives of the parties , Issue No. 1, which was treated as preliminary issue, was decided in favour of the bank and against the claimant vide order dated 1-11-2011 .
15. Arguments were heard at the bar on proportionality of punishment. Shri S. N. Mehrotra , authorized representative, advances arguments on behalf of the claimant . Shri B. S. Chauhan , Authorized representative , presented facts on behalf of the bank. I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows :
Issue No. 2 :
16. Factual matrix of the controversy are to be addressed to for ascertaining quantum of punishment for misconduct proved against the claimant . To know the allegations , charge sheet Ex . MW1 /3 is to be looked into , which deciphers allegations as follows :.
" 1. On 18-11-1989 Shri R. L. Kapoor , Special Assistant , managed to fraudulently obtain payment of Rs . 20,000:
(i) by preparing/ writing a withdrawal slip for the amount .
(ii) which withdrawal slip was drawn on Saving BankAccount No. 9864 maintained at N.G. Faridabad Branch ofBank ofBaroda .
(iii) signatures ofShri H. C. Gandhi , the account holder, were forged on the slip .
(iv) withdrawal slip was passed for cash payment.
(v) Shri R. L. Kapoor was incharge , Saving Bank Department that day,
(vi ) he entered the contents of the withdrawal slip in payment scroll ,
and with intent to remove evidence of the above misconduct Shri Kapoor managed to:
(a) destroy all relevant records viz .:
(i) withdrawal slip,
(ii ) relevant pages of payment scroll etc. 2. On 28-6-90 he also managed to fraudulently obtain payment ofRs. 10,000 :
(i) by preparing/writing a withdrawal slip for that amount.
(ii) the withdrawal slip was drawn on Saving Bank AccountNo. 6979 maintained at N.G. Faridabad Branch of Bank ofBaroda.
(iii) signatures ofShri K. K. Sehgal , the account holder, were forged on the slip .
(iv) the withdrawal slip was passed for cash payment.
(v) Shri R. L. Kapoor was incharge, Savings Bank Department on,that day too,
(vi) he entered the contents of the withdrawal slip in payment scroll, and with intent to remove evidence of that misconduct Shri Kapoor managed to:
(a) destroy all relevant records viz.:
(i) withdrawal slip ,
(ii) relevant pages of the payment scroll,
(iii) deleted/struck off the entry of Rs . 10,000 in the supplementary book, after cash book waswritten.
3. Failed to Check Saving Bank Supplementaries ondailybasis.
4. Not checked/verified postings of several cash payments of cheques/withdrawal forms for large amounts , before passing the same for payments".
17. The Enquiry Officer recorded his report dated 18-2-1997 wherein he concluded that all charges stood proved against the claimant. It would be in the fitness of things to extract conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officerwhich are re - produced thus:
"Conclusions
"All the evidences brought by the Management are direct evidence. There are in all five witnesses ofthe Management and statement of each witness is corroborated by one or more of the witnesses . All the documentary evidence is admissible as those are the documents ofthe bank kept in its ordinary course ofbusiness . All these documents form integral part of the evidence . There is no evidence brought out bythedefence except self deposition ofCSE inwhich he has admitted certain things . Nothing contrary couldbe brought out by the defense from the cross- examination of the witnesses . So in the light ofthe evidence put forward by the Management through 7154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012 /BHADRA 31 , 1934
the proceedings of the enquiry, the documentary evidence on record and the circumstances of the case it is proved beyond doubt that:
(i) Mr. R. L. Kapoor ( CSE ) has fraudulently withdrawn Rs . 10,000.00 from Saving Bank Account No. 6979 of Mr. K. K. Sehgal and Rs . 20,000.00 from Saving Bank Account No. 9468 ofMr. H. C. Gandhi by preparing vouchers / withdrawal slip drawn on Bank of Baroda, N. G. Faridabad, posting in the ledger, entering into payment scroll and passing the same for payment . He received the said payment through Mr. Mahinder Kumar , a fictitious person . Circumstances ofthe case also indicate that with the intention of removal of evidence , he managed todestoryboth the withdrawal slips after writing of the supplementary and tallying of the cash book.
(ii) Mr. R. L. Kapoor had also not checked the Saving Bank Account supplementary on daily basis and had not checked/verified posting of cash payment for large amounts before passing them for payment.
So in the light of the foregoing and the logical conclusion of the enquiry it has been proved against Mr. R. L. Kapoor:
(1) "That he did acts of fraud causing wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself by fraudulently withdrawing/ receiving the payment of Rs . 10,000 and Rs. 20,000 from the Saving Bank Account Nos . 6979 and 9468 respectively without the authority of the account holders . He madewrongful gain to himself by receiving these payments through some fictitious person namely Mahinder Kumar SB Account No. 10553. On the dispute ofthese unauthorized payments bank had to refund amount to the account holders and hence Mr. Kapoor had made wrongful loss to the bank.
( ii) That he did acts showing lack of integrity and honesty by receiving/ withdrawing fraudulently the payment of Rs . 10,000 and Rs . 20,000 without the authority of the account holders . It was the act of dishonesty and doubtful integrity.
(iii) That he did acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank. The object of the bank is to accept deposit from the public for the purpose of lending . The public deposits money with the bank with a trust that it would be kept safely and it would be
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
refunded to him at the time of need . This fraudulent act of Mr. Kapoor has shaken this trust and thereby adversely affecting the interest of the bank .
(iv) That he did acts unbecoming bank employees . Bank expects from each of its employee to act most honestly without negligence and with integrity beyond doubt . Bank reposes in each of its employees an undoubted trust. These are some of the characteristics of becoming an employee of the bank . Hence by these fraudulent acts Mr. Kapoor did acts unbecoming of a bank employee .
(v) That he did acts which tarnished image of the bank . Mr. Kapoor by his fraudulent act has shaken tursts of the public in the bank and thereby tarnished the image of the bank"
18.On consideration of the findngs recorded by the Enquiry Officer , the Disciplinary Authority dismissed Shri Kapoor from service vide order dated 25-9-1997 . Question for consideration comes as to whether there are anyjustifications for punishment of dismissal ? Right of an employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal is not unfattered . The punishment imposed must be commensurative with gravity of the misconduct , proved against the delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of Section 11A of the Act , it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not commensurative with the act of misconduct . In other words , the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with the punishment as it was not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or too severs . Apex Court , in this connection , had, however, laid down in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Company [ 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 291 ] that where order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would impose in like circumstances , that itself would lead to the inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge . But by enacting the provisions of Section 11A of the Act , the Legislature has transferred the discretion ofthe employer , in imposing punishment , to the industrial adjudicator. It is now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of misconduct , in cases of discharge or dismissal . If the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified in any. circumstances on the facts of a case , it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment and direct reinstatement with back wages , but it has also the power to imposed certain conditions as it may deem fit and also to [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
7155
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ শাদ 31 , 1934
give relief to the workman, including award of lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal .
19. It is established law that imposing punishment for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered withbythe Industrial Tribunals . The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment . But where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, regard being had to the particular conduct and past record, or issuch as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstance , the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Labour [ 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 462] . Likewise in Management ofthe Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry [1971 ( II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be unwarranted . In Ram Kishan [ 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 982] the delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts and, in the circumstances of the case , the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to the delinquent . It was ruled therein , " when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it mustbe understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that ledto the use ofabusive language . No straightjacket formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service . Each case has to be considered on its own facts" .
20. In B. M. Patil [ 1996 ( 11 ) LLJ 536] , Justice Mohan Kumar of Karnataka High Court observed that in exercise ofdiscretion , the disciplinary authority should not act like arobot andjustice should be moulded with humanism and understanding. It was assess each case on its own merit and each set of fact should be decided with reference to the evidence recording the allegation, which should be basisof the decision . The past conduct of the worker may be aground for assuming that he might have a propensity to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor ofthe bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss of50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets . It was held that the punishment was too harsh and disproprtionate to the act ofmisconduct.
21. After insertion of Section 11A of the Act, the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with the Tribunal , who has to see whether punishment imposed bythe employer is commensurative with the gravity ofthe act of misconduct . If it comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment isnotjustified because misconduct alleged and proved is such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or dismissal and where necessary set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatment with or without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in lieu of discharge or dismissal , as the circumstance of the casemaywarrant . Reference can be made to a precedent in Sanatak Singh [ 1984 Lab. I.C. 817] . The discretion to award punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal caninterfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the decree of the guilt of the workman . Reference can be made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [ 1994 ( 11 ) LLJ 332] . Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom , once it is satisfied that the order of discharge of dismissal is not justified . On facts and in the circumstances of a case , Section 11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the Industrial Tribunal , first is virtually the power of appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer inhis report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance, is the power of reappraisal of quantum of punishment.
22.Power to set aside order ofdischarge or dismissal and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is not untramaled power. This power has to be exercised only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified . This satisfaction ofthe Tribunal isobjective satisfaction and not subjective one . It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to various circumstances like nature of delinquency omitted by the workman , his past conduct, impact of delinquency on employer's business , besides length of service rendered by him. Furthermore , the Tribunal has to consider whether the decision taken by the employer is just or not . Only after taking into consideration these aspects , the Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without recording specific findings on points referred above . No indulgence is to be granted to a person , who is guilty of gravemisconduct like cheating, fraud , misappropriation of employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference cannot bemade to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa [1995( 1 ) LLJ 960].
23. In the light of above legal propositions , it would be considered as to whether punishment awarded to the claimant does not commensurate to his misconduct ? As projected above, the claimant committed acts of fraud and dishonestybyway offraudulently withdrawing of Rs . 10,000 [PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7156
of legality as well as justifiability. No interference is called for in the punishment by this Tribunal . Claim put forward by Shri Kapoor is liable to be brushed aside . Accordingly, his claim is dismissed . An award is passed in favour ofthe bank and against the claimant . It be sent to the appropriate government for publication.
Dated: 20-7-2010 Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2012
and Rs . 20,000 out of Saving Bank Account Nos . 6979 and 9468 pertaining to Shri K. K. Sehgal and Shri H. C. Gandhi respectively. He prepared voucher/withdrawal slip drawn onBank of Baroda , M.G. Faridabad, posted the aforesaid withdrawal slips in the ledger, entered into payments scroll and passed payment for the aforesaid withdrawal slips . He received the aforesaid payments in a fictitious name of one Mahinder Kumar. Besides the above acts of fraud he did not check saving bank supplementary on daily basis and had not checked/verified posting of cash payments for large amounts before passing the same for payment . All these facts bring it over the record that serious offences of fraud and dishonesty were committed by the claimant .
का.आ. 2936.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवस्सीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/ 86/2011- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी 24. Fraud is serious misconduct besides , being a criminal offense . One who commits fraud and makes his employer liable to pay the amount defrauded to the customers , not only hoodwinks his employer but customers also. He puts his employer's reputation to stake in the eyes of the customers as well as general public . The customer, who finds himself defrauded , is put to shock and agony.age On the other hand the employer lose faith in such an employee . All these factors are sufficient to conclude that such an employee loses his right to continue in job .
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012
S.O. 2936. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 34/2012 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2012.
[No. L- 12012/86/2011 - IR ( B- II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
25. Whether such employee should be awarded punishment of discharge simplicitier ? Punishment of discharge simplicitier neither operates as stigma nor debars him from getting retrial benefits . Retrial benefits are given to an employee for efficient services rendered to the employer. One who defrauded the employer as well as the customer cannot be said to have rendered efficient service . Therefore such an employee cannot put a claim for retrial benefits. His debase act would make him to receive ultimate penalty. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out to show that punishment awarded to the claimant was disproportionate to his misconduct warranting interference by the Tribunal No case of victimization , malafide or unfair labour practice has been putforward by the claimant , in the matter of award of punishment to him . All these reasons would make me to comment that punishment awarded to the claimant commensurate to his misconduct . Issue is , therefore, answered in favour of the bank and against the claimant.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Issue No. 3 and 4 :
Tuesday, the 14th August , 2012
PRESENT :
A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer .
Industrial Dispute No. 34/2012
[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) .
9. Not even an iota of evidence was brought over the record by the claimant to question legality of punishment awarded to him . When there is vacuum of evidence of malatide , arbitrariness , victimization and exercise of unfair labour practice on the part of the bank , it cannot be said that punishment awarded to the claimant was not justified . There cannot be any reason to inter-meddle with the punishment of dismissal awarded to the claimant . Consequently it is announced that punishment of dismissal awarded to the claimant vide order dated 25-9-1997 commensurate his misconduct and withstands standards [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7157
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and theirworkman]
BETWEEN
Sri M. Rajagopal
: 1st Party/Petitioner
Vs.
The Asstt . General Manager : 2nd Party/Respondent
Indian Overseas Bank
Vigilance Department
No. 763 , Anna Salai Chennai -600002
APPEARANCE :
: In Person
Forthe 1st Party/Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/Management : M/s . N.G.R. Prasad, Advocates
ORDER
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/ 86/2011 -IR ( B - II ) dated 24-5-2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:
The schedule mentioned in that order is :
"Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits without disqualification from future employment upon Shri M. Rajagopal , Ex- Messenger vide Order dated 23-10-2010 is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled to ? "
2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 34/2012 and issued notices to both sides . Respondent through Advocate entered appearance . Petitioner has also been present or represented inthe ID. No Claim or Counter Statement was filedby either ofthe parties . On scrutiny this reference is found to be one and the same as claimed in ID 99/2011 filed directly by the samepetitioner.
3. In this reference the question referred is the same asmooted in ID 99/2011 by way of Direct Filing at the instance of the petitioner enabling him by virtue of the amendment of the ID Act , 1947 w.e.f. 15-9-2010 to have recourse to that procedure . In ID 99/2011 the proceedings havealready commenced and have now reached the stage of enquiry. The parties in both are one and the same . It is no longer necessary to continue the proceedings in this ID in view of the fact that the question referred would be answered in the directly filed ID viz, 99/2011 with the required efficacy.
4. Resultantly this ID ( ID 34/2012) is closed . A copy of this order will be forwarded to the Ministry of Labour and Employment for information .
5. The reference is therefore closed .
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , correctedandpronounced by me in the open court on this day the 14th August, 2012)
A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2937.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-08-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/78/2005 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August , 2012
S.O. 2937. In pursuanceance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore , now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman. whichwas received by the Central Government on 8-8-2012.
[No. L- 12012/78/2005 - IR (B- II ) ] SHEESH RAM, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVENRMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated: 9thJuly 2012
PRESENT:
Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer C.R. No. 47/2005
II Party
I Party
The Chairman, SyndicateBank, Head Office , Manipal , Karnataka- 576119 Shri Basavanneppa Hanumanthappa Police , H. No. 953 , Ambani Temple , Anandnagar , Old Hubli , Hubli-580024
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 7158
[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
2A of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 12012/ 78 / 2005 - IR ( B - II ) dated 7-11-2005 for adjudication on the following Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in compulsorily retiring Shri Basavaneppa Hanumanthappa Police from the services of the Bank ? If not, to what relief the aggrieved workman is entitled to ?יי
2. The brief facts leading to this reference and award may be stated as under Shri Basavaneppa Hanumanthappa Police (hereinafter referred as first party) who joined as sub staff on 22-06-1973 with Syndicate Bank ( hereinafter referred as second party) while serving at its Currency Chest , Hubli served with charge sheet dated 25-3-2004 as under:
Sl . Period
No.
No. of days
10. 3-10-2003
1
2 11. 3-11-2003 to 4-11-2003
2 12. 1-12-2003 to 2-12-2003
2 13: 5-12-2003 to 6-12-2003
17 14. 15-12-2003 to 31-12-2003
Your total unauthorised absence had reached 938 days as on 31-12-2003 . That your services are sparingly available to the Bank during the year 2003 and the details of your attendance are as under :
Ref. No. CGS( W)/ZOU /IRC/ 9 /2004dt . 25-3-04
Month
No. ofdays
3
January 2003
Chargesheet
19
February2003
It is alleged against you :
17
March 2003
19
April2003
21
May2003
That you are working as Attender at Regional Office , Hubli since 27-8-1999 and while working as such the following circumstances appear against you in the matter of your frequent absence from duties without prior information/sanction of leave from the Competent Authority.
17
June2003
12
July2003
12
August 2003
25
September 2003
24
October 2003
That you are in the habit of absenting from duties at frequent intervals without submission of leave application and without prior sanction of leave from the competent authority and thus causing lot of inconvenience to the functioning ofthe Office /Bank . Knowingly fully well that you have exhausted all kinds of leave , you remained absent from duties unauthorisedly.
The Competent Authority has treated your following absence as Unauthorised :
Sl . Period No.
No. of days
23 1. 9-10-2003 to 31-1-2003
4 2. 10-3-2003 to 13-3-2003
3 3. 17-4-2003 to 19-4-2003
4. 5-5-2003
5. 26-5-2003
1
1 6. 2-6-2003
1 7. 16-6-2003
8 31-7-2003
16 9. 4-8-2003 to 19-8-2003
21
November 2003
8
December2003
The above circumstances go to show that you are highly irregular in attending the office and your irregular attendance is causing lot of inconvenience to the functioning ofthe Bank.
That reference is drawn to the following Charge sheets /Show cause Notices/Charge sheet cum Show cause Notices issued to you for minor misconducts of " Absence without leave " and " Irregular Attendance" .
1. CGS ( W)/ZOM/ DGM/26/ 1997 dated 27-10-1997
2. CGS (W)/ZOU /IRC/54 / 1998 dated 11-12-1998
3. CGS ( W)/ZOU/IRC /99/60 dated 1-9-1999
4. CGS ( W)/ZOU / IRC /2000/24 dated 1-4-2000
5. CGS ( W)/ZOU /IRC /2001 / 19 dated 15-5-2001
Thatreference is also drawn to following proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishments on you for minor misconducts of " Absence without leave " [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]
7159
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
and" Irregular Attendance" in respect ofthe abovereferred Charge sheets:
01. Proceedings No. PRS( W)/ZOM /DGM/97/ 37 dated 31-12-1997-" WARNING "
02.Proceedings No. PRS(W)/ZOU /DGM/ IRC/99/ 13 dated 25-1-1999-"STOPPAGE OF ONE INCREMENT FOR SIX MONTHS" .
03.Proceedings No. PRS( W)//DGM/ZOU / 1999/ 76 Dated5-10-1999-" WARNING"
04. Proceedings No. PRS(W)/ZOU /DGM/2000/ 58 dated28-9-2000 "STOPPAGE OF ONE INCREMENT FOR SIX MONTHS" .
05. Proceedings No. PRS( W)/ZOU /DGM/2001/42 dated 13-11-2001-"STOPPAGE OF ONE INCREMENT FOR SIX MONTHS" .
That inspite of ample opportunities given to you, you continue to violate the leave rules and absented from duties at frequent intervals unauthorisedly.
The above circumstances go to show that you have been absenting from duties unauthorisedly at frequent/ regular intervals without submission of leave from the competent authority and violated the leave rules and that you are highly irregular in attending the office/Bank. Your said acts are highly objectionable and amount to misconducts under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement .
Ref. No. CGS( W)/ZOU/IRC/9 /2004 dt . 25-3-04
In terms ofClause No. 5 ( f) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 habitual doing of any act which amounts to minor misconduct will become a gross misconduct ifthe samemisconduct is committed on three previous occasions and awarded with punishments . The details furnished in the earlier paras show that the Bank initiated Disciplinary Action against you for the minor misconducts of " Absence without leave" and " Irregular Attendance " on three/ five occasions (referred above ) and awarded punishments .
Therefore for your absence without leave (as referred above) , you are charged with the commission of gross misconduct of" Habitual doing of acts of absence without leave" vide Cl . No. 5 (f) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002.
For your irregular attendance (as referred above), you are charged with the commission of gross misconduct of"Habitual doing of acts of irregular attendance" vide clauseNo. 5(f) ofthe Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 .
The above referred proceedings also show that you were awarded with punishments on two occasions for the grossmisconduct of" REMAINING UNAUTHORISEDLY ABSENT WITHOUT INTIMATION CONTINUOUSLY FOR APERIOD EXCEEDING 30 DAYS" vide Cl . No. 5(p) ofBipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 .
3417 GI/12-12
The above charges are based on the following documents and xerox copies of the same are enclosed :
1. Letter No. 6227/ 1228 / PER/NSK dated 10-2-2004 ofRM, RO, Hubli
2. StaffCard
3. Attendance Register of RD, Hubli for the year 2003:
4. Proceedings No. PRS ( W)/ZOM/DGM/97/37 dated31-12-1997
5. Proceedings No. PRS(W)/ZOU /DGM/IRC/99/ 13 dated 25-1-1999
6. Proceedings No. PRS ( W)/DGM/ZOU / 1999/ 76 dated5-10-1999
7. Proceedings No. PRS( W)/ZOU/DGM/2000/58 dated28-9-2000
8. Proceedings No. PRS( W)/ZOU /DGM/2001 /42 dated 13-11-2001
You are required to submit your written statement of defence, ifany within 10 days of receipt of these Charge sheets.
3. The first party by his letter dated 29-3-2004 addressed to the Disciplinary Authority sought for 30days timeto give reply to the charge sheet and though he was provided time to give his reply till 10-4-2004 and intimated accordingly by the letter of Disciplinary Authority dated 30-3-2004 since he did not submit his reply the Disciplinary Authority while appointing Shri K.S. Surya Prakash as Enquiry Officer and Shri R.P. Yaji , Sr. Branch Manager as Management Representative initiated the Domestic Enquiry to enquire into the charges .Accordingly the enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry in which he recorded the evidence ofShri Sanjeevamurthy, MW1 and exhibited letter dated 10-2-2004, issued to the first party by the Regional Manager, Hubli regarding his unauthorized absence various days between 1-01-2003 to 31-12-2003 ; staff card of first party for the years 2002 to 2004 wherein his unauthorized absence is accounted; attendance register of first party for the year 2003 wherein the absence is marked as UAA ; Proceedings dated 31-12-1997 in respect of charge sheet dated 27-10-1997 issued to the first party for his unauthorized absence of 83 days during the years 1996 and 1997; proceedings dated 25-01-1999 for his unauthorized absence of 124 days during the years 1997 and 1998; proceedings dated 5-10-1999 forhis unauthorised absence of 140 days during the years 1998 and 1999; proceedingsdated 28-9-2000 in respect of his unauthorized absence for 53 days during the years 1999 and 2000; proceedings dated 13-11-2001 for his unauthorized absence of 96 days during the years 2000 and 2001 and letter addressed to the first party by the Regional Manager, SyndicateBank, Hubli regarding his absence from 9-1-2003 7160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
onwards as Ex . MEX . 1 to MEX.9 for the management and also recorded the statements given by the first party, after the management representative and Defence Representative submitting their written briefs submitted his findings dated 26-7-2004 charge being proved . Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority while forwarding the copy of the enquiry report to the first party affording an opportunity ofhearing having found no reason to differ from the enquiry finding issued second show cause notice praposing Compulsory Retirement with Superannuation Benefits and without disqualification for future employment for the gross misconduct habitual act of unauthorized absence and irregular attendance as contemplated under Clause 5 (f) of the Bipartite Settlement by his order dated 13-8-2004. On appeal by the first party to the Appellate Authority he too after affording opportunity of hearing upheld the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by his order dated 10-12-2004 . Then on failure of the conciliation proceedings raised by the first party the Central Government made this reference for adjudication.
4.After receiving evidence adduced by the parties and hearing arguments of the representatives of both sides by order dated 8-9-2011 , the domestic enquiry conducted against the first party being held as fair and proper the Representatives of both sides are heard on merits after the first party giving his evidence on victimization and unemployment , the points now remains for my consideration are :
(i) Whether the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse necessitating interference of this court?
( ii) Ifnot, whether the punishment of Compulsory Retirement with Superannuation Benefits and without disqualification for future employment bythe Disciplinary Authority confirmed bythe Appellate Authority is disproportionate to the gross misconduct proved against the first party?
(iii) What award?
Proceedings No. PRS( W) ZOM/ 26/ 1997 dated 27-10- 1997Warning , No. PRS ( W) ZOU / DGM / IRC/ 99 / 13 dated 25-1-1999- Stoppage of one Increment for six months , No. PRS (W) DGM /ZOU/ 1999/ 76 dated 5-10-1999 Warning, No. PRS ( W) ZOU /DGM/2000 /58 dated 28-09-2000- Stoppage of one Increment for six months and No. PRS( W) /ZOU /DGM / 2001/42 dated 13-11-2001 -Stoppage of one Increment for six months and there is also no dispute he had exhausted all sorts of leave including extraordinary leave that could be availed by him to the maximum of370 days , absolutely I find no reason to say the finding of the enquiry officer being perverse or for such habitual irregular attendance imposing the punishment of Compulsory Retirement with Superannuation Benefits and without disqualification for future employment is disproportionate . The only argument thatwas addressed on behalf of the first party was that the second party ought to have granted extraordinary ( EOL) leave to the first party since he was compelled to remain absentunauthorisedly for a period of 75 days during 2003 due to sickness . It is borne out from the records that the first party during is entire service besides exhausting all sorts of leave available to him and inspite of imposing punishments on 5 occasions . 3 times for minor misconduct and two occasions for gross - misconduct for remaining unauthorised absence , since he did not improve in his attendance and on 14 occasions during 2003 remained unauthorisedly absent he could not have been granted extraordinary leave and the management had no other option except to come to a conclusion that he had no intention to continue his job by his habitual irregular unauthorized absence . Therefore, the arguments put forward on his behalf that his 75 days absence could have been excused by the management granting him extraordinary leave is not available to him . Under the circumstances absolutely I find no reason either to interfere in the finding ofthe enquiry officer the charge being proved or to say that the punishment imposed by way of Compulsory Retirement with Superannuation Benefits and without disqualification for future employment for such habitual irregular attendance is disproportionate . Accordingly while coming to the conclusion of answering point Nos . ( i ) & ( ii ) in the Negative ' I pass the following award:
AWARD
5.Onappreciation ofthe pleadings by way of claim statement filed by the first party and counter statement by the second party with the evidence brought on record duringthe Domestic Enquiry as well as the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authorityand the finding ofthe enquiry officer , in the light ofthe arguments put forward for both the sides my finding on pointNos . ( i) & (ii) are the ' Negative' and point No. ( iii ) isas per the final award for the following reasons:
The reference is rejected holding that the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in Compulsorily Retiring Shri Basavaneppa Hanumanthappa Police from service with Superannuation Benefits and without disqualification for future employment and he is not entitle for any relief.
Reasons
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 9th July, 2012).
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer 6. There being no dispute the first party remaining absent for a period of 75 days during 2003 as detailed in the charge sheet as well as being earlier punished under [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
Annexure CR 47/2005
List ofwitnesses for the Management/Second Party
MWI 1. Shri K. S. Surya Prakash, Chief Manager, SyndicateBank
List ofdocuments marked for the Second Party/ Management
Ex. Mi 1. Charge sheet dated 25-3-2004 issued to the firstparty.
2. Letter dated 29-3-2004 from the first party. Ex. M2
Ex . M3 3. Letter dated 30-3-2004 issued to the first party by the DisciplinaryAuthority.
Ex. M4 4. Letter dated 23-4-2004 regarding appoint- ment of enquiry officer issued to the first party by the DA.
Ex. M5 5. Order dated 14-6-2004 regarding appoint- ment of management representative .
Ex. M6 6. Notice dated 14-6-2004 of the enquiry officer.
Ex .M7 7. Enquiry proceedings dated 28-6-2004.
Ex.M8 8. Documents produced in the enquiry (MEX 1 to MEX 9 ) .
Ex .M9 9. Enquiry findings dated 26-7-2004
Ex. M10 10. Letter dated 27-7-2004 of DA addressed tothe first party.
Ex. MII 11. Submissions dated 9-8-2004 of the first party.
Ex.M12 12. Letter dated 13-8-2004 of DA addressed to first party (2nd show cause notice ) .
Ex.M13 13. Proceedings of personal hearing dated 30-8-2004 before the DA.
Ex.M14 14. Proceedings dated 31-8-2004 of Disciplinary Authority.
Ex.M15 15. Proceedings dated 10-12-2004 of the Appellate Authority.
List ofwitnesses for the First Party
WWI 1. Shri B.H. Police, first party.
WW 2 2. Shri M. Anantha Krishna , Secretary of the Syndicate Bank Employees Union .
7161
List ofdocuments marked for the First Party
Ex. WI 1. Staff card ofthe first party.
Ex. W2 2. Special Leave Scheme of the Second Partydated 29-1-2004.
Ex . W3 3. Copy of letter of first party dated 29-3-2004.
Ex. W4 4. Copy of letter of first party dated 10-4-2004.
Ex.W5 5. Copy of submission of enquiry report dated9-8-2004.
Ex. W6 6. Copy of Appeal with AD Card dated 17-9-2004.
Ex. W7 7. Copy of dispute raised before. the ALC( C) dated 26-3-2005.
Ex. W8 8. Copy of Conciliation Proceedings dated6-5-2005 .
Ex. W9 9. Copy of FOC ofALC( C) dated 6-5-2005
नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2938. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन 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-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-08-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/22/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] : शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August , 2012
S.O. 2938.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 43/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2012.
No. 1-12012/22/2003 - IR ( B - II ) | SHEESH RAM, Section Officer [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7162
ANNEXURE
reinstatement in services of the bank with continuity and full backwages .
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
1.D. No. 43/2011
Shri Sunder Lal Dangwal ,
S/o Sh . Madhva Nand Dangwal ,
Workman
C/ o Jayanti Prasad Gairola, R/o 17/23 , Mussorie Road, Post Rajpur, Dehradun
3. Demurral was made by the bank pleading that the claimant was never engaged as an employee at any point of time. Relationship of employer and employee never existed between the claimant and the bank. Claimant was not a workman and as such present reference is bad. Bank presents that for recruitment of an employee selection process is to be followed. No such process was followed and no appointment letter was given to the claimant . In such a situation , no question of termination of his service would arise . There was no occasion for giving notice or pay in lieu thereof. His claim is not maintainable, hence it may be dismissed , pleads the bank.
Versus
The Asstt . General Manager,
4. In rejoinder the claimant reiterates facts pleaded inthe claim statement .
Union Bank of India ,
Regional Office, Radha Place ,
Management
5. Onpleadings of the parties , following issues were settled by my learned predecessor :
Rajpur Road, Dehradun
AWARD
(i) Whether reference is bad in law as mentioned inParas 1 and 4 of the written statement ?
(ii) Whether there exists any cause of action in favour of the applicant ?
(iii) Whether the claim is not properly espoused ?
(iv) Whether the claimant is workman ?
(v) Whether this court has jurisdiction ?
(vi) Where there does not exist any relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management ?
(vii ) As per reference .
Shri Sunder Lal Dangwal claimed himself to be an employee ofUnion Bank of India (in short the bank) at its Tehri branch . According to him . he served the bank from 8-10-95 to 18-12-2001 . He submitted an application for regularisation of his service , which act annoyed the bank . Consequently his services were abruptly terminated . Feeling aggrieved by that act, he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Bank resisted the claim and as such conciliation proceedings failed. On consideration offailure report, submittedby the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L- 12012/22 /2003/ IR (B - 11 ) New Delhi dated 31-3-2003 , with the following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Dangwat with effect from 18-12-2001 isjust , fair and legal ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ? "
6.Vide Order No. Z-22019/6/2007- IR( C - II ) , New Delhi dated 11-2-2008 , the appropriate Government transferred the case to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 , New Delhi , for adjudication . Case was retransferred to this Tribunal , vide Order No. L- 12012/22/2003 - IR ( B - 1Ì ) , New Delhi ,dated 30-3-2011 , by the appropriate Government for adjudication .
7. Affidavit dated 10-4-2007 was filed on behalf of the claimant as evidence . But the claimant never entered the witness box to allow an opportunity to the bank to purify contents of his affidavit by an ordeal of cross examination . It is apparent that no opportunity was given to the bank to ascertain veracity of contents of the said affidavit. Under these circumstances , contents of that affidavit cannot be read against the bank . Resultantly, contents of the affidavit are discarded from consideration.
8. The claimant opted to abandon the proceedings from 30-5-2011 . When none appeared on behalf of the 2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Sunder Lal Dangwal pleading therein that he worked with the bank as Class IV employee since 8-10-1995, in its Tehri branch. In Tehri branch of the bank there was Branch Manager and a Clerk, besides him . He continuously served the said branch till 18-12-2001 . He was paid wages on vouchers with different names . Payment of wages in that fashion amounted to unfair labour practice on the part of the bank. Hemoved an application dated 29-10-2001 for regularisation of his services . This irked the branch authorities . When regular staff was posted in Tehri branch of the bank , his serviceswere dispensed with on 18-12-2001 . No notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to him . Termination of his services is against the principles ofnatural justice . He claims 7163
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
claimant, this Tribunal was constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Accordingly, evidence of the claimant was closed.
9.Affidavit of Shri A.K. Pujara was tendered as evidence on behalf of the Bank .
10. Shri Pawan Behl , authorized representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the bank. None came forward to present facts on behalf of the claimant . I have givenmy careful consideration to the arguments advanced atthe bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues involved in the controversy are as follows :
record to ascertain as to whether the claimant was ever engaged by the bank as a Class IV employee . Contra to it, Shri Anil Kumar Pujara swears in his affidavit that the claimant was ever engaged by the bank or its Chief Manager /Manager to work at its Tehri branch . He specifically declares that the claimant was never engaged bythe bank as its employee. Consequently, it is emerging over the record that the claimant has miserably failed to establish that he was ever engaged by the bank to work at its Tehri branch . Resultantly, it is concluded that the claimant could not establish that relationship of employer and employee existed between him and the bank. The issue is , accordingly, answered in favour ofthe bank andagainst theclaimant.
Issue No. 6
Issue Nos . 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
15. When relationship of employee and employer has not been shown to exist between the claimant and the bank, issue No. 1 to 5 loses it efficacy. No necessity would arise to proceed with adjudication ofthe aforesaid issues. Consequently, the above issues are discarded, being redundant.
11. Onus lies on the claimant to establish that he was an employee of the bank . To discharge the onus , it is incumbent upon him either to enter the witness box himself orexamine someone else on his behalf. As derailed above , affidavit tendered by the claimant cannot be read as a piece of evidence . Under these circumstances , there is no evidence on the record to conclude facts in favour of the claimant.
IssueNo. 7
16. Since relationship of employee and employer between the bank and the claimant was not established, therewas no occasion for the bank to terminate the services ofthe claimant . Accordingly, it is concluded that the present reference is not competent. No relief can be granted to the claimant . His claim is brushed aside . An award is, accordingly, passed in favour of the bank and against the claimant. It be sent to the apropriate Government for publication.
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated: 6-8-2012
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012 12.Whether relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties ? For an answer to this opposition , it is to be appreciated as to how a contract of service is entered into . The relationship of employer and employee is constituted by a contract, express or implied between employer and employee . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty undertaken . A contract of employment may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed and when there has , in fact, been employment of the kind usually performed by the employees . Any such inference , however, is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation between the parties concerned was on a charitable footing or the parties were relations or partners or were directors of a limited company which employed no staff. While the employee , at the time, when his services were engaged, need not have known the identity of his employer , there must have been some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .
का.आ. 2939,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार 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 सीजीआईटी/एल सी/आर/42/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-08-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/24/2006-आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012 13. Besides the affidavit , referred above , copies of bunch ofdocuments were filed by the claimant alongwith his claim statement . Those documents were denied by the bank when same were to put to it for admission . Thus , copies of these documents nowhere constitute as piece of evidence, since the claimant failed to prove the same . Under these circumstances , copies of those documents cannot be read in favour of the claimant .
S.O. 2939.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ 14. Since affidavit dated 10-4-2007 and copies of documents are discarded, there remains no evidence over 7164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012 BHADRA 31. 1934 [PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) )
LC/ R /42 /2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Jabalpur, now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2012 .
[No. L- 12012/24/2006- IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
that the Branch Managers in order to ensure smooth customers service are required to engage any person whenever there is a temporary increase of work of casual nature and/ or where regular sub- staffs are on leave . The alleged workman was engaged for few days intermittently on daily wages due to either increase of work or due to absence of regular sub - staff . He was never worked for 240 days in any calendar year. He was on daily wages as and when he was engaged . It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are framed for adjudication :
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/ R/42/2006
SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer
(1) Whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Sunil Kumar Tamrakar w.e.f. 26-7-2007 is legal and just- fied ?
Shri Sunil Kumar Tamrakar,
( II ) To what relief the workman is entitled ?
Workman
S/ o Late Shri Ramkaran Tamrakar , Jhanda Chowk, Near Shiv Mandir , Rajeev Nagar, Durg (CG)
Versus
5. The workman after filing statement of claim and photocopies of document became absent . He did not appear inspite several opportunities granted to him . Lastly the reference proceeded ex parte against the workman on 19-5-2011 .
The Zonal Manager,
6. Issue No. I
Bank of India, Ashirvad Market , Lordganj , Jabalpur
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of August , 2012
1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012/24/2006- IR( B - II ) dated 1-8-2006 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management in relation to Bank of India in terminating the service of Shri Sunil Kumar Tamrakar , Courier Boy-cum- Sepoy on 26-7-04 by verbal orders of Branch Manager , Durg Branch is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "
Toproveove the case of the management , one witness is examined . The management witness Shri Sanjay Pahade is working as Chief Manager in the Bank of India, Durg Branch . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated at para- 9 in his evidence that the alleged workman was engaged for few days on daily wages . He neverworked 240 days in any of the calendar year. He has denied that the workman was engaged continuously from 1-8-89 to 26-7-04 . His evidence is unrebutted. There is no other evidence on the record to disbelieve the evidence of this witness . His evidence clearly shows that he was not in continuous service for 240 days during the twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination as required under Section 25 ( B) ( 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short ' the Act, 1947 ) . Since his service is not continuous for one year under Section 25( B ) (2) of the Act , 1947 , there is no violation of the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act , 1947. This issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management .
7. Issue No. II
2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the workman Sunil Kumar Tamrakar was working as casual labour from August, 1989 in the management Bank and worked continuously till July, 2004. Thereafter he was terminated from service . He worked in different capacity under number of Branch Managers . It is stated that before termination , he was not issued any notice . It is submitted thatthe workman be reinstated with back wages .
On the basis of the discussion made above , I find that the management is justified in terminating his service. Theworkman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is, accordingly, answered .
8. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer 3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the case . The case of the management , inter- alia, is that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the alleged workman . As such there is no industrial dispute . It is stated [ भाग 11 -खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
7165
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
with effect from 1-11-99 is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?
3. In the instant case after the exchange of pleadings. between the parties , the claimant stopped putting appearance in the case. He even did not adduce his evidence . It therefore , appears that the claimant is not interested to prosecute his claim before this tribunal .
का.आ. 2940.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सिविल ऐविएशन ट्रेनिंग कॉलेज बामरुली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the reference is bound to be decided against the claimant for what of evidence and proof.
[सं. एल -11012/16/2001- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
5. Reference is therefore decided in the above terms against the claimant.
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012
RAM PARKASH . Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012 S.O. 2940. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Kanpur, now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Civil Aviation Training College (Bmrauli ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-7-2012 .
का.आ. 2941.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स रामजीदास पुत्र रामरिछपाल लाईम स्टोन खदान मालिक कोटा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[No. L- 11012/ 16/2001 - IR ( M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
[सं. एल -28012/ 1/ 1992- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 24th August, 2012 BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 09 of 2002
Between:
S.O. 2941. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ). the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 17/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Kota , now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Ramjidas Sio Ramrichpal . Lime Stone Mine Owner, Kota and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-7-2012.
Sri Subhash Singh , S/o Sri Daroga Singh , Village Chirla Munjapta. Post Ganja, Chial , DistrictAllahabad
Versus
[No. L-28012/ 1 / 1992 - IR (M ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
अनुबंध
न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , कोटा/केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राज./ ThePrincipal , Civil Aviation Training College. Bmrauli , Allahabad
AWARD
पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , आर.एच.जे.एस.
निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक औ. न्या. केन्द्रीय / 17/1999
दिनांक स्थापित : 21-7-1999
1. Central Government , Mol . vide notification no . L - 11012/ 16/ 2001 / IR ( M ) dated 6-8-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :
प्रसंग : भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश सं. एल-28012/1/92- आई आर ( मिस ) दि. 14-1-93 एवं अग्रेषण पत्र 16-7-99
2. "Whether the action of the management of Civil Aviation Training College , Allahabadin terminating the services of Sri Subhash Singh Son of Sri Daroga [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7166
निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10( 1 ) घ ) औद्योगिक विवाद
अधिनियम, 1947
मध्य
उस्मान अली पुत्र सुभान अली
--प्रार्थी श्रमिक
द्वारा क्षेत्रीय मंत्री, हिन्द मजदूर सभा , बंगाली कालोनी , छावनी , कोटा ।
4. इसका जवाब अप्रार्थी की ओर से पेश किया गया जिसमें यह वर्णित किया गया कि ना तो अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी को नौकरी से हटाया एवं न ही कोई वेतन बकाया है । प्रार्थी लगातार अपने कार्य से अनुपस्थित चल रहा है । प्रार्थी को कार्य पर उपस्थित होने हेतु रजिस्टर्ड पत्र द्वारा सूचित भी किया गया एवं उसे प्राप्त भी हो गया फिर भी वह कार्य पर उपस्थित नहीं हुआ तथा प्रार्थी ने लगातार 240 दिन तक कार्य भी नहीं किया । अतः अपने जवाब के माध्यम से अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी के क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट को खारिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की ।
एवं
रामजीदास पुत्र रामरिछपाल ,
माईन आनर , लाईम स्टोन माईन्स, पीपाखेड़ी
--अप्रार्थी नियोजक
मोडक स्टेशन , कोटा ।
प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से : श्री पुरूषोतम दाधीच , सह-प्रतिनिधि
5. इसके पश्चात साक्ष्य प्रार्थी में प्रार्थी उस्मानअली का स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र पेश किया गया , अप्रार्थी द्वारा उससे जिरह की गयी । इसके पश्चात मामले में अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने दि. 18-5-2011 को एक प्रार्थना - पत्र इस आशय का पेश किया कि मामले में अप्रार्थी रामजीदास की दि. 12-11-2006 को मृत्यु हो चुकी है व उसके साथ में उसका मृत्यु प्रमाण-पत्र भी पेश किया गया , इसकी प्रति प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि को दिलायी गयी ।
अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर श्री डी. सी. जैन से प्रतिनिधि
अधिनिर्णय दिनांक : 27-6-2012
अधिनिर्णय
भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अपने उक्त प्राक्षांगिक आदेश दि. 14-1-93 एवं अग्रेषण पत्र दि. 16-7-99 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश/विवाद , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जाएगा ) की धारा 10( 1) ( घ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है :
"Whether the action ofthe management of Shri Ramji DasModi , Morak Station , Distt . Kota in terminating the services of Shri Usman Ali S/ o Shri Subhan Ali , driverat their Pipakheri Mine w.e.f. 10-4-91 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ? "
6. इस प्रकार अप्रार्थी की मृत्यु हुए करीबन 5½ वर्ष हो चुके हैं । न्यायालय में अप्रार्थी की मृत्यु की सूचना आने की जानकारी को भी एक वर्ष से ज्यादा का समय प्रार्थी को प्राप्त हो चुका है, परन्तु प्रार्थी द्वारा ना तो उसका कोई खण्डन किया गया है एवं ना ही मृत अप्रार्थी के कायम मुकाम को अभिलेख पर लिये जाने की कोई कार्यवाही की गयी है जबकि किसी भी मामले में किसी पक्षकार की वाद कार्यवाही के लम्बित रहने के दौरान मृत्यु होने पर मृत्यु से 90 दिन के अन्दर - अन्दर ऐसी कार्यवाही किया जाना अपेक्षित है । कदाचित इस मामले में यह भी मान लिया जावे कि अप्रार्थी की ओर से मृत्यु की सूचना इतने वर्षों तक नहीं दी गयी तो भी जब न्यायालय में अप्रार्थी की मृत्यु होने की सूचना दिये हुए भी एक वर्ष से ज्यादा का समय हो चुका है एवं प्रार्थी भी उस सूचना से अवगत हो चुका है तो भी इस अवधि में मृत अप्रार्थी के कायम मुकाम को अभिलेख पर लिये जाने बाबत कोई कार्यवाही नहीं किये जाने से अब और समय दिये जाने का कोई औचित्य नहीं है एवं अप्रार्थी की मृत्यु हो जाने व उसके कायम मुकाम अभिलेख पर नहीं होने से यह रेफ्रेन्स कानूनन चलने योग्य नहीं रहता है क्योंकि मृत व्यक्ति के विरूद्ध कोई अनुतोष का आदेश भी नहीं दिया जा सकता है ।
2. निर्देश/विवाद , न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना/नोटिस जारी कर विधिवत रूप में अवगत करवाया गया ।
परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अपने प्रासांगिक आदेश क्र. एल -28012/ 1/92- आईआर ( मिस ) दि. 14/1/93 एवं अग्रेषण-पत्र दि. 16-7-99 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश (रेफ्रेन्स) को इसी अनुरूप उत्तरित किया जाता है कि इस मामले में अप्रार्थी प्रबन्धक रामजीदास की मृत्यु करीबन 5½ वर्ष पूर्व हो जाने व आज दिन तक उसके किसी वारिसान को कायम मुकाम नहीं बनाये जाने से अब इस रेफ्रेन्स में मृत व्यक्ति के विरूद्ध कोई अनुतोष आदेश दिया जाना सम्भव नहीं होने से प्रार्थी कर्मकार कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , न्यायाधीश 3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट पेश किया गया जिसमें यह वर्णित किया गया कि प्रार्थी को प्रबन्धक , रामजीदास मोदी स्टोन कंपनी , मोड़क स्टेशन , कोटा द्वारा डम्फर ड्राईवर के पद पर दि. 1-11-90 को नियुक्त किया गया एवं उसने 10-6-91 को नौकरी से निकाल दिया गया । नौकरी से निकालने से पूर्व कोई वरिष्ठता सूची का प्रकाशन नहीं किया गया एवं ना ही धारा 25 - एफ , जी , एच आदि के प्रावधनों की पालना की गयी । अतः प्रार्थी कर्मकार ने अपने क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट के माध्यम से अप्रार्थी नियोजक से समस्त पिछले बकाया वेतन व परिलाभों सहित सेवा में बहाल किये जाने का अनुतोष दिलाये जाने की मांग की ।
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
7167
PRESENT:
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
Forthe applicant
: Sh . Kapil Sharma
For the Non - applicant : Ex-party
AWARD
22-5-2012 का.आ. 2942.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स हाजी अब्दुल करीम पुत्र श्री पीर खान मालिक लाईम स्टोन माइन्स कोटा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ( d) of Sub- section 1 & 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:
[सं. एल-29012/29/2005- आई आर ( एम) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 24th August , 2012
" क्या श्री बजरंग सिंह पुत्र श्री कालू सिंह ने मैसर्स, हाजी अब्दुल करीम पुत्र श्री पीर खॉन लाइम स्टोन माइन्स कूकडा जिला कोटा के मोडक स्थित कार्यालय में ऑफिस क्लर्क के पद पर दिनांक 9-3-1982 से 17-2-2003 के मध्य निरन्तर 240दिन से अधिक सेवा प्रदान की थी ? ' यदि हां तो अप्रार्थी द्वारा श्री बजरंग सिंह पुत्र श्री कालू सिंह को सेवा से पृथक करने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं वैद्य है ? ' यदि नहीं तो प्रार्थी किस अनुतोष तथा राहत का हकदार है । " S.O. 2942. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court. Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s Haji Abdul Karim S/o Sh Peer Khan ( Lime Stone , Mine Owner Kota) and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-7-2012.
[No. L-29012/29/2005 - IR (M) ] JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
PRESENT:
2. The workman in his claim statement has pleaded that he was appointed as Office Clerk by the non - applicant on 9-3-82 and he had worked continuously during period 9-3-82 to 17-2-03 and he had worked for more than 240 days . The workman has alleged that his services had been terminated on 18-2-03 without any notice or compensation in lieu of notice in violation of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act . He has further alleged that while terminating his services junior to him were retained in the job by non - applicant , therefore, his termination is also in violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act . The workman has prayed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits . He has also claimed anamount ofRs . 32690 as salary due for the period January, 02 to 17-2-03 .
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I. D. 33/2006
Reference No. L-29012/29/2005 - IR(M)
3. At the stage of reply to the claim statement , none appeared on behalf of the non - applicant, therefore , an order to proceed ex - party against the non- applicant was passed on 23-11-10 and case was posted for evidence of the workman.
Dated: 28-2-2006
4. Despite number of opportunities provided for evidence of the workman , he did not turn up for his evidence . Under these circumstances , the evidence of the workman was closed on 21-5-12 .
Shri Bajrang Singh S/ o Sh . Kalu Singh Through Joint General Secretary Hind Mazdoor Sabha Bengali Colony Cantt . , Kota (Raj . )
5. Heard the learned representative on behalf of the workman and perused the mecond .
V/s
The Prop. ,
M /sHaji Abdul Karim S/o Sh . Peer Khan LimeStone Mine Owner, Distt: Kookda, Kota ( Raj .)
6. It is well settled that initiall bunden is on the workman to prove his case set fontile in thies claim statement . After filing claim statement the workaman was given as many as nine opportunities to produce documents and evidence in support of his claim but he did not turn up and no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced
3417Gl/12-13 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 7168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
The Managing Director ,
Management :
Travancore Titanium Products Limited, Post Box No. 1
by him to substantiate his claim and ultimately his evidence wasclosed on 21-5-12 . It appears that the workman is not interested to contest the case further.
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 021 .
Thiscase coming up for final hearing on 29-6-2012 and this Tribunal - cum- Labour Court on the same day passed the following:
7. There is no material on record for adjudication of the reference under consideration on merits . Under these circumstances , " No Claim Award " is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
AWARD
8. Award as above .
9. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government for publication u /s 17 ( 1 ) of the I.D. Act .
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2012
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) Government of India, Ministry of Labour has referred this industrial disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication as per Order No. L-43011 / 1 /2009 - IR(M ) dated 29-6-2009.
2. The reference is :
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Travancore Titanium Products , Trivandrum in altering the service conditions and redesignation of the post Charge Hand to Senior Process Operator is justified ? What relief the affected workmen are entitled to ? י
का.आ. 2943. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स त्रावणकोर टिटेनियम प्रौड्क्ट लिमिटेड तिरुअनन्तपुरम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-43011/1/2009- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 24th August, 2012
3. At the time of hearing of the case learned counsel for both sides submitted that there is chance for settlement and hence the case to be posted in the Lok Adalat . Thereby the case was taken up in the Lok Adalat . A full and final settlement was arrived at between the parties . Both parties jointly filed compromise in terms ofthe settlement . As the compromise is found to be acceptable an award can be passed in terms ofthe compromise.
In the result an award is passed in terms of the compromiseand the compromise will form part of the award.
The award will come into force one month after its publication in the official gazette .
S.O. 2943. In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2009) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. (Thiruvananthapuram ) and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-7-2012.
[No. 1-43011 / 1 /2009- IR (M) ]( M JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 29th day ofJune, 2012.
ANNEXURE
D. SREEVALLABHAN , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
I. D. 23/2009
SHRI D. SREEVALLABHAN , B.SC. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer
The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat and the parties agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms:
(Friday the 29th day of June , 2012 / 8th Ashadam , 1934)
I. D. 23/2009
Union
The petitioner, Titanium Products Labour Union agreed the redesignation of Charge hand Operator to Senior Process Operator.
Itismutually agreed that the job of 17 senior most Senior Process Operators shall not be interchangeable , :The General Secretary, Titanium Products Labour Union , INTUC House , Kunnumpuram , Thiruvananthapuram -695 001 .
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7169
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
Assistant General Manager , ( Khan) ,
M. P. State Mining Corporation ,
however , the job of Senior Process Operators other than the 17 as above shall be interchangeable with that of Process Operators as and when required as per the option submitted by them .
Rajendranagar,
HeadOffice, Satna (MP)
.. Management
AWARD Passed on this 26th day of June , 2012 Dated the 29th day of June , 2012 Illigible Sd/- Union (Titanium Products Labour Union)
Sd/- Mediator
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-29012/21 / 89-1R ( Vividh ) dated 26-10-1989 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :
Illigible Sd/- Management
"Whether the action of the management of the M.P. State Mining Corporation , Sub- office , Satna in terminating the services of Shri Daduram S/o Shri Ram Vishwas , Labourer w.e.f. 6-9-87 is justififed . If not, what relief is the said workmen entitled to ? " (Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.) नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2944, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सतना माईनिंग कॉरपोरेशन सतना ( एम. पी. ) 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 223/1989 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29012/21/1989- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th August , 2012
2. The case of the workman in short is that he was posted on the post of carrier from several years in Bauxite mine of M.P. State Mining Corporation . His service condition was governed under Certified Standing Orders . The workman became ill in the year 1987 and he took leave without pay from 23-7-1987 to 24-8-1987 and left for village home at Jhakhora where his son also fell ill . He sent application for extension of leave from 29-8-1987 to 1-9-1987 through U.P.C. but he did not receive any reply ofthemanagement . He again sent an application for further extension of leave from 1-9-1987 to 10-9-1987 with medical certificate . In the meantime he received a notice dated 5-9-1987 of the management on 9-9-1987 . He appeared before the management on 11-9-1987 with medical certificate buthe was not allowed to join and his service was treated as self terminated . It is stated that the service under clause 12 ( C ) of the Certified Standing orders can only be terminated after giving opportunity to the workman but no enquiry was conducted nor any explanation was asked before termination of his service . It is stated that the workman be reinstated with full back wages .
S.O. 2944. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 223/ 1989) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s M. P. State Mining Corporation , Satna (M.P. ) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-7-2012 .
[No. L - 29012/ 21 / 1989 - IR ( M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/ LC/ R/223/ 89
Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer
Shri Daduram , S/ o Shri Ram Vishwas ,
Gram Post Jhakora ,
Workman
Distt. Satna (MP)
Versus
3. The management appeared and filed written statement . The case of the management . inter alia . is that the workman was in the service of the management. He was habitual absentee without intimation and without sanction of leave . In January 1987 he was on 9 days attendance . in Feb 87-14 days . in March 87-22 days , in April87-24days . in May 87-21 days , in June 87-20 days in July 87-22 days and in August - nil days on attendance. It is denied that the workman sent any application with medical certificate for extension of leave at any time . It is true that the workman was noticed vide notice dated 5-9-87 which was received by him on 6-9-87 for immediate joining on duty but he did not obey the order of the management . As such his service was terminated by himself under clause 12( C ) ofthe Certified Standing Orders .
7170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of themanagement.
4. The workman initially appeared and filed statement of claim . Thereafter he became absent and did not file any evidence inspite of sufficient opportunity granted to him . The then Tribunal proceeded the reference ex parte against the workman on 3-10-2005
5. The management was directed to adduce evidence. Lastly the learned counsel for the management submitted that there is no evidence of the workman to prove the case and the workman is not raising the dispute by making him absence from the proceeding . it is stated that under the circumstance , the management is not inclined to lead any evidence. The evidence of the management was accordingly closed . This shows that there is no evidence on the record of either side and therefore this is a case of no evidence . Accordingly the reference is answered.
6. In the result, award is passed without any order to costs .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2945.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स अतिकुरहमान पुत्र हाजी अब्बुल गुफूर लाईम स्तन खदान मालिक कोटा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29012/83/2003- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तो नो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 24th August, 212
S.O. 2945.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 4/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Trounal / Labour Court, Kota now as shown in the Anr exure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Atiqurrehman S/ o Haji Abbul Gafur, Lime Stone Mine Owner Kota and their wurkman. which was received by the Central Government o 27-7-2012.
[No. L-29012/83,2003 - IR ( M) JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii )]
अनुबंध
न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , कोटा , केन्द्रीय , कोटा, राज,
पीठासीन अधिकारी
श्री प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , आर.एच.जे.एस.
निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक: औ.न्या./केन्द्रीय/4/09
दिनांक स्थापित : 7-1-09
प्रसंग : भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश सं. एल-29012/83 /2003 ( आई आर( एम ) दि. 22-9-08
निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) औद्योगिक विवाद
अधिनियम, 1947
मध्य
जनरल सेक्रेट्री, राष्ट्रीय मजदूर संघ (इन्टक)
प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक रामगंज मण्डी जिला कोटा, राज.
यूनियन
एवं
अतिर्कुरहमान पुत्र हाजी अब्बुल गफूर , लाईम स्टोन खदान मालिक खान पीपाखेड़ी
अप्रार्थी नियोजक मुकाम संकेत , जिला कोटा
उपस्थित
कोई उपस्थित नहीं
: प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक यूनियन की ओर से
श्री ललित नागर अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि :
धनिर्णय दिनांक : 19-6-2012
अधिनिर्णय
भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अपनी उक्त प्रासंगिक अधिसूचना/ आदेश दि. 22-9-08 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश/विवाद, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1) ( घ ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है :
"Whether the demand of union for grant of 20% Bonus for the year 2006-2007 to the employees working in the establishment is legal and just ? What relief the workmen are entitled to ? "
2. निर्देश ( रेफ्रेन्स ) न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पक्षकारों को नोटिस जारी किये गये । रेफ्रेन्स दि. 7-1-09 को दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया एवं आगामी सुनवाई तिथि6-7-09 नियत की गयी एवं इसी बीच में प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक यूनियन की ओर से दि. 19-3-09 को अपना क्लेम स्टेटमेंट पेश किया गया जो आदेशिका दि. 6-7-09 के अनुसार रिकार्ड पर लिया गया ।
7171
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]
3. इस मामले में आदेशिकाओं के अवलोकन से प्रकट होता है कि रेफ्रेन्स दर्ज होने के बाद से आज तक जितनी भी सुनवाई तिथियां नियतकी गयी हैं, उनमें से किसी भी सुनवाई तिथि पर प्रार्थीगण या उनकी ओर से कोई उपस्थित नहीं हुआ । अतः जब प्रार्थीगण की ओर से कोई उपस्थित ही नहीं हो रहा है एवं ना ही मामले की पैरवी की जा रही है .तो न्यायाधिकरण स्वप्रेरणा से ऐसे मामले को नहीं चला सकता है । न्यायाधिकरण तो मामले के विचारण में आगे तभी बढ़ सकता है जबकि पक्षकारान उपस्थित आयेंवें एवं विशेष रूप से यदि अप्रार्थी की ओर से कोई उपस्थित नहीं भी आता है तो भी प्रार्थी कर्मकार जिसकी पहल पर रेफ्रेन्स हुआ है , उसको तो कम से कम आकर अपनामामला अन्तिम परिणीति तक पहुंचाने के लिए उपस्थित होकर आवश्यक कार्यवाही करनी चाहिए । परन्तु हस्तगत मामले में तो रेफ्रेन्स दर्ज होने से लेकर आज दिन तक प्रार्थीगण की ओर से कोई उपस्थितनहीं आया , केवल बीच में दि. 19-3-09 को जिस दिनकि सुनवाई तिथि नियत नहीं थी प्रार्थीगण श्रमिक यूनियन द्वारा क्लेम स्टेटमेंट पेश कर दिया गया एवं उसके बाद प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर से कोई इस मामले को आगे चलाने के लिए उपस्थित नहीं हुआ । अतः ऐसी परिस्थिति में जब प्रार्थी पक्ष ही इस मामले को चलाने में कोई रुचि नहीं ले रहा है एवं उपस्थित नहीं आ रहा है तो न्यायाधिकरण स्वप्रेरणा से इस मामले को अनिश्चितकाल तक नहीं चला सकता है एवं रेफ्रेन्स अदम हाजिरी व अदम पैरवी में निस्तारित होने योग्य है ।
परिणामस्वरूप भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली द्वारा अपने प्रासांगिक आदेश क्र. 29012/83/2008 [ आई आर( एम) ] दि. 22-9-08 के जरिये सम्प्रेषित निर्देश ( रेफ्रेन्स ) को इसी प्रकार उत्तरित किया जाता है कि इस मामले में प्रार्थीगण यूनियन या प्रार्थीगण की ओर से मामले को चलाने के लिए किसी के भी उपस्थित नहीं आने से प्रकरण अदम हाजिरी व अदम पैरवी में निस्तारित किया जाकर प्रार्थीगण कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी नहीं हैं ।
प्रकाश चन्द्र पगारीया , न्यायाधीश
नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2946. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रमन्यायालय , मुम्बई -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2012 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011 /74/2011- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]
रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th August, 2012
S.O. 2946. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2012 .
[No. L- 12011 /74/2011 -IR (B-1)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVENRMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT:
K. B. KATAKE, PresidingOfficer
Reference No. CGIT- 2/5 of 2012
Employers inRelation to the Management ofState Bank ofIndia
The Dy. General Manager
(Business & Operations), Zone- I , State Bank of India, Madhuli Building, 2nd Floor, H/2, ShivsagarEstate, Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli,Mumbai-400018
And
Their Workman
TheGeneral Secretary,
SBI Staffunion "Synergy" Building, 'G' Block, Plot No. C/6, Ground Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.
Appearances:
FortheEmployer : Mr. M.G. Nadkarni , Advocate
Forthe Workman : Mr. J.D. Shringarpure , Representative.
Mumbai , dated the 6th July, 2012
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employmentby its Order No. L- 12011 / 74/2011 - IR ( B- 1 ) , dated 31-1-2012 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Zone- I , Mumbai in imposing the punishment of " Removal from services with superannuation benefits etc. " vide order dated 26-3-2010 on Shri Chandrakant J. Patel , Special 7172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
Assistant is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman/union is entitled ? "
2. After receipt of the order of reference from Ministry, notices were served on both the parties vide 3 & 4. Today, General Secretary of the union hd .. Shringarpure instead of filing statement of claim . filol application Ex - 6 stating that the concerned workman expired on 25-3-2012 and requested to treated the dis site as withdrawan . Thus the order :
ORDER
Reference is dismissed as withdrawn.
K.B. KATAKE , Presiding Officer
Dated: 6th July, 2012
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2947.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.ए . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योनिय अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 213/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/463/1999- आई आर (सी-1) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th August, 2012
S.O. 2947. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 213/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 27-8-2012 .
[No. L-22012/463 / 1999 - IR ( C- 11 ); Β.Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER . CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/213 /2000
Dated: 7-8-2012
PartyNo. I : The Sub Area Manager ,
Hindustan Lalpeth U/ G Sub Area of WCL, PO : Lalpeth,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
Versus
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
PartyNo. 2 : The President/ Secretary,
Netonal Colliery Workers Congress ,
EmbedkarWard,
Tah . Ballarpur,
fer, Chandrapur.
AWARD
(Date : 7th August , 2012)
In exercise ofthe rowers coaferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and subsection 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) (" the Act " in shert) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , Shri Mallesh Kamtam, for adjudication , as per letter No. L-22012/463/- 99 - IR (C- II ) dated 28-6-2000 , with the following schedule:
"Whether the action of the management namely SubArea Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area ofWCL PO : Lalph, Distt . Chandrapur in dismissing Shri Mallesh Ashaiu Kamtam , Driller, Hindustan Lalpeth no . 1 on 15-4-1990 is legal & justified ? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled and from which date? What other directions are necessary in the matter ? י
2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their pactive statement of claim and written statement and secordingly, the union , "National Colliery workers congress " , ( " the union " in short ) , filed the statement of clain on behalf of the workman , Shri Mallesh Kamtarn , ( the workman ' in short ) and the management of WCL ( " Party No. 1 " in short ) filed its written statement .
The case of the workman as presented by the union inthe statement of claim is that it (the union) is a registered trade union and party no . I is a govenrment coal company and falls within the meaning of " State " under article 12 of the Constitution of India and the workman was in employment of party No.1 since 1975 and he was a permanent workman and had put in unblemished service of 15 years and the workman was appointed as a general mazdoor w.e.f. 14-2-1975 and by virtue of his loyal and efficient services , he was offered with the responsibility of driller and thereafter sanitary supervisor, but on false , fabricated and concocted allegations , a charge sheet dated 15-3-1990 was submitted against the workman by the Sub Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area, even though he was not competent to issue the charge sheet and the allegation against that workman was that , " on 14-3-1990 at11.45 PM, he went o Nandgaon incline's ' B ' type quarters in a drunken state and without any reason , he hurled filthy abuses against the J.E.T.s , namely, Shri Talawkar, Shri Kolhe and Shri Chiddarwar and slapped Shri Talawkar and threatened to kill them and put hurdle in their duties and the workman was charge sheeted under clauses 13 (B) 5 , [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
7173
13(B)7 , 13 (B ) 16 and 13 (B) 32 of the Standing Orders and he was suspended pending enquiry and the workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet vide his letter dated 17-3-1990, denying the allegations made against him , specifically mentioning there is that the alleged incident occurred in colony and not in the premises of colliery/ mine, during duty hours and not arisen in the course of and out of his employment or otherwise and therefore , the sub Area Manager had no jurisdiction to issue the charge sheet and the mere allegations hurling abuses and slapping Shri Talawkar did not amount of commission of anyoffence or crime , in absence of any intention or motive and the workman was not a fool or mad to abuse , or slap any person and the Sub Area Manager in collusion with the three JETs moved the policy machinery against the workman to suppress the truth and to harass and torture him physically, mentally and financially and in addition to the charge sheet , party no . 1 also moved the police to take action , the workman and police instituted a case under Section 85 ( 1 ) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 against the workman bearing no summary case no . 3247/90 in the court ofthe Chief Judicial Magistrate , Chandrapur.
the issue before the General Manager , WCL , Chandrapur vide letter dated 20-9-1993 , but the matter was not considered by the management and though the said union vide letters dated 18-10-1993 and 28-10-1993 took up the matter again , the managementmanag did not consider the case of the workman for his reinstatement and Shri Naresh Pugulia, Shri Shanta Ram Potdukhe and Shri Hansraj Ahir, all members of the Parliament took up the case of the workman, but the management did not consider the case ofthe workman and the workman was suspended pending the enquiry and was directed to report at 9.00 A.M.daily to the Register Keeper for getting his attendance marked to facilitate the management to send communication and as the workman was not getting his attendance marked between 24-3-1990 to 3-4-1990, the absence of the workman from the headquarters was known to the management and management took up the opportunity to hold the enquiry inhis absence , with a view to victimize him and the Chief General Manager , WCL , Chandrapur had directed the Sub- Area Manager, who submitted the charge sheet against the workman to take stern action against the workman and to teach him a lesion once for all and it is obvious that under such instruction , camera enquiry was conducted against the workman , where principles of natural justice was violated and the workman was not given full opportunity to defend himself and the order of dismissal ofthe workman is illegal and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and other consequential benefits.
The further case of the union in the Statement of claim is that the sub -Area Manager, vide letter dated 18/19-3-1990 constituted a domestic enquiry and appointed one Shri V. Ganpat as the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer fixed the enquiry on 21-3-1990 at 5.30 P.M. , but intimated him about the date of enquiry vide his letter dated 19/20-3-1990 , without giving him sufficient time for the same and inspite of the same, he attended the enquiry at the time and place of the enquiry, but the enquriy officer himself was not present and thereafter , he went to his native village in connection with the marriage ofhis nephew and he was not present at Chandrapur between the period from 24-3-1990 to 3-4-1990 and on 12-4-1990, he gave an application to the Manager Lalpeth Mine No. 1 to mark his presence from 24-3-1990 to 3-4-1990 and after his return from his native village , the workman received the notice dated 24-3-1990 of the enquriy officer and came to know that the enquiry was fixed to 28-3-1990 at 5 P.M. in the office of the enquiry officer, so he requested the enquiry officer to fix up the enquiry to another date and to allow him to defend himself, but his such appeal went in vain and the enquiry was conducted in a haste , in camera and exparte and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and the workman was dismissed from services by the Sub Area Manager vide letter dated 15-4-1990 with immediate effect and the workman was not given full opportunity to defend himself and he was not supplied with copy of the enquiry proceeding and report of the enquiryofficer.
3. The party no. 1 in their written statement have pleaded inter alia that the union has made baseless allegations and the workman is a person , who did not havea clean record and he was in habit of quarrelling with the management in drunken state and the statement of claim as filed is nothing but an attempt to gain sympathy ofthe court and facts and law have been misquoted in the statement ofclaim by the union and the workman admitted the charges levelled against him , in is explanation to the chargesheet and as such , he is debarred from challenging the action and punishment imposed on him for the misconduct and the conduct of the workman was unlawful and deliberate , particularly considering his past conduct and sufficient chances were given to the workman to defend himself in the enquiry, but as he remained deliberately absent, the enquiry was fixed to 24-3-1990 and the said date of the enquiry was duly intimated to the workman vide letter no . 122 dated 22-3-1990 , but still then , theworkman again remained absent and even did not give any intimation about his remaining absent and inspite of the same, the enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry to 28-3-1990 and the workman was duly intimated about the same vide letter no . 127 dated 24-3-1990 and an advertisement was also published in the daily newspaper, "Mahavidharbha" on 25-3-1990 to that effect and inspite ofthe same, on 28-3-1990 , the workman remained absent , It is also pleaded by the union that in Summons case no . 3247 of 1990 , the workman was acquitted on 26-11-1993 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the union, " RKKMS" took up the cause of the workman and raised 7174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
so the enquriy was proceed ex parte and the enquriy officer submitted his report to the Sub Area Manager as per law.
theenquiry officer held the workman guilty of the charges , which shows his biasness and neither in the enquiry proceeding nor in the enquiry report anything was mentioned about the reply submitted by the workman , which clearly shows evaluation of evidence was not at all done by the enquiry officer and therefore , the report of the enquiry officer is prejudicial , vague and against the principles of natural justice .
The further case of the party no. 1 is that the union isnot a recognized union by the manager and as such , it has no locus to contest the case on behalf, of the workman and the promotions given to the workman are in the routine course of his duties and not for his efficient service as alleged and inspite of the special direction to make daily attendance , the workman deliberately avoided to mark his daily attendance for the period from 24-3-1990 to 12-4- 1990 and thereafter willfully made an application to cover hismis-deeds and the word " premises " includes the residential premises and he obstructed the persons in performingtheir official duties , amounting to misconduct and as such , by stating that the incident occurred in the colony does not absolve the workman from the punishment prescribed and the Sub Area Manager is the competent authority to issue the charge sheet and the act committed bythe workman also amounted to criminal charge and as such , the police , complaint was rightly filed and the charges were proved in the enquiry and the enquiry was conducted by giving full opportunity to the workman and the workman tried to pressurize the management for unlawful gains by getting the matter politicized and the management had never tried to victimize the workman and the punishment imposed against the workman is in order and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
4. Asthis is a case of dismissal of the workman from services after holding of a departmental enquiry, the validity of the enquiry, was taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated 6-12-2007, the departmental enquiry was he'd to be legal , proper and o accordance with the principles of natural justice .
It was further argued by the learned advocate for the union that the enquiry officer did not give sufficient time to the workman to take part in the departmental enquiry and notices were not issued as per law and there was violation of the principles of natural justice and the mainwitness , Shri Talwakar, the person , who was alleged to be assaulted was not examined, which clearly shows thebiasness of the enquiry officer and without evidence, the enquiry officer held the workman guilty of the charges and the order of dismissal was not approved by the competent authority and as such , the order is illegal and asthe appellate authority acted as the competent authority, the workman lost the scope of appeal and as such , the enquiry and punishment imposed there on were to be held illegal and as both the departmental enquiry and the criminal case were based on the same set of facts and the workman was acquitted by the criminal court , the findings recorded against him in the ex parte disciplinary enquiry cannot be sustained and the entire action against the workman was preplanned, motivated and decided by the appellate authority himself, before the enquiry was ordered, which is clear from the document , W- 15 and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
5. During the course of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the union that as the enquiry was conducted in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the relevant standing orders , the enquiry was vitiated and as such , the order of dismissa ! is not justified and it is already held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Tribunal has the power to avert to all points raised before it and to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer , if a proper case is made out and subsistence allowance was not paid to the workman , which vitiated the exparte enquiry held against him and the entire action taken by the disciplinary authority. It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the union that the charges levelled against the workman were illegal, as the alleged occurrence of abuse and assault were not committed inside any mine and as such , the allegations made against the workman cannot be said to be commission of any misconduct and the enquiry officer was not fair and inspite ofknowing the definition of "Mine" and the specific denial ofthe workman in his show cause that the alleged incident did not occur inside any mine ,
Insupport of such contentions , reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the union on the decisions reported in 1999( 3 ) SCC 679 (Capt . M Paul AnthonyVs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.) , AIR 1984 SC-505 M/s . Glaxo Laboratories Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut , AIR 2001 SC - 343 ( State of Punjab Vs. V.K. Khanna) , SCLJ Vol . 5-138 (Delhi Cloth & General Mills Vs. Tejvir Singh) , AIR 1961 , SC - 1159 [ The Bata Shoes Co(P ) Ltd. Vs. D.N. Ganguly] ( 1999) 7 SCC- 739 ( Yoginath W. Bagde Vs. State ofRajasthan) , AIR 1972 SC- 2535 (State of Assam Vs. Mohan Chandra Kalita ) , 2001 III CLR - 930 ( Anil R. Joshi Vs. Air India Ltd) . 1983 (2) SLR- 645 ( Sukinder Singh Vs. The State ofPunjab ) , 1970 II LLJ - 1 ( The management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. Vs. Their Workman) , 2010( 1) Mh . L.J. - 587 ( Shriram V. Deshpande Vs. Presiding Officer), ( 1973 ) 1 SCC- 656 ( Ghanshyam Das Vs. State of MP), 2009 LAB IC (Noc) 828 ( MAD) ( J. Prasad Vs. Board ofDirectors) , 1995 (70) FLR - 817 ( SC) (Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank) , AIR 2006 SC- 2120 ( GM . TankVs. State ofGujarat ) , AIR 1973 SC-2650 ( Western India Match Co. Ltd. Vs. Workman) , AIR 2010 SC- 671 ( Sri
[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
7175
Jeyaram Education Trust & Others Vs. A.G. Syed submitted that the alleged incident did not take place in a
Mohideen) , 2006 LAB IC- 1527 ( H.M. Awasthy Vs. Union mine or in the premises of a Mine and at the time of the
of India) , 2001 III CLR 489 (K. Meerabai Vs. Chairman- alleged incident, neither the workman was on duty nor
cum-Managing Director) , and 2012 1 CLR- 842 ( Pradeep the persons alleged to be assaulted and abused were on
Kumar Banarjee Vs. Airport Authority). duty and as such , it cannot be said that any misconduct
So, keeping in view the principles enunciatedby the wascommitted by the workman and as no misconduct
Hon'ble Courts in the decisions cited by the learned wascommittedby the workman , there was no question of
advocate for the union , the present case in hand is nowto conducting any departmental enquiry or imposition of
be considered . punishment against the workman . However, I do not find
any merit in the contentions raised by the learned
6.On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the union in this regard. From the relevant
advocate for the party No. I that as per order dated 6-2- standing orders , it is found that clause 13 of the said
2007, it has already been held that the departmental enquiry standing orders deals with " disciplinary action for
conducted against the workman is legal, proper and in misconducts " and clause 13(B ) defines the acts and
accordance with the principles of natural justice and omissions which are to be treated as misconducts . Clause
therefore, the submissions made in regard to the legality 13 (B ) 5 says that " drunkenness , riotous or disorderly
and fairness of the enquiry are not required to be behavior, assault or quarrel or any act subversive of
considered again . It was further submitted there was no discipline in the premises " by a workman is a misconduct.
illegality in leveling the charges against the workman and Likewise, clauses 13 (B) 7, 13 (B ) 16 and 13 (B) 32 define
the charges were proved by adducing sufficient evidence "habitual indiscipline " , "threatening, abusing or assaulting
and the enquiry officer after assessing the evidence on any person in the employment or in the management of
record rightly concluded the workman to be guilty of the the company" and " disturbing other workmen on duty"
charges excluding clause- 13 (B) 7 of the Standing Orders respectively as misconducts . In the relevant clauses, there
and in support of his findings the enquiry officer has isno mention about commission of such misconduct either
assigned cogent reasons and as such , the findings cannot in amine or in a mine premises . No doubt, in clause 13 (B )
be said to be perverse and serious misconducts have 5 ofthe word "premises " is there, but there is no mention
beenproved against the workman in a properly conducted thatthe premises must be a mine premises . It is found that
departmental enquiry, hence the punishment of dismissal the alleged incident having connection and bearing with
from services imposed against the workman cannot be theemployment of the workman and the persons alleged
said to be shockingly disproportionate and as such , there to be assaulted and abused and as the alleged incident
is no scope for interference in the matter of punishment took place in the colliery premises , the alleged action of
by the Tribunal and the citations filed on behalf of the the workman is held to be misconduct within the meaning
union are not all applicable to the present case as the facts of the standing orders and the levelling of the charges
and circumstances of the present case , and the cases under the relevant standing orders cannot be said to be
referred in the decisions are quite different and the illegal.
workman is not entitled to any relief.
9. The next contention raised by the learned
7. Before delving into the merit of the matter, it is to advocate for the union was that though the workman was
bementioned here that while passing orders on the validity suspended no subsistence allowance was paid to him and
of the departmental enquiry, the issues raised by the the non -payment of subsistence allowance vitiates the
learned advocate for the union in respect of the entire enquiry. It is to be mention here that such a plea
competency of submission of charge sheet by the Sub- was not taken in the statement of claim . In the rejoinder,
AreaManager, leveling of the charges under clauses 13 (B ) such fact was mentioned by the union . However, there is
5, 13 (B ) 7 , 13 ( B ) 16 and 13 ( B ) 32 of the Standing Orders nothing on record to show that due to non - payment of
and proceeding with the departmental enquiry and subsistence allowance , the workman was prejudiced in
imposing of punishment against the workman in the same defending himself in the departmental enquiry. Hence, there
inspite of the initiation ofthe criminal case, improper service isno force in the submission made by the learned advocate
of notice of the enquiry on the workman and non- for the union that due to non - payment of the subsistence
examination ofMr. Talwakar in the departmental enquiry allowance the entire enquiry was illegal .
were already considered . Hence , there is no need to
reconsider the same . 10. The next contention raised by the learned
advocate for the union was that the departmental enquiry
8. The first contention raised by the learned advocate and the criminal case instituted against the workman were
for the union is that the leveling of the charges under based on identical and similar set of facts and evidence
clauses 13 (B) 5, 13 ( B )7, 13( B) 16 and 13 (B)32 is illegal and and as the workman was acquitted by the criminal court
as such , the entire enquiry and the punishment imposed honourably, the contrary findings in the departmental
basing on such enquiry is also illegal . It was further enquiry are unfair and oppressive and the dismissal order
3417 GI/12-14 7176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
is liable to be set aside. In support of such contention, reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the union onthedecision reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129 (Supra) . In the above decision , the Hon'ble Apex Court have referred the decision reported in 2005(7) SCC 764 [ Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager ( PJ) , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ] in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, the said order does not preclude the corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible . Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force . The two proceedings , criminal and departmental , are entirely different . They operate in different fields and have different objectives . Whereas the object of a criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose ofenquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance withthe service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence . Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings . The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused ' beyond reasonable doubt' , he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of ' preponderance of probability' . Acquittal of the appellant by a judicial Magistrate , therefore , does not ipso facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the corporation . Therefore , the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court , the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside, cannot be upheld. "
On perusal of the documents including the judgment of the criminal court , it is found that the charges in the criminal case and the charges in the departmental enquiry against the workman were not the same and the witnesses examined and evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry were not the same as in the criminal case .
In view of the principles enunciated by de Hon'bleApex Court and the facts mentioned above ,
[PART IISEC . 3 (ii)]
itcanbe said that, there is no force in the contention inthe submission made by the learned advocate for the union on that score .
11. Perused the records of the enquiry proceedings and found that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence on record. Though four charges were levelled against the workman, the enquiry officer found the workman not to be guilty of the charge under clause 13 (B) 7 of the standing orders . The enquiry officer has not based his findings on any extraneous materials . This is also not a case of no evidence . Hence , the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse .
12. The disciplinary authority has passed the order ofdismissal of the workman after obtaining due permission from the competent authority as per rules . It is not a case that the appellant authority had exercised the power of the disciplinary authority, depriving the workman of his rightof appeal .
13. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction . TheTribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse . It there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice , what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the corcompetent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct , the Tribunal has no power to substitute its owndiscretion for that of the authority . The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern itself with . The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the enquiry officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.
14. In view of the discussion made above and the materials on record , with respect , I am of the view that the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the union have no application to the present case in hand .
15. In this case grave misconducts have been proved against the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. The penalty imposed against the workman is not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against him. The punishment is based on evidence and is not arbitrary or mala fide or perverse . Hence , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment . Hence , it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management namely Sub Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub Area of WCL [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
7197
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:
PO: Lalpeth , Distt . Chandrapur in dismissing Shri Mallesh Ashalu Kamtam, Driller, Hindustan Lalpeth No. 1 on 15-4-1990 is legal andjustified. Theworkman isnot entitled to any relief.
J. P-CHAMID Phosialling Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2012
"Whether the action of the management of Banki Colliery ofM/s . South Eastern Coalfields Limited in not rectifying the date of birth of Shri Nandlal is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled?"
वन.आ. 2948-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण , श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्याः 156/2000 ) वणे प्रमाणसित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/256/1997- आई आर ( सी-11 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th August, 2012
S.O, 2948. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 156/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur, as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2012 .
[No. L-22012/256/ 1997 - IR ( C - II ) ] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤNAIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
2. The case of the Union/ Workman in short is that the workman Late Nandlal was initially appointed on 2-1-1967 under the National Coalfields Development Corporation Ltd. ( in short NCDC Ltd. ) . His date of birth was recorded as 12-7-1951 in the record of NCDC Ltd. After nationalization scheme , the NCDC was taken by the Coal India Ltd. and the services of the workman was transferredto South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (in short SECL). It is stated that in the year 1987, the service excerpt was issued to all employees to provide date of birth and other information . His date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 1-1-1941 . As such the workman made an objection that his date of birth was wrongly shown as his correct date of birth was 12-7-1951 . His case was referred to Age Determination Committee in the year 1988. When thue workman appeared before the said committee, he was directed to furnish evidence in respect of his age . The workman was not examined by any Medical practitioner as: laid down in Implementation Instruction No. 76. The constitution of the said committee was only a formalityto justify the action of the management . The workman gave representations and also raised dispute through the Union The workman was again calledby the Age Determination Committee in its meeting dated 26-6-94. He appeared and found that no Medical Officer was present to examine him. The workman was active member of the Union and therefore the management had not changed his date of birth to victimize the workman . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the workman .
No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 156/2000
Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer
Branch Secretary,
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC) ,
Branch Banki Colliery,
P.O. Banki Mongra,
Distt. Bilaspur ( MP)
Workman
Versus
Deputy General Manager,
SECL , Banki Colliery,
P.O. Banki Mongra ,
Distt. Bilaspur (MP
Management
AWARD
Passed on the 8th day of August , 2012
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 22012/256/97 - IR(C- 11 ) dated 25-8-2000
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , inter alia, is that admittedly he was initially appointed on 2-1-1967 by the NCDC Ltd. where his service record was maintained and his date of birth was recorded as 1-1-1941 . The workman had declared his age as 1-1- 1941 at the time of initial appointment and his date ofbirth wasrecorded in the statutory record in Form B. As per the guidelines of 1.1 . No. 76 the management issued service excerpts to the workman whose raised objection for the firsttime about his age as 12-7-1951 . Accordingly the case was referred to the Age Determination Committee ( in short ADC) . The ADC after careful examination of the record decided the dispute of age as 1-1-1991 and communicated the same . The workman again approachedthe management but after further examination the ADC did not find any merit in his claim and communicated the decision vide letter No. 6167 dated 5-10-1994 . The management issued 7170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/ BHADKA 31 , 1934 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]
notice of retirement intimating him the date of superannuation vide letter dated 6-7-2000 . The workman retired on 1-1-2001 . It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief and the action of the management is legal and justified ?
4. During the pendency of the reference , the workman died on 27-1-2009. Thereafter the legal heirs are substituted in his place vide order dated 13-4-2014.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed for adjudication
(1) Whether the action of the management in not rectifying the date ofbirth Shri Nandial is legal and justified ?
(II) To what relief the workman is entitled ?
onhim . Exhibit M/4 is the office order dated 25-11-89 : This is filed to show that the workman represented for correction ofhis age and the same was referred to ADC for determinaton of date of birth and the conclusion arrived by the committee in respect of date of birth which was circulated to the employees . The name of the workman appears at Sl . No. 3. It shows that the ADC decided his age as 1-1-1941 which was recorded in all the records of the management . Exhibit M/5 is the notice of the date of retirement by the management . Exhibit M/ 6 is the superannuation letter. Thus the documentary evidence clearly establishes that his date of birth was 1-1-1941 as recorded in all the records of the management . Moreover it looks probable also because in case if the date of birth i.e. 12-7-1951 is to be deemed to be correct then at the time of initial appointment , his age would be about 16 years which is against the Mines Act , 1952.
6. Issue No. I
9. The management has also examined one witness . TheManagement witness Shri Ashish Adhikari is working asPersonnel Manager in Korba Area of SECL . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that date of birth of the workman was recorded as 1-1-1941 which he had declared and was recorded in Form B register by NCDC . This fact also corroborates from the documentary evidence filed by the management . He has further stated that the workman was hardly 16 years on the basis of the contention of the workman at the time initial appointment whereas under Mines Act , no person can be employed below the age of 18 years . This aspect also shows that the contention of the workman of his age isnot acceptable . This witness has further stated that the ADC had decided the dispute by declaring the age of the workman as 1-1-1941 . Thus it is clear from the oral and documentary evidence that the action of the management islegal and justified in considering the date of birth of the workman as 1-1-1941 . This issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the management .
10. Issue No. II :
The workman Nandlal is examined in the case . He has stated that he was appointed initially on 2-1-1967 under NCDC Ltd. and his date of birth was recorded as 12-7- 1951 by the management. The management has filed the service register of the workman which was prepared by the NCDC Ltd. at the time of initial appointment and is marked as Exhibit M /2 . The said Service Register shows that his age was recorded as 1-1-1941 instead of 12-7- 1951. His evidence is contradictory to the documentary evidence . He has further stated that the school transfer certificate was issued on 29-7-65 in which he date of birth wasindicated as 12-7-1951 . He has further stated that the said transfer certificate was submitted by sim at the time of initial appointment which was returned by the management after perusing the same . The criginal transfer certificate is not filed by the workman though it shows that it was in his possession . However a photocopy is filed which is not proved but the same photocopy shows that it was issued on 29-7-1975 much after the initial appointment . This itself shows that the evidence of the workman is not reliable on the point of age . Moreover I.I. No. 76 shows that the transfer certificate is not included as an authentic document to rely on age .
Onthe basis of the discussion made above , I find thatthe workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered .
11. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2012
7. On the other hand , the management has adduced oral and documentary evidence in the case . Exhibit M/ 1 is the Form B of NCDC Ltd. which shows thi , his date of birthwas recorded in the Form B register as 1-1-1941 . Exhibit M/ 1 ( A) is Form B of SECL which shows that his date of birth was recorded as 1-1-1941 . Exhibit M/2 is the Service Register of the workman of NCDC Ltd. This reginer also shows that at the time of initial appointment , his age was recorded as 1-1-1941 .
का.आ. 2949.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोज़कों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध 8. ExhibitM/3 is the Service Excerpt of d workman. This is filed to show that the workman raised dispute of his age for the first time in 1987 when excerpt was served [ भाग II-खखंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7179
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
SCHEDULE
में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , असनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 72/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, ओ केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of Parascole Colliery of M/ s . ECL in fixation of wages of Sh. Sahdeo Goura, Underground Trammer at the time of conversion from piece rate to Time rate during 1996 islegal and justifed ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
[सं. एल-22012/418/1998- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th August , 2012
S.O. 2949. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 72/1999 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2012 .
[No. L-22012/418 / 1998 - IR (CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . ΡΑΤΝΑIK, Section Officer
Having received the Order of Letter No. L -22012/ 418/98 /IR ( CM - II ) dated 7-7-1999 of the above said reference from The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 72 of 1999 was registered on 23-7-1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance ofthe said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
The union is neither appearing nor taking any step since2006 vide order dated 19-5-09 . It seems that the Union/ Workman is no more interested to proceed with the case further. Hence, the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute " is hereby passed.
PRESENT :
ORDER
Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer Reference No. 72 of 1999
PARTIES :
Let an " Award" be and the same is passed as no dispute existing. Send the copies of the order to theGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer The General Secretary, UCMU ( INTUC ) , Ukhra (W.B.)
Vs.
नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2012
TheAgent, Parascole Colliery, ECL , Burdwan (W.B. )
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Sri P. K. Das ,
Ld . Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry: Coal
State: West Bengal
का.आ. 2950.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , असनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 23/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Dated: 25-7-2012
AWARD
[सं. एल-22012/157/1998 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th August, 2012 Inexercise of powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) of sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/418 / 98 - IR (CM - II ) dated 7-7-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
S.O. 2950.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 23/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 7180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012 /BHADRA 31 , 1934
of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .
dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2012.
[No. L- 22012/ 157/ 1998 - IR ( CM - II ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Representative of the Union , submits that the case may be closed as the workman is no more interested to proceed with the case . Since the workman is no more interested to proceed with the case further, the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute " is hereby passed.
ORDER
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer
Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as no disputeexisting . Send the copies of the order to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.
Reference No. 23 of 1999
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer
PARTIES :
नई दिल्ली , 27 अगस्त, 2012
The Asstt . General Secretary, KMC, Asansol ( W.B. )
Vs.
The Agent , Bahula Colliery, Kenda Area , ECL, Burdwan(W.B. )
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Sri P. K. Das . Ld . Advocate
का.आ. 2951. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , असनसोल के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 79/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
For the Union ( Workman) : Sri Rakesh Kumar,
Ld . Representative
[सं. एल-22012/420/1998- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
State : West Bengal
Industry : Coal
New Delhi , the 27th August, 2012
Dated : 2-8-2012
AWARD
S.O. 2951. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 79/1999 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2012 .
Inexercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 157/98 - IR (CM - II ) dated 22-3-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
[No. L - 22012/420/ 1998 - IR (CM - II) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Section Officer SCHEDULE
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
"Whether the action of the management of New Kenda Colliery of ECL in terminating the services of Sh. Lilu Kole is legal and justifed ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
PRESENT:
Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen , Presiding Officer Reference No. 79 of 1999
PARTIES :
The Organising Secretary, CMS , P.O. - Asansol, Burdwan ( W.B. )
Vs.
TheAgent, Belbad Colliery, ECL, Burdwan (W.B. ) Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/ 157 / 98 / IR ( CM - II ) dated 22-3-1999 of the above said reference from the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 23 of 1999 was registered on 30-3-1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
7181
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management : Sri P. K. Das , Ld . Advocate
For the Union (Workman) : None
Industry: Coal
बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 08/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
State : West Bengal
Dated: 25-7-2012
AWARD
Inexercise of powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 420/ 98 - IR (CM - II ) dated 7-7-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Belbad Colliery over refusal to employment to Smt . Sonamati Devi dependent wife of Late Ramsurat Harijan is justifed ? Ifnot, to what relief is Smt . Sonamati Devi entitled ? "
Having received the Order of Letter No. L -22012/ 420/98 / IR ( CM - II ) dated 7-7-1999 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No.79 of 1999 was registered on 23-7-1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through theregistered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .
The workwoman , Smt . Sonamati Devi is neither appearing nor taking any step since long . It seems that she has no more interest to proceed with the case further . Hence, the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute" is hereby passed.
ORDER
Let an " Award " be and the same is passed as no dispute existing . Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त , 2012
का.आ. 2952.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व [सं. एल-12012/137/2005- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th August, 2012
S.O. 2952. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Reserve Bank of India, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-8-2012 .
[No. L- 12012/ 137/2005 - IR ( B- I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated: 25th July, 2012
PRESENT:
Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer C.R. NO . 08/2006
IParty
II Party
The General Manager (A) , The Reserve Bank of India, Nrupathunga Road , Bangalore
Shri K. S. Radhakrishnan , No. 48/240 , 111 Cross , 9thA Main , Banasvadi Main Road , Doddabasanavadi , Bangalore-560047
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of1947) has referred this dispute vide order No. L- 12012/ 137/2005 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 20-2-2006 for adjudication on the following Schedule :
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India is justified in dismissing Shri R. S. Radhakrishnan Coin Note Examiner - 1 from services witheffect from 23-1-2004 ? If not , to what reliefthe workman is entitled to and from which date ?" 7182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
2. Itisborne out from the records that the first party workman who was working as Group Supervisor of Group- 1 in the Note Examination of Section ' B ' of Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore branch along with Shri M. Nagraj , StaffOfficer; B. Jairaj , Mazdoor ; S. Jayarajan , Mazdoor; M. Puttanna , Mazdoor ; C. R. Gururaja Rao , Coin/ ote Examiner; Narayanaswamy, Coin/Note , Examiner , B. Gopalkrishna, Coin /Note Examiner ; K. S. Radhakrishnan, Coin/Note Examiner ; T. Muthaiyan , Coin /Note Examiner; S. Ramalingam , Mazdoor ; R. Kuchelan , Punching Supervisor ; V. Thangaraj , Mazdoor ; M. Devadas , Seal Keeper; Ramachandra, Sale Staff Officer; G Hari Ram , Staff Officer and Smt . Ramalakshmi Naidu , Coin/Note Examiner served with charge sheet as under :
ChargeSheet
" You are advised that in the circumstances mentioned in Paragraph 2 below, the charges as set outin paragraph 3 have been framed against you.
2. (i ) On 8th February 1979 you were working as Group Supervisor of Group II in the Note Examinaton Section ' B ' ofthis office .A packet ofnon- issuable notes of the denomination of Rs. 100 bearing seal BG - OE was examined and prepared by Shri T. Muthaiyan , Coin - Note Examiner Gr. II who was working in your Group under your supervision and control . It was found that in the said packet was comprised of already defaced notes of the same denomination punched prior to 8th February 1979.
( ii) As the said Coin Note examiner Gr. It was working in your im nediate presence , had you exercised due care and diligence in the discharge of your duties , substitution ofnon- defaced notes by already defaced notes as stated above would not have taken place resulting in a loss of Rs . 10,000 to the Bank . Would not have taken place or you had in collusion with Shri T. Muthaiyan , Coin Note ExaminerGradeII who was working under you on 8th February 1979 substituted the notes and wrongfully appropriated to that extent.
3. You are therefore , charged with having discharged your duties in a grossly negligent and inefficient manner and thereby having acted in a manner detrimental to the interests ofthe Bank causing a loss of Rs . 10,000 to the bank . You are also charged with having committed an act of misconduct by being a party with Shri T. Muthaiyan in the substitution of non - defaced notes by already defaced notes and thereby having acted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the bank causing a loss of Rs . 10,000 to the Bank .
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]
4. Accordingly, this charge sheet is issued to you in pursuance of Regulation 47 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations , 1948.
5. You are hereby called upon to answer the above charges in writing or in person in which case your defence will be taken down in writing and read out to you . Any defence you may wish to proffer, including the list of witnesses you maywish to produce , should be submitted along with the rely to the above charges to the under signed on or before 30th April 1985" .
3.Being not satisfied with his reply dated 25-4-1985 the second party while appointing Shri V. V. Nayak, Officer in Grade B as Enquiry Officer and Shri Mohammes Shafi Ahmed, Officer in Grade ' B ' as Presenting Officer initiated theDomestic Enquiry and the Enquiry Officer after duly holding the enquiry by his report dated 23-7-2003 held the charges being proved against all . The Disciplinary Authority after causing second show cause notice and giving a personal hearing passed the impugned order of dismissal dated 25-8-2003 and the Appellate Authority as well after giving the personal hearing to the first party confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the said punishment order imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority the dispute being raised by the first party before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Bangalore and the said conciliation failed the Central Government made this reference for adjudication .
4. Having regard to the contention raised by the first party with regard to the fairness or otherwise of the Domestic Enquiry my learned Predecessor while raising a preliminary issue as to " Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the second party is fair and proper ? " when called upon both the sides to adduce evidence on the same, on behalf of the second partywhile filing the affidavit ofenquiry officer examining him on oath as MWI enquiry proceedings ; show cause notice issued to the first party ; findings of the enquiry officer and the orders of the Appellate Authority were got marked as Ex . Ml to M4 . After affording several opportunities to cross- examine him since same was not availed discharging him from cross - examination afforded several opportunities to lead rebuttal evidence to first party and that was also not availed . Thereafter my learned Predecessor hearing the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing for both sides by his detailed considered order dated 21st May 2007 held the Preliminary Issue in the ' affirmative ' i.e. the enquiry being fair and proper the matter came to be posted for hearing arguments onmerits .
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7183
भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
finding ofthe enquiry officer the charge being proved and that the first party is not entitle for any relief.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 25-7-2012)
S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त , 2012 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first party after availing several opportunities to address arguments on merits ultimately submitted that the first party having been convicted in criminal case as well as he has not been approaching him and hearing the representative of the second party the court may proceed to pass award. Thereafter I have heard the arguments addressed by the second party representative .
का. आ. 2953.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, के प्रबंधतत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 180/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को6-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/292/1998- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]
शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th August , 2012
S.O. 2953. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 180/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-8-2012 .
[No. L - 12012/292/ 1998 - IR (B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL COVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD PRESENT.:
Shri Kishori Ram , Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947
Reference No. 180 of 1999 6. Since the Domestic Enquiry has been held as fair and proper it was for the first party to demonstrate that the enquiry finding was perverse as such the Disciplinary Authority could not have placed reliance on such a finding to impose the highest punishment of dismissal and at least the Appellate Authority would have intervened and set aside the punishment order or at least reduce the quantum of punishment . But as already adverted to by me above, the first party counsel by making a submission that first party being even convicted in criminal case relating to this ve y charge and not approaching him he failed to demonstrate the enquiry finding being perverse punishmen . imposed is disproportionate to the proved charge of misconduct. It is also borne out from the records besides the Domestic Enquiry initiated against the first party and others in relation to this very charge parallel criminal proceedings was also initiated and all the officials have been convicted by the criminal court where in this official was accused No. 5. Apartfrom that in respect of this very charge in the dispute raised by other five officials this tribunal while confirming the findings of the enquiry officer had reduced punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement and that order when challenged by the second party before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 556/94 same came to be allowed reversing the modification of punishment by this tribunal confirming order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and even writ appeal preferred against that order in the writpetition came to be dismissed. Having regard to this development the first party in this case appears to have lost hope of his success and actually abandoned the reference . Under the circumstances I have no reason to interfere either in the finding of the enquiry officer as perverse or order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
PARTIES:
Employer in relation to the management of Bank of India, Jamshedpur and their workman .
APPEARANCES :
7. In the result I arrived at the conclusion of rejecting the reference affirming the order of dismissal passed by theDisciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority dated 1st October 2004. Accordingly I pass the following award:
AWARD
On behalf of the workman : Mr. D. K. Verma , Ld . Advocate.
Onbehalf of the Management :
The reference is rejected holding that action of the management of Reserve Bank of India is justified in dismissing Shri R. S. Radhakrishnan , Coin Note Examiner- 1 from service w.e.f. 23-1-2004 i.e. on the
Mr. S. Κ. Chamaria , Ld . Advocate .
3417Gl/12-15 7184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012 /BHADRA 31 , 1934
State : Jharkhand
Industry Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th July, 201
ORDER
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , m exercise of the powers conferred on them unde: Cection 10(1)( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has refere following dispute to this Tribunal vide their Order No. L - 120 / 2/292/ 98/IR (B- II ) dated 25/28-4-1999.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of Denk of India , Jamshedpur is justified in cismissing Shri Ganesh Prasad Thakur from the services of the Bank ? If not , what relief is the workman entitied to?"
2. The case of petitioner/workosa Ganesh Pa. Thakur is that he had been diligently fully and blamelessly working as Daftry in Cadre of Band ofindia, Sini Branch , Distt. Singhbhum West for at he was suspended on 6-12-1994 as per order on the Regional Manager, Jamshedpur Region, Disciplinary Authority on the allegation of fradulently withdrawal of a sum of Rs . 17,000 on various dates from the three curvat Holders of the Branch . After completion of the Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted bis report to the Regional Manager , the Disciplinary Authority issvad him punishment show cause on 23-3-1996 to which he submitted his show cause against the proposed punishment on 30-3-1996 . His appeal wiin a prayer for condoning its delay filed on 23-8-1996. But he was dismissed from service as per the punishment order No. KO : IR ; 5140 dated 30-3-1996 under his receipt on 10-4-1996 . His appeal with a prayer for condoning its delay filed on 23-8-1996 was unaccepted as time bured as per the letter No. ZO : RCTT ; IR 921 dated 26-1-1997 . Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Authorities concerned, the petitioner/ workman fled the application for setting aside the illegal dismissal order being based on unproved fradulent alleged withdrawal and on er njecture and his coerced confession , as also unconsidering his delay in filing the appeal against it. The petitioner claimed for the relief of his reinstatement in the Bank service .
3. The petitioner categorically denying the allegations of the Management has alleged in his cojomder thathe committed not any misconduct . The Enquiry was not fair, proper and according to the rules of natural justice. The punishment of dismissal is excessive and disproportionate .
4. Whereas the specific denialful case of the Bank Management is that workman Ganesh Pd . Thakur, as Subordinate Staff at Sini Branch of Bank of India, in course ofhisduties in the year 1994 fradulentiy and destly withdrew various amounts of Saving Boots Holders .
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) )
Ondatefrom
Amount
Holders' A/ c . No.
Rs .2,000 10-5-1994
Sri Guhiram Mondal A/ c . No. 3269
Rs. 1,000 16-5-1994
Sri Guhiram Mondal A/ c . No. 3269
Rs. 5,000 30-6-1994
Sri Ghasiram Mondal A/ c . No.3842
Rs . 4,500 15-7-1994
Sri Ghasiram Mondal A/ c . No. 3842
Rs .4,000 8-9-1994
Sri Somnath Mahato A/c . No. 3648
All the withdrawals were done by him through withdrawal slips under forged signatures of aforesaid Account Holde.s by presenting them with the Pass Books which were handed over to him by them for updating , and he utilised the Pass Books . He was issued the charges dated 21-2-1995 by the Management . He replied for it, crying all the allegations .
At completion of the departmental enquiry fairly, properly and as per the rules' of natural justice conducted by Shri S. K. Adak , Regional Secretary, the Enquiry Officer appointed by Shri H. K. Nayak , Dy. Chief Manager of Bank ofindia, e vet hitted his enquiry report dated 21-8-1995 holding the workman guilty of the charge . The workman had fully participated therein for his defence . After giving him due opportunity and hearing his submission over punishment for it. the Disciplinary Authority as per penalty order dated 30-3-1996 dismissed the workman from his service. In this way, the action of the Management for his dismissel was legal , bonafide and justified , so he is not entitled to any relief.
5. Further , the Management in its rejoinder categorically denying the allegation of the workman has pleaded that the need of a handwriting expert opinion over the disputes signatures was wrong as the Enquiry Officer was quite competent to comparatively judge the position .
FINDING WITH REASONING
6. In this case, despite more than ample opportunity to the managesrent, not a single witness on its behalf at preliminary point since 1-2-2005 produced , hence as per order dated 27-2-2012 ofthe tribunal , the domestic enquiry was held unfer, directing the management to produce Managemen witness on merits . But even then , no witness on behalf of the management on merit produced not any witness for the workman examined. At last , it came up for hearing argument.
Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate for the workman submits That in lack ofproof of the domestic enquiry as fair and of the charges of ronduct of misappropriation against [ भाग H-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
7185 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-8-2012 .
the workman , his dismissal from his service is too harsh . Mr. S. K. Chamaria, Learned Counsel for the Management did not appear for argument, so it stood reserved for order .
[No. L- 12012/8/1997 - IR ( B- II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING
OFFICER , CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 107/2002
Date: 14-8-2012
PartyNo. 1
: The Regional Manager , Punjab National bank , Kingsway, Nagpur
Versus
Party No. 2
: Shri Ashok Kumar Khandelwal GudOli , Kamptee , Distt. Nagpur
AWARD
(Dated: 14th August , 2012)
7. In the present situation of lack lustre of the Management or his authorised lawyer concerned, this Tribunal having quasi judicial power as also under Section II A of the I.D. Act has not alternative except to look into the record of the proceeding of the Disciplinary Authority as available on this casè record before the Tribunal for due consideration of quantum of punishment . I find the workman as Sub- staff Daftry of Sini Branch was held responsible for his misconduct of misappropriation of the amount of Rs . 17,000 of three Account holders of the Bank Management fraudulently as also admitted by the workman himself . The misconduct of the workman under clause 19.5 (j ) ofthe first Bi - partite Settlement dated 19th October , 1966 was highly serious in nature , both competent DisciplinaryAuthority, i.e. , Regional Manager , Jamshedpur Region , after second show cause to the workman appears to have rightly and legally dismissed him from the service ofthe Bank, therefore his intentional gross - misconduct of misappropriation of three customers ' money merits his dismissal , as the service of the Bank Warrants the high standard of loyality the workman lacks in the present set- up of the Society. The dismissal punishment to the workman was quite proportionate to the nature ofhis gross- misconduct.
In result, it hereby awarded that the action of the Management of Bank of India, Jameshedpur is quite legally justified never an arbitrary in dismissing Sri Ganesh Prasad Thakur from the services of the Bank . Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever .
Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ("the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, Shri Ashok Khandelwal , to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur , for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 12012/ 8 /97 - IR (B - II ) dated 7-10-1997 , with the following schedule:
KISHORI RAM , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2012
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing Shri Ashok Kumar Khandelwal , clerk- cum - cashier, Lakadganj Branch (Nagpur) from services vide order dated 21-8-1995 islegal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitle and from what date ? "
Subsequently, the case was transferred to this Tribunal , for adjudication in accordance with law.
का. आ. 2954.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतन्त्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/ एनजीपी/ 107/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/8 /1997- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 27th August , 2012
2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman Shri Ashok Khandelwal , ("the workman " in short) , filed the statement of claim and the management of Punjab National Bank, (" Party No. I " in short ) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman is that he came to be appointed with Party No. I w.e.f. 21-6-1980 as a clerk - cum- cashier and after his appointment, he was transferred from Kingsway to Lakadganj branch and while he was working atLakadganj , he was placed under suspension by order dated 19-1-1987 , but no enquiry was commenced against S.O. 2954. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ NGP/ 107/ 2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers 7186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31. 1934 [PART 11-SEC. 3(ii) ]
has prayed for his reinstatement in service with continuity, back wages and all other consequential reliefs .
him and on the basis of the complaint filed by the Bank, criminal case No. 320 of 1987 was registered against him under Sections 420 , 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and after the trial , by order dated 13-12-1993 , he came to be acquitted and thereafter, on 22-2-1994, the management served a charge sheet for the misconduct under para 19.5 oftheBi -partite Settlement and the charges in the cristinai case and the charges levelled in the charge sheet were identical and therefore, it was coligatory upon the Bank not to initiate any proceeding, but despite the same , the Bank initiated the enquiry against him and on receipt of the charge sheet , he submitted his reply and also asked per permission to engage a lawyer for his defence , bua his application to engage a lawyer was rejected, in violation ofthe principles of natural justice , as well as against the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It is further pleaded by the workman that he demanded the original documents from the Bank , for seeking opinion of a handwriting expert , but his application was rejected and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in a most arbitrary and illegal manner and the enquiry officer after conclusion of the enquiry, submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, but the said report is hapeless and suffers from non - application of mind and the findings of the enquiry officer are totally perverse and on such findings , punishment should not have been inflicted upon him and on receipt of the letter dated 12-7-1995 from party no . 1 , he submitted his reply on 24-7-1995 and raised the grounds that as the Bank is covered by Bombay Shops and Establishment Act , the charge sheet should have been submitted under the standing orders and as such , the charge sheet is illegal , suspension allowance as per standing orders was not paid , for which, the enquiry was vitiated, he was not allowed to be represented y a lawyer, original documents were not supplied and he was not allowed to take assistance of a handwriting expert , reliance wasplaced on the report of the handwriting expert without his examination and cross - examination as a witness and presence ofhis defence witness was not secured and there was delay in initiating the enquiry proceedi ig and on 24-7-1995 , he was called by the Regional Manager and the Regional Manager passed the final order o dismissal from services on 21-8-1995 and the appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 19-12-1995 and the order was communicated to him by letter dated 1-1-1996 and from the said facts , it is fear that management was bent upon to dismiss hinid not to settle the matter amicably. It is also pleaded by the workman that the entire action of the management was totally illegal and the enquiry conducted against him is violative he principles of natural justice and the report of the engers
officer is one sided and no action was called for me the basis of such report and his entire service recors 1.
3. The party no. 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter alia that the workman while working as clerk- cum- cashier with it, by mis - using his position , opened an account in the fictitious name of " Ramesh Kumar Sahu " with kingsway Branch of the Punjab Nationa! Bank on 18-6-1986 and then on 27-10-1986 , he prepared a cash voucher of Rs . 10,000 and forged the signature of the cashier with seal and the voucher prepared by him was sent by him through Mr. Wath , a peon then working on teller counter and after posting of the voucher by the ledger keeper, he personally withdrew the voucher from the ledger and on 28-10-1986, 31-10-1986, 8-11-1986 and 2-12-1986, he withdrew the amount of Rs . 2000 , Rs . 2000 , Rs . 2000 and Rs. 3000 respectively and on 15-11-1986, he again withdrew Rs. 1000 from the said account and when the fraud of Rs . 10,000 came to the knowledge of its officials, a detailed enquiry was made and it was revealed thatthe workman was involved in the fruad of Rs . 10,000 , so he was called by the Branch Manager and a detailed enqury was made from the workman and the workman admitted his guilt on 15-1-1987 , in presence ofthe Manager, Shri Sundar Raman and Shri M.J. Patankar and in presence of his elder brother and the workman in his own handwriting addressed a letter to the Branch Manager and accepted his guilt on 15-1-1987 and on 19-1-1987, the workman was suspended and a police complaint was made and during the period from 1987 to 1993 , the criminal case waspending and the workman was acquitted in the criminal case by the J.M.F.C. , 6th Court , Nagpur on 13-12-1993 and as such, it was decided to proceed against the workman departmentally in terms of the provisions of the Bi - partite Settlement , so charge sheet dated 22-3-1994 was issued against the workman and the workman received the charge sheet on 24-3-1994 and submitted his reply denying the charges , so Shri R. Sundarrajan was appointed as the enquiry officer and the first date ofthe enquiry was fixed to 1-8-1994 and on that date , the workman attended the enquiry and he denied the charges levelled against him after which, some documents were produced before the enquiry officer and copies of the same were supplied to the workman and the workman admitted the documents and the workman submitted an application for time to engage his defence representative , so the enquiry was adjourned to 8-8-1994 and on that date , the management representative filed the list of witnesses and the workman informed the enquriy officer to engage Shri Ashok Nikhar as his defence representative and asked for adjournment . so the enquiry was adjourned to 8-8-1994 and on 8-8-1994 the list of witnesses was submitted by the presenting officer and the workman intimated the enquiry officerto engage Shri Ashok Nikar as his defence assistant and clean and excellent and therefore , the punish nent of
requested for explanation of the witness in presence of his dismissal is shockingly disproportionate . The workman
defence assistant, so the enquiry was adjourned to 9-8-1994 7187 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
such a course was not open in the departmental enquiry, the request was turned down and then the enquiry was adjourned to 30-1-1995 and from 30-1-1995 to 20-2-1995 on the prayer ofthe workman and on 20-2-1995 , the workman closed his case and both the parties agreed to submit written notes of argument and after consideration of the written notes of argument submitted by the parties , the enquiry officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority and the workman was served with the show cause notice dated 12-7-1995 and was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service and hewas given personal hearing on 24-7-1995 and taking into consideration the written submission of the workman and the submission made during personal hearing, he was dismissed from service by order dated 21-8-1995 and the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself and the principles of natural justice were followed and the workman was supplied with documents relied on by the management and witnesses of the management were cross- examined by the defence assistant and the workman was allowed opportunity to adduce defence witnesses , but he did not avail the same and the enquiry is legal , fair and proper. It is further pleaded by the party no . I that in terms ofthe provisions ofpara 19.3 (c ) of the Bipartite settlement, it was open for the Bank to proceed against the workman departmentally, even after his acquittal by the criminal court and the prayer of the workman to engaged lawyer as his defence representative was rejected , after due consideration, on the ground that the presenting officer of the Bank was not a legally trained personnel and in view of the admission of guilt by the workman in writing byhisletterdated 15-1-1987 , so the rejection of the request of the workman to engage lawyer by the Bank cannot be said to be prejudicial and the service conditions of Bank employees are governed by Bipartite settlement and therefore the charge sheet was rightly issued under the provisions of Bipartite settlement and suspension allowance was also given to the workman as per the Bipartite settlement and the report of the enquiry officer is not perverse and the punishment is appropriate and not shockingly disproportionate and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4.As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from services , after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity of the departmental enquiry was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated 25-10-2011 , the enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal , proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
5. At the time of argument , it was submittedby the learned advocate for the workman that on the basis of the complaint filed by the party no . 1 , criminal case no . 320/87 was instituted against the workman under Sectiom 420, 409 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code , but by order dated and on 9-8-1994, the first witness for management was examined and he was cross -examined by the defence representative , Shri Nikhar and then the enquiry was adjourned to 10-8-1994 and on 10-8-1994, documents Exhibit No. Dd-2 was filed on record and the cross- examination of witness no . 1 for management was completed and witness no. 2 was examined and cross- examined by defence assistant and then the enquiry was adjourned to 11-8-1994 and on 11-8-1994, the workman demanded certain documents and directions was given by the enquiry officer to the presenting officer to make arrangement for production of the said documents and the third and fourth witnesses for the management were examined and cross - examined by the defence representative and then , the enquiry was adjourned to 12-8-1994 and on12-8-1994, the fifth witness for management was examined and cross - examined by the defence assistant and then, the enquiry was adjourned to 5-9-1994 and on 5-9-1994 , witness Shri M.J. Patankar was present, but the workman asked for adjournment on the ground of absence of his defence assistant , but as the witness had came from Jamnagar, Gujarat , the enquiry officer recorded his statement and adjourned the enquiry to 6-9-1994 on the prayer of the workman for cross- examination and on 6-9-1994 , Shri Patankar was cross- examined by the defence assistant and then , the next witness for the management was examined and he was cross-examined by the defence assistant . The further case of the party no. I is that the enquiry was adjourned to 17-10-1994 from 6-9-1994 and on 17-10-1994, witness , Shri Sundarraman was examined and he was cross - examined by the workman himself and the enquiry was adjourned to 26-10-1994 and the enquiry was also adjourned form 26-10-1994 to 14-11-1994, from 14-11-1994 to 22-11-1994 and 22-11-1994 to 5-12-1994, on the ground of alleged illness of the workman and on 5-12-1994 , management representative intimated about the management of having no more witness for examination and sought permission to file the report of the handwriting expert and the documents demanded by the workman and those documents were produced and the workman submitted the list of defence witnesses and requested the enquiry officer to relieve Shri Ramesh Ashudani as defence witness onthe next date and the enquiry was adjourned to 14-12-1994, and on that date , no witness was present and the workman requested for custody of the original documents , which were sent to the handwriting expert and as the documents were in respect of the fraud case and as handing over the documents to the workman was not in the interest of the Bank, the request of the defence was turned down and the enquirywas adjourned to 22-12-1994 and on 22-12-1994, defence witnesses were absent, so the enquiry was adjourned to 3-1-1995 and then to 18-1-1995 , as no defence witness was present and on 18-1-1995 , the workman asked the enquiry officer to allow him to engage a handwriting expert to cross - examine the handwriting expert , but as 7188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
13-12-1993 , he was acquitted by the court , which clearly shows that the workman did not commit any offence as alleged and it was only on 22-2-1994 , the management served the charge sheet for commission of the alleger. misconduct under para 19.5 of the Bipartite settlement and as the charges before the criminal court and tre charges levelled in the charge sheet were identical , the initiation of the departmental inquiry is illegal and though the workman requested the enquiry officer to allow hime engage and advocate to defend himself, such request was turned down in violation of the principles of natural justice and the report of the enquiry officer is baseless and suffers from non application of mind and the findings are totally perverse and basing on such findings , no punishment could have been inflicted upon the workman and as the Bank is coveredby Bombay Shops and Establishments Act , the charge sheet should have been filed under the Standing Orders and as the charge sheet was not filed under Standing Orders, the charge sheet was illegal and as such , the entire enquiry and punishment imposed against the workman basing on such illegal charg sheet is also illegal and the entire service record of the workman was clean and excellent and therefore , the punishment ofdismissal is shockingly disproport onate and thus , the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .
6. Pe . contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . I that by order dated 25 10- 2011. the issue of the validity and fairness to the enquir has already been answered in favour of the party n . 1 and at the time of consideration of the validity of the departmental enquiry , the submissions regarding the initiation of the departmental enquiry after acquittal of the workman in the criminal case , refusal of permissionto the workman for engagement of a lawyer to defend him and non submission of charge sheet under the standing orders were already considered alongwith other submissions made on behalf of the workman and answered against the workman and therefore , the afore stated submissions cannot be taken into consideration again and now the issues for consideration by the Tribunal are regarding the perversity or otherwise of the findings of the enquiry officer and the proportionality of the punishment and it is clear from the materials on record that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the materials produced during the departmental enquiry and the enquiry officer has assigned cogent reasons in support of such findings and the findings are not perverse and the workman was an officer of the Bank and hold a position of trust , where honesty and integrity were inbuilt requirements of functioning and therefore , the matter required to be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently and there was no question of consideration of thepast recorded of the workman at the time of imposition of the punishment as he was involved in misappropriation
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)]
ofmoney and the punisherent imposed is commensurate with the misconduct proved against him .
7.On perusal ofthe order passed on the validity and fairness of the departmental enquiry dated 25-10-2011 , it is found that the submissions in regard to initiation of the departmental enquiry after acquittal of the workman in the criminal case, refusal of permission for engagement of lawyer in the enquiry to defend the workinan and non- submission of the charge sheet under ne standing orders have already been consofared, so there is no scope for consideration of the same again .
8.So far the scope of interference with the imposition of punishment by the Tribunal is concerned , it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decisions that the court or Tribunal cannot interfere with discretion exercise by the competent authority in imposition of punishment , unless the same suffers from illegality or procedural irregularity of material nature or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate .
Keeping in view the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above , on examination of the materials on record of the case in hand , it is found that the enquiry officer analyzed the evidence adduced before him in the departmentai enquiry in a rational manner and his findings are based on the materials on record and not on any extraneous i erials . The enquiry officer has also assigned cogent reons in support of his findings . Hence, the findings the enquiry officer cannot be said be perverse . This is as net a case of no evidence . The charges levelled against the workman have been proved against him in a properiy held departmental enquiry. in the instant case , the workman was found guilty of misappropriating the Bank's fund . There is nothing wrong in the Bank losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding the punishment of dismissal .
It is also well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in case of proved misappropriation , there is no question of considering the past record and it is the discretion of the employer to consider the same in appropriate cases , but the Labour Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the employer.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions made above , it is found that the punishment ofdismissal from service imposed against the workman for the proved serious and grave misconduct cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate , calling for any interference . Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing Sh . Ashok Kumar Khandelwal , Clerk-cum-Cashier , Lakadganj Branch (Nagpur) from [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7189
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
ofSri Gaurav Kumar son ofMichal Kumar with effect from 1-10-2008 is just and proper ? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?
services vide order dated 21-8-1995 is legal & justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief. J.P. CHAND , PresidingOfficer
3. Brief facts are :
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त , 2012
का.आ. 2955.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -12012/78 /2009- आई आर ( बी -11 ) ] शीश राम , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th August , 2012
4. It is alleged by the complainant that he was working as a sweeper in the Syndicate Bank at Bara Bazar Branch District Kannouj with effect from 7-6-06 . He was being paid Rs . 60 per day. Apart from the work of sweeping he was also utilized to work as peon in the branch . He had worked for 288 days continuously in a calendar year 2006-07 . Without assigning any reason his service had been terminated on 1-10-08. No notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid to him by the bank atthe time of dispensation with the services . It is further alleged by the claimant that at the place where he was working , the management under a conspiracy engaged a person by name Sri Sanjai after 5 days from the date of his termination . He made repeated representation to re - engage him in the service but all in vain . Lastly it has been prayed the action of the management is liable to be rejected and he be directed to be reinstated in the service of the management with full back wages and continuity ofservice .
S.O. 2955. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 8/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-8-2012 .
[No. L- 12012/ 78 /2009 - IR ( B - II ) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 8 of 2010
BETWEEN :
Sri Gaurav Kumar
Son of Sri Michal Kumar , West Campus PG Colony, HBTI Nawabganj . Kanpur
AND
5. Opposite party has contested the claim of the workman by filing written reply. They have stated that the claimant was engaged as a daily rated part time sweeper by Syndicate Bank by Bara Bazar Branch District Kannouj . He was required to do sweeping work only for one or two hours a day as the branch was small and he was at liberty to go and to do any other job after finishing his work .He was not issued any appointment letter as he was not engaged against any regular or permanent post . According tothe opposite party at the branch there was no permanent postof sweeper at the branch . He was not being paid his salary but was being paid according to agreed rate. There never existed the relationship of master and servant between the bank and the claimant . No termination letter was issued to the claimant nor did the bank ever terminate the services of the workman on the alleged date . It is also denied that the claimant had ever rendered continuous service for 240 days . It is also pleaded by the bank that the claimant by means of this reference is inclined to seek backdoor entry in the service of the bank . As the claimant was never retrenched so question of applicability of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , does not arise atall .
TheAssistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank , 43/28 Naval Kishore Road , Jazaratganj , Lucknow
AWARD
6..On the basis of above it has been prayed that the claim of the claimant lacks merit and as such is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and should be dismissed .
1. Central Government , Mol , New Delhi , vide notification No. L - 12012/ 78 /2009 IR ( B - II ) dated 12-01-2010 has referred the following dispute for adjudication:
7. Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant but nothing new has been pleaded there in by him except reiterating the please already given in his claim statement.
2. " Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank . Lucknow in terminating the services 7190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934 [PART II SECA3(ii)
8. Workman has filed oral as well as documentary evidence , whereas the opposite party has given oral evidence. No documentary evidence has been filed by the opposite party.
9. Whereas the workman produced him elf as W.W. 1 management has produced Sri Jagat Singh , Manager Syndicate Bank appeared as M.W. I.
10. Heard and perused the entire record thoroughly.
11. The short question to be decided in this case is whether the claimant has worked for 240 days or more in on calendar year preceding the date of his termination as PTS with the bank .
12. I have examined the evidence oral as well as documentary adduced by the parties .
18. Therefore , considering the whole evidence and the circumstances of the case it is found that the claimant has been able to prove that he had been working as a part time sweeper since 7th June , 06 and worked continuously for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding the date ofhis termination . Therefore , a right has accured to him that before his termination retrenchment notice , notice pay or retrenchment compensation should have been paid to him which was the mandatory requirement as per provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.Admittedly according to the statement ofthe claimant this mandatory requirement was not discharged by the opposite party at the time of termination of his service. Legislation does not make any difference between part time employees , badli employees temporary employee or regular and permanent employee .
19. There is one more allegation leveled against the management that a conspiracy was hatched before his termination and one person in the name of Sanjai who was the relative of the bank guard was employed in his place just after his termination . This facts has been stated by W.W. 1 on oath and when M. W. 1 was cross -examined on this point, M - 1 admitted on oath that presently one person in the name of Sanjai is working just after the oral termination of the service of the claimant . He does not know whether he has been made permanent or not.
20. In my view it shows that the work on which the workman was engaged is of permanent nature as alleged by the claimant and the management has removed him without any reason . As such they have adopted unfair labour practice as well as they have also breached the provisions of Section 25 -G of the Act .
13. At the outset I would like to reproduce the admission which , have occurred in the statement of M.W. I Sri Jagat Singh who is a branch manager. He has specifically admitted on oath that he had been the branch manager of the said branch with effect from 2-6-06 till 6-8-2010 and he categorically admitted that the claimant Sri Gaurav Kumar was working with him in the said branch till October 08 as a daily wager. This statement of M.W. 1 that the claimant did not work continuously since his engagement does not appear to be believable as he has not named any other person who has been working in his absence . Whereas the claimant has filed his statement on oath stating that he had been continuously working since his engagement or employment with effect from 75-06 and till his termination on 1-10-08 . This finds force fron the documentary evidence which have been filey the claimant along with affidavit and narrated in the stateme.....
14. Annexure A is the format which was filled by the head of the branch office . It clearly shows the name of the claimant who has been engaged as a PTS temporary since7th June , 06 on Rs . 60 per day except holidays .
21. Opposite party has placed reliance on a number ofrulings mainly on the point that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove that he had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year . But in my view it has been found that the claimant has successfully discharged his burden to prove the fact that he had rendered 240 days of continuous service with the bank.
22. Therefore , the opposite party cannot take any favour from the rulings 2005 ( 105 ) FLR 383 SC Bank of Baroda versus Ghimerbhai Harji Bhai Rabri .
15. There is another document Annexure C dated 7th June , 07 , it is written by the branch to their head office stating that the claimant is working in their branch as daily wager and his certificates were also sent stating therein what will be the procedure to continue him as temporary part time sweeper, also stating that he is working continuously.
23. It is therefore , concluded that the claimant has proved his case that he was engaged by the opposite party bank as PTS and that the provisions of Sections 25 - F and G of the Act has been flouted by the bank. Accordingly he is held entitled to be reinstated in service .
16. There is one more letter Annexure D dated 29th July, 2008 , written by branch office to the Head office of the Bank regarding penal of PTS. It also stated that the claimant is working in their branch since the opening of the branch on daily wage basis .
24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case he is entitled to 50 % of the back wages .
25. Reference is answered accordingly in favour of the claimant and against the opposite party bank .
17. The authenticity and genuineness of these documents coupled with the statement of claimant on oath as well as admissions of the opposite party cannot be denied.
RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]
7191
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31, 1934
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2012
has, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunel :
का.आ. 2956. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 को 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whetherthe action ofthe management ofUCOBank, Patna in not reinstating and regularising the services ofShri Binod Kumar S/O Shri Kailash Mandal, VIHI- Mahaddipur, P. S. Kasin Bazar, Mungher, Casual Worker, performing the duties ofpeon, is legal and orjustified and expedient ? If not, what relief Shri Binod Kumar is entitled to ?"
[सं. एल-12011 /92/2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] शीश राम, अनुभाग अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 27th August, 2012
S.O. 2956. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman, which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 3-8-2012.
[No. L- 12011 /92/2006- IR (B- II) ] SHEESH RAM , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . L, DHANBAD
Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 )( d)/(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Reference No. 11 of2007
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank.
AND Their Workmen
PRESENT :
Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
2.The case ofthe concerned workman is thathe was orallyappointed to discharge the duties ofa peonw.e.f. 3-6-1987 atMunger Branch .He used to perform theduties ofa peon from 10A.M. to 6 P.M. every day even on Sundays ona payment@Rs . 5 initially as wages which was increased to@Rs. 35 perday and paid to him through voucher. The workman performed all the duties of a peon under the instructions ofhis superiors , such as, taking out ledgers, registers from the Almirah , placing the same on tables, counters and vice -versa; posting of mails whenever required; carrying token book, scroll registers; stitchingof vouchers/ currency notes when ever required; Serving water,tea tothe members ofstaff as per requirement, etc. A settlement was arrived at between the representatives of workmen Unions and the management of UCO Bank at Apex level on 12-10-89 for permanent absorption ofthe services ofalldaily rated workmen performing the works of apeon andworking for 240 days during the period 12-10-86 to 12-10-89 . Following the settlement , the workman submitted his application to the Manager of the Bank for his empanelment and permanent absorption in services of theBank as a peon . He fulfilled all criteria laid down in the settlement. The management instructed the workman on 1-12-1997 to stop his work and not to attend the office from w.e.f. 1-12-1997 . The concerned workman represented before the management for his reinstatement but without any effect. Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C) which ended in failure and the Govt . ofIndia, Ministry ofLabour, has referred the dispute for adjudication tothis Tribunal . The concerned workman was neither given notice nor notice pay nor any retrenchment compensation prior to termination . The action of the management in terminating the services of the workman and not regularising him as a peon is neither legal, norjustified.
Forthe Employers : Shri A. K. Sinha , Management Representative
For the Workman : Shri B. Prasad , Authorised Representative
State : Bihar
It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award by directing the management to reinstatewith back wages and to regularise his service as a peonw.e.f. 1-4-2003.
Industry:Bank
Dated, the 4th June , 2012
AWARD
By Order No. L- 12011 /92/2006 - IR (B - II ) dated 12-2-2007 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour
3. The case of the management is that Shri Binod Kumar was engaged by the Branch Manager on casual basisforbringing drinking water and sometime to clark the branch premises . The Branch Manager has got no authority to engage him , so his engagement is illegal . The UCO Bank
3417 GI/12-16 [PART IISEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7192
settlementdated 12-10-1989 for regularisation ofdaily rated workman. But the first batch have been regularised in the year 2003 and the concerned workman has been regularised w.e.f. 1-12-1997 .
7. In this respect the management argued that he cannot be regularised . Moreever , management's evidence stated in his cross -ezxamination that I know the workman I cannot say firstdate ofengagement and last date of removal bercause I was not there at that time. There was a settlement in 1989 for regularisation of workers who had worked for 240 days in three years , proceeding the date of settlement number of persons have been regularised under this settlement . I cannot say whether guards and clerks have beenappointed. I cannot say whether 299 Arm-Guards have beenappointed. Period was not mentioned in the vouchers . Some vouchers were available and some are not traceable. Itshows that there is no fault on the part of the concernec workman. It is fault of the management. They argued tha as per order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court the concerned workman is not entitled for regularisation . But the management have to follow the settlement .
8. The management referred 1999( 3 ) PIJR 763 and also referred 2009 (2) PIJR 1017 .
As per management's evidence they made the settlement dated 12-10-1989 for regularisation/absorption and on that basis they have regularised a number of persons and they have not followed the settlement as per Ext. W- 1 and M-6. They have to follow the settlement with the union , as per Ext . W- 3 , for appointment as Peon/Farash .
Employees Association raised the present industrial dispute for regularisation of Binod Kumar on 4-4-2006. It has been stated that an agreement was signed on 12-10-1989 with the three recognised unions , namely, ( i) All India UCO Bank Employees Federation , ( ii ) United Commercial Bank Employees Association, (iii ) All India United Commercial Bank Staff Federation with the management at the apex level whereby it was agreed that those who have completed 240 days or more without interruption during the period immediately proceding the settlement willbe eligible for empanelment . There were other terms and conditions in the agreement . In the meantime the BankingDivision Department ofEconomic Affairs , Ministry of Finance, Govt . of India advised all the Public Sector Banks that no additional post should be created against the existing vacancies including consequential vacancies arising out of retirement resignation, death or promotion should not be filled up . The Reserve Bank of India also decided that there will be ben on the recruitment of the staff including replacement resignation should continue in the year 1996-97. Being aggrieved the said UCO Bank Employees Federation filed a writ application in the Calcutta High Court being W.P. No. 1390 of 1998 on behalf of the empanelled casual part - time employees . In view of the submission of the Bank the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court by an order dated 4-8-1999 , observed that restriction imposed by the Reserve Bank of India, the Bank cannot absorb the said casual workers .Hon'ble Calcutta High Court also directed the Bank authorities not to fill up any post until there empanelled casual workers are not absorbed in the substantive posts . Inspite of the aforesaid judgement the Union raised the present industrial dispute . The workmanconcerned never worked for full day. At no time any approval for engagement of payment of wages was obtained from the competent authority. No appointment letter was issued, no pay slip was issued .
In such circumstances it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold that the action ofthe UCO Bank, Patna is legal and justified the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
Considering the above facts and circumstances it shows that the management have not followed settlement Exts. W- 1 and M- 6 , so they have to follow the settlement withthe union. The management has not filed decument of workings of the workman so that working days can be calculated. It shows . It shows that the workman has completed 240 days workings in a calendar year during the period 12-10-86 to 12-10-89 . The management cannot give correct working days on which basis payment has been made to the concerned workman because records are not available and some vouchers are not traceable ofperiod of working and payment to him by the Bank.
4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .
5. The management produced MW - 1 Nand Lal Paswan. The documents have been proved as Exts . M - 1 to M-7.
Theconcerned workman examined himself as WW- 1 and documents have been marked as Exts . W- 1 to W-4/1 .
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I held that the action of the management of UCO Bank, Patna in not reinstating and regularising the services of Shri Binod Kumar, Casual Worker, performing the duties of Peon is not legal and not justified and hence the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with effect from the date of his stoppage of work and to regularise him as Peon w.e.f. 1-1-2003 . Management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the Award.
Thisis my Award.
H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer 6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman that he had worked with the management from 3-6-1987 and he used to perform his duties of a peon from 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. even on Saturdays on a payment of Rs . 5 per day as per requirement of the Bank and later on it enhanced at Rs . 35 per day. There is a [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7193
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2957. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स जेम ग्रेनाईट काटुक्कामरम नादुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चैन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 39/2010 ,20, 21 , 22 और 23/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-7-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29011/70 , 69 , 78 , 82 , 83/2002- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th August, 2012
S.O. 2957. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2010, 20,21,22 and 23/2011 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Gem Granites , Kadukkamaram Nadur and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 31-7-2012 .
[No. L-29011/70, 69, 78, 82, 83/2002 - IR(M)] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 25th July, 2012
PRESENT:
A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer
I.D. Nos . 39/2010, 20 , 21 , 22 and 23 of 2011
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Gem Granites ( P) Ltd. and their workmen] .
No.
Name of 2nd Party S. ID NO. Reference No. Name of the &Date Ist Party S/Sri
(3)
(4)
( 1 ) (2)
(5)
1. 39/2010 1-29011 / 70/ 2002- IR( M ) dated
3-12-2010
Granites Kadukkamaram , NadurPost, Yercaud - 636602 M/s . Gem
Sri A. Kanagaraj and 3 others viz. P. Chelliya, M. Vellaisamy (since deceased) , P. Vadeval
(4)
( 1 ) (2) (3)
(5)
2. 20/2011 L - 29011 /69/ P. Kandasamy 2002- IR( M) dated 9-3-2011
M/s. Gem Granites Kadukkamaram, Nadur Post. Yercaud- 636602
3. 21/2011 L - 29011 / 78 / N. Muthusamy 2002- IR( M) dated 9-3-2011
M/s. Gem Granites Kadukkamaram , Nadur Post, Yercaud- 636602
4. 22/2011 L -29011 /82/ M. Mayilvahanan M/ s . Gem 2002- IR( M ) dated 9-3-2011
Granites Kadukkamaram , Nadur Post, Yercaud -636602
5. 23/2011 L - 29011 / 83 / R. Krishnan 2002- IR( M ) dated 9-3-2011
M/s. Gem Granites Kadukkamaram, NadurPost, Yercaud-636602
APPEARANCE :
For the Ist Party/ Sri S. Vaidyanathan , Advocate Petitioner
For the 2nd Party/ Sri M. R. Dharanichander , Advocate Management
COMMON AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment vide the above order of references referred the IDs mentioned above to this Tribunal for adjudication .
2. The schedule mentioned in the order of reference in the above IDs are as under :
ID 39/2010
"Whether the demand of the workmen S/Sri A. Kanagaraj , P. Chelliya , M. Vellaisamy and P. Vadeval (4 petitioners) for reinstatement w.e.f. 1-2-2001 from themanagement ofGem Granites with back wages is justand legal ? What relief the workmen concerned are entitled ? "
ID 20/2011
"Whether the action of the management of M/sGem Granites in terminating the services of Sri P. Kandasamy w.e.f. 1-2-2001 is just and legal ? What reliefthe worker concerned is entitled to ?"
ID 21/2011
"Whether the action of the management of M /s Gem Granites in terminating the services of Sri N. Muthusamy w.e.f. 1-2-2001 is just and legal ? What relief the worker concerned is entitled to ? " 7194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii))
ID 22/2011
"Whether the action of the management of M /s Gem Granites in terminating the services of Sri M. Mayilvahanan w.e.f. 1-2-2001 is just and legal ?What relief the worker concerned is entitled to ?"
ID 23/2011
"Whether the action ofthe management of M/ s Gem Granites in terminating the services ofSri R. Krishnan w.e.f. 1-1-2001 isjust and legal ?"
3. After the receipt of Industrial Disputes , this Tribunal has numbered it as 1.D. 39/2010, 20 , 21 , 22 and 23 of2011 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim Statements followed byAmended Claim Statement , Counter Staternent, Rejoinder Statement Counter Statement Reply Statement , Additional Counter Statement and Common Additional Rejoinder Affidavit as the case maybe .
4. In all these cases , the claims of the petitioners are common. Onbehalf of the petitioners , since the issue are the same, common set ofdocuments is adopted. Both sides filed joint memo/IA for joint trial of all the IDs . Both petitioners and Respondent have adduced evidence in common for all the IDs.
5. The averments in the separate Claim Statements but with common or the same averments in all including the Amended Claim Statement briefly read as follows :
Petitioners under ID 39/2010 viz . S/Sri A. Kanagaraj rendering 18 years of service was terminated on 1-2-2001 , P. Chelliya rendering more than two decades ofservicewas terminated on 1-1-2001 , M. Vellaisamy (since deceased) rendering more than two decades was terminated on 1-2-2001 , P. Vadeval rendering 18 years of service was terminated on 1-2-2001 , P. Kandasamy, (ID20/2011 ), N. Muthusamy ( ID 21/2011 ) both rendering 18 years of service were terminated on 1-2-2001 , M. Mayilvahanan ( ID 22/2011 ) rendering 16 years of service was terminated on 1-2-2001 and R. Krishnan (ID 23/2011 ) rendering 10 years ofservice wasterminated on 1-1-2001 .
2A of the ID Act . The Management did not reply. Respondent asked petitioners to withdraw the ID before the Conciliation Officer and thereafter to report for work. They requested Respondent to inform this before the Conciliation Officer . On 24-9-2001 Respondent submitted reply to the Conciliation Officer admitting that Respondent temporarily stopped production between 1-2-2001 and 15-2-2001 and that petitioners were asked to report for work from 16-2-2001 which they refused and they absented on their own accord and stated that they did not come for work despite request from the Respondent. Respondent stated that they had kept the offer of reinstatement without back wages since the employees absented on their own . But the offer is subject to the condition that the employee should be transferred elsewhere other than Yercaud Mines which was not accepted by the workmen . They were willing to report at the place from where they were stopped from employment, without prejudice to the rights of the parties as to whether the period of non- employment is on account of their fault or due to the action of the Management . The employees never raised a dispute regarding transfer. It is not a dispute under Section - 2K . The Respondent based on the confidential report ofthe conciliation officer passed the following order " It is seen that the Management had not terminated the service of the workmen but onlytransferred to other mines . It is the prerogative of the Management to transfer the workmen . The workmen could not point out mala fide on the part of the Management " . On challenge of the order declining to refer dispute in a Writ of the petitioners High Court of Madras set aside the order directing to refer the issue . Among the petitioners except Chelliya and R. Krishnan others were divested of their duties on 1-2-2001 and Chelliya and R. Krishnan denied employment with effect from 1-1-2001 . As admitted in the Counter of the Management before the Conciliation Officer they were not given work on 1-2-2001 . The case of the Management is that the workers abandoned the services . Management admittedly did not conduct any enquiry. The petitioners are without employment thereafter. Their last drawn paywas Rs . 56.30 per day paid on weekly basis.At present minimum wages per day payable is 194. They completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of less than 24 calendar months and deemed to have attained permanent status . They were given wage slips . Management denied retrenchment compensation violating statutory provisions under Section - 25F, Section -25G and Section - 25H of the ID Act . The action amounts to victimization in colourable exercise of power and is arbitrary and illegal . Chelliya, a permanent employee Theywere permanent employees of the Respondent/ Management and had rendered unblemished service . Sri A. Kanagaraj is aged 45 years . Sri P. Kandasamy is aged 54 years . Sri N. Muthusamy is aged 50 years . Sri M. Mayilvahanan is aged 55 years and Sri R. Krishnan is aged 54 years . They worked upto 31-1- 2001/31-12-2000 and the Respondent for no reason denied employment w.e.f. 1-1-2001 / 1-2-2001 . On 26-2-2001/28-3-2001 they sent representations to the Respondent for reinstatement with back wages and all other benefits which the Respondent refused to receive . On 28-3-2001 they raised an Industrial Dispute before RLC ( Central) , Chennai under Section-
whohadworked upto 31-12-2000 rendering service [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
7395
of more than two decades was denied employment Ministry'sdirection Respondent issued circular dated
w.e.f. 1-1-2001 . His representation dated 2-1-2001 for 1-2-2001 and informed all the workers regarding the
reinstatement,etc. was refused to be received. He stoppage ofnormal production work for 15 days for
also raised ID under Section-2A on 29-1-2001 .
the development work i.e. reducing height ofbench
Pending conciliation Management sent a letter dated and formation of the benches further informing that
19-3-2001 to Chelliya alleging him to be absent on production will resume after 15 days . Quarry work
1-1-1991 and the petitioner reported for work on wasaccordinglystopped from 1-2-2001 to 15-2-2001 .
30-3-2001 which on being given he worked upto Onhumanitarian consideration, Respondent offered
9-4-2001. On this demand for back wages from job to them at its sister concern situated adjacent to
1-1-2001 to 29-3-2001 and in view of letter dated the quarry. Out of34 workers, 25 reporterd for work
10-4-2001 ofthe Petitioner Union he was again denied in the sister concern, 7 employees did not report
employment from 10-4-2001 . To Chelliya's earlier including the petitioners . The quarry was reopened
representation daterd 28-3-2001 , Management on 16-2-2001 and a circular was issued on 15-2-2001
submitted reply before Conciliation Officer on requesting employees to report for work . 28 workers
16-6-2001 stating Chelliya not to have had come for onlyreported for work from 16-2-2001 . Hence charge
work in spite of request . According toManagement sheet was issuedto them for not reporting for duty.
Chelliya absented from 1-1-2001 on his own and In the meantime they raised ID alleging denial of
misbehaved with the Security Officer. Management employment from 1-2-2001 . On 12-4-2001 Respondent
intheir letter clearly mentioned that unless and until issued letter to the petitioners to report for duty
the case filedby the Conciliation Officer is withdrawn immediatelybut they did not . Respondent filed replies
employment would not be given . Vellasamy was a dated 14-3-2001 and 16-6-2001 reporting dispute
permanent employee with unblemished service for raised as not maintainable and that they can report
more than two decades . He was terminated on
for duty immediately withdrawing the dispute. But
1-2-2001 . He died on 27-11-2008 leaving behind his they did not. Then Labour Commissioner dismissed
only legal heir Sankarayee , being impleaded. In the the dispute as not maintainable . Thereafter under
event of setting aside the termination she is entitled orders of the High Court the reference is caused to
to back wages from 1-2-2001 till date of death of
be made . Even before Labour Officer clearly held
Vellasamy and to other terminal benefits with interest that the petitioners can report for work under the
@12% per annum . His last drawn pay was Rs. 56.30 principle of no work no pay but they did not. As on
per day. Present minimum wages per day is Rs . 194. date the petitioners are not terminated or dismissed
P. Vadeval similar permanent employee like Vellasamy from service. There is no violation of Section -25F,
was terminated on 1-2-2001 . Petitioners were not Section-25G and Section -25H or victimization ,
absent from work . Hence principle of no work no pay colourable exercise of power or arbitrariness .
is not applicable entitling them to full wages . Only Petitioners are only casual employees . Petitioners '
after ID was raised Respondent came forward with a adamant claim for back wages was not acceptable to
plea ofgiving employment under alternative site. Due the Management. Question of conducting enquiry
to raising of ID, Management wanted to displace the doesnot arise . Deceased petitioner's legal heirs are
petitioners . If Management had good intention of not entitled to back wages under the principle of no
providing employment they should have called the work nopay. Petitioners are not entitled tobackwages
petitioners to work in the same estate . Management and other benefits from 16-2-2001 during which they
did not really want to provide employment. were unauthorizedly absent . The claims are to be
Petitioners are ready to work at the same estate. dismissed.
Management may specify a date for the petitioners
to report for work at the Yercaud Estate and not 5. Rejoinder Statement averments in a nutshell are
asfollows:
elsewhere . Hence the claim .
5. The averments in the separate Counter Statements Petitioners will be entitled to wages from the date of
butwith common or the same averments in all , briefly read disengagementtill reinstatement .
asfollows:
6. Counter Statement averments to the Reply
Petitioners were neither dismissed, discharged or Statement briefly read as follows :
terminated . They did not report for work from 1-2- Based on the Counter Statement, Para- 12 that even
2001. At the Yercaud Granite Quarry Respondent now petitioners can report for work , petitioners filed
employed 34 employees . Except Sri Chelliya, the other reply stating that they are ready to report for work.
petitioners are permanent . Director of Mines and AsperWrit Petition Affidavit Mr. Vadivel and Chelliya
Safety directed to stop production for improving already attained superannuation . Hence they are not
safety measures in the mines . On the basis of to be reinstated . Vellasamy expired . Kanagaraj in his
[PART IISEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7196
letter to the Respondent stated that in view of his follows " In view of the above observation it was
new construction business he has left the service of revealed that the mine is being worked with will full
the Respondent . Hence no question of providing disregard to provision of law and neglecting the life
employment to the petitioners arises . and safety of the person employed in the quarry " .
"You are therefore requested not to start the normal
7. Additional Counter Statement averments briefly
production till the sides are proper developed for
read as follows :
formation of benches . The action taken to comply
There are quarries in Tamil Nadu at Kadukkambaram, with the above serious violation may be intimated
Kakkamadi and Edappadi . At Kadukkambaram unit immediately " . The above instructions were
started in 1988 with government license renewed upto impossible of being carried out without transgression
7-6-2003 as per GO 3 (d) No. 32 dated 20-5-1993 of license and encroaching public road and so the
petitioners are working . License granted was for 7.7 quarry was not carried out . The mining license also
acres in which the deposit area consists of 35 metres was not renewed after 7-6-2003 . Then employment
ofbreadth and 100 metres of length and all the three was given to workers at Kakkambadi , 5 kms . away
sides having public roads and other side covering from Kadukkambaram whereto petitioners did not
respondent's coffee plantation . Beyond the area no come . Respondent has taken decision to give
mining can be carried out . Only 16 employees were employment to workers at Kakkambadi which was
employed for drilling . It is inadvertently mentioned also advised by the Assistant Commissioner of
as 35 in the earlier counter instead of 16. At Labour ( Central ) , which was not heeded leading
Kadukkambaram already 30 metres of breadth had Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) to hold
been quarried. Remaining area of 2.5 metres either that there is no termination . License lapsed in June
side of the quarry is existing beyond which no quarry 2003 and renewal was applied for. But no renewal
activity can be done as per government license . has been given at Kadukkambaram. Hence there is
Under the Mines Act, 1952 for every 15 metres of no quarry activity since 2001. Petitioners are now
depth mining , minimum of 5 metres of bench gainfully engaged. Hence there is no question of
formation has to be given . On 31-1-2001 during the paying back wages or any other benefits . They are
quarry work one drilling employee met with fatal not entitled to any relief.
accident due to slippery. Dy. Director of Mines 8. The averments in the Common Additional
(MinesSafety) after inspection on 1-2-2001 directed Rejoinder Affidavit in a nutshell are as follows:
stopping of activity and strictly instructed as follows
"The mines as per worked unsystematic manner Theadditional counter can be taken on file provided
without forming benches in proper way. The height there is an inspection of Gem Granites and the
of the bench on northeast site was about 20 : 25 Management produces records and details pertaining
metres and the site were not kept the benches or to the number of employees employed . Management
sloped. Under the conditions chances of site fall did not whisper that there was no work in the mines .
cannot be rulled out . Mine management were Management has not mentioned how many
instructed not to start normal production before the employees are employed in the three quarries . There
sites are properly developed for permission of is functional integrity in the three quarries . No letter
benches . The sites at working were found with full has been issued by the Management to provide
ofloosen boulders monkey dangerously which the employment at plantation . Management is willingto
rolled down with bottom benches at any time . Agent provide employment under plantation at Kakkambadi .
and Manager are agreed not to deploy and person at The industry is covered by the Mines Act and the
bottom of quarry. The contravention mentioned Central Government is the appropriate government .
above are not exhaustive . The letter giving the The plantation at Kakkambadi is covered by
details of other contraventions observed may Plantation Labour Act and the appropriate
followed in due course " . Immediately the activity government is State Government . So transfer cannot
wasstopped on 1-2-2001 . All the workers were given be made from Mines te Plantation . Transfer was not
alternative work without change of the terms and a issue/dispute . There is no office or place at
conditions at the adjacent coffee plantation of the Kakkambadi as per the Mines Act, the same being
Respondent . Out of 16 workers , only 7 reported for theobjection to inspect Kakkambadi . When the work
work . 9 workers demanded work at the quarry only . atKadukkambaram came to a standstill is not stated.
Normally during rainy season for three months the Till a month ago there was work at Kadukkambaram
workers are given work at plantation with same terms and now they have given a short break to project
thatthere is no work at Kadukkambaram . Petitioners
and conditions . The petitioners had already worked
many times in the plantation . Letter dated 15-2-2001 have no objection to the additional counter taken
received from Director of Mines the contents are as into file , the relevancy of averments therein can be
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7197
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
looked into only ifManagement produces the records as before in this additional rejoinder and agree for inspection. If not the averments in the additional counter may be ignored.
7. Points for consideration are :
Whether the claim for reinstatement of the petitioners into the service of the Respondent with back wages is just and legal ?
(ii) 10 what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?
8. The parties prayed to permit common evidence to be adduced and common trial held in respect ofall the IDs viz. 39/2010, 20-23/2011 which was allowed and accordingly common evidence was recorded in ID 39/2010. Though petitioners were filing separate Claim Statements but with the same and common averments independently, the same were met by the Respondentby Separate Counter Statements but with the same or common averments . Petitioners and Respondent filed common ProofAffidavit inlieu ofChief Examination in all the IDs.
establishment petitioners are entitled to wages until complianceofSection- 25F ofthe IDAct . During the period from2001 petitioners have been out ofemployment. Though theManagement is willing to give alternate employment i.e. not the fact in issue on hand . The stand of the Management has been that unless the case is withdrawn by the petitioners they would not be given employment. At the same time ifthey are ready to work the Management is prepared to give work at Kakkambadi . The non- employment of the workmen is not justified and they are entitled to reinstatement with back wages . It is nobody's case that the dispute is regarding transfer issue. Now the Respondent cannot build up a case of transfer as the controversy involved in the dispute. At Kakkambadi there is only plantation and no mine . That there is no functional integrity between two types of establishments has not been established by the Respondent . Only at a later stage employment is offered by the Management to the workers , that too on conditions which cannot be imposed . There is no documentary evidence to show that the establishment iscompletely closed down . The workman cannot be shifted to an establishment in relation to which State is the Appropriate Government. There is violation of Section- 25F of the ID Act . Unless and until compensation is paid the petitioners are entitled to wages .
9. Common evidence consists of the testimony of WW1 viz . Muthusamy by way of ProofAffidavit in lieu of ChiefExamination for all the petitioners also comprising evidence of individual cross -examination ofeach petitioner separately and Ex. Wl to Ex . W63 ( subject to objection of other side that they are Xerox copies ) and WW2 viz . V. K. Nallamuthu by way of Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and Cross - Examination and Ex . W64 to Ex . W71 on the petitioner's side . On the Respondent's side evidence consists of the testimony of MWI by way of Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and Cross- Examination and Ex . MI to Ex . M71 .
Points ( i) and ( ii) :
10. Heard both sides . Perused the pleadings , records, evidence and documents on either side . Various decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts relied on by the Respondent have also been perused . Both sides argued in terms oftheir case in the respective pleadings. Prominent arguments on behalf of the petitioners are that though there was stoppage of work at the quarry form 1-2-2001 to 15-2-2001 in the wake of a fatal accident entailing in the death of a workman , it does not mean that the work stood stopped all the 15 days . Though as held by the Apex Court initial burden is on the petitioner to prove their case , Respondent has not produced any register or Attendance Register to show no work during the period . There was no charge sheet issued or an enquiry held admittedly. It was not put in black and white by the Respondent that the workers would be given work at Kakkambadi . That the workers absented from work or not reported for work is apt to be untrue. Absence from work is not synonymous to abandonment of work . If it is a case of closure of the
11. Contra arguments are that Section 2A of the ID Act is attracted only in a case of dismissal , discharge or termination . There is no termination the ID is not maintainable . Though the petitioners were offered employment at Kakkambadi unit petitioners were insisting for back wages to which the Respondent is not amenable . Itisclear that there is no work at Kadukkambaram . The order of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Ex . M71 shows that the present instance is only one of transfer of employees and not termination at all . It is duty of the petitioners to obey the order first and thereafter the seek redressal of the grievance . Kadukkambaram unit almost being virtually wound up with no work or mining activity which is admitted by witness V. K. Nallamuthu examined as WW2 , no reinstatement can be made there . There is no material to show any work being carried out at Kadukkambaram after 2001. As testified by Chelliya in Cross-Examination, there are only two employees working and they are at Kakkambadi site . Version of WW2 is that he has not visited Kadukkambaram quarry. That there has been full and final settlement of claim of all workers and they have left after May 2001 is not disputed. It is virtually admitted that there are no workers working at Kadukkambaram after May 2001. Ex . M2 - License issued for the mining at the site was for a period of 10 years which expired in 2003. Though renewal was applied for the same has not been granted yet . There occurred fatal accident at Kadukkambaram site on 31-1-2001 and the Dy. Director of Mines instructed not to start normal production . Ex . M7- Circular was issued to workers specifying to resume to 7198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
SONAL GARMENTS VS. TRIMBAK SHANKAR
KARVE (2003-1- LLN - 91 ) the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held " Reinstatement - Industrial Court set aside order of termination of workman and ordered reinstatement with back - wages Employer's offer for reinstatement in writing ignored by workman Held, whenever employer offers to reinstate workman at any stage of the dispute and the same is not accepted even without prejudice to his rights , he will not be entitled to continue his claim for reinstatement or for his claim for back -wages from the date of such offer-Award of Labour Court quashed" .
work after 15 days. There was Ex. M8 - Circular issued requesting to report for duty from 16-2-2001 . If the petitioners were actually terminated necessity of issuing charge sheet does not arise . Respondent was offering employment at Kakkambadi under a bonafide approach on humanitarian consideration , which is not an instance of victimization . Distance between Kadukkambaram and Kakkambadi is 10 kms. The petitioners refused to join .Most of the petitioners having reached superannuation , for that reason perse , they are not entitled to be reinstated . Petitioner, Vellaisamy expired . Kanagaraj is only casually employed. Petitioners are prepared tojoin duty even now. Grant of back wages is not automatic . Petitioners virtually admitted that Respondent offered employment though at some other place . There is no denial of employment when there is no work at the existing unit . Work offered at Kakkambadi when not accepted as an alternative of the cessation ofwork at the present area a case of termination is not attracted . Petitioners never put forth any readiness to report for work without prejudice to the claim for back wages or at any place from which there was effected cessation of their work. If the employer is unable to give work at a particular place this Court cannot order reinstatement. When the mine license ceased to be renewed after the expiry of the previous license the mining activity cannot be carried out. Petitioners have no case that Kakkambadi is not a mining site . There is no motive or any other reason for victimizing the petitioners . There is no termination at all . The petitioners did not turn up for work. Charge sheet was issued in the meantime of which dispute was raised by the petitioners where after no further action waspursued. The attitude of the petitioners was obstinate to the stand of the Management.
12. Reliance was placed on behalf of the Respondent to the decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts . In the decisions in :
DISTRICT RED CROSS SOCIETY VS. BABITA ARORA AND OTHERS ( MANU -SC - 3276-2007 ) Supreme Court held "The position in law is, therefore, well settled that if the entire establishment of the employer is not closed down but only a unit or undertaking is closed down which has no functional integrity with other units or undertaking , the provisions of Section - 25FFF of the Act will get attracted and the workmen are only entitled to compensation as provided in Section - 25FFF of the Act which has to be calculated in accordance with Section- 25F of the Act . The Tribunal and also the HighCourt clearly erred in holding that as other units of the appellant Red Cross Society like Drug De- Addiction- cum- Rehabilitation Centre , Family Planning Centre and Viklang Kendra were functioning, the termination osces of the respondent would amount the retrenchment . The Maternity Hospital was functioning as a distinct entity. It was not receiving any grant from the Government and was being run entirely on charitable basis from donations received from public . Due to financial stringency, the Maternity Hospital had to be closed down. The other three units , viz. Drug De-Addiction- cum -Rehabilitation Centre , Family Planning Centre and Viklang Kendra are receiving grants from government and are functioning as separate entities and the mere fact that they have not been closed down , cannot lead to the inference that the termination of services of the respondent was by wayof retrenchment which was illegal on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section - 25F of the Act" .
MOUNT METTUR PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MADRAS AND ANOTHER ( 1985-11 - LLJ - 505 ) the Hon'ble High Court of Madras held " Mere violation of Section - 25F cannot result in reinstatement with backwages and in such cases where retrenchment is bonafide and justified , compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be proper exercise of discretion".
M/sBharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel and Others ( AIR - 1976 -SC -98) Supreme Court held: 8. " It is apparent that victimization may partake a various types , to cite one or two only, for example , pressurizing an employee to leave the union or union activities; treating an employee unequally or in an obviously discriminatory manner for the sole reason ofhisconnection with union or his particular union activity; inflicting a grossly monstrous punishment which no rational person would impose upon an employee and the like . 9. A word of caution is necessary. Victimization is a serious charge by an employee against an employer, and , therefore , it must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the charge is based to enable the employee to fully meet them . The charge must not be vague or indefinite being as it is an amalgam of facts as well as inferences and attitudes" .
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7199
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION -Transfer- Refusal to comply with transfer order -
VS. V. VENKATESAN ( In Civil Appeal No. 5167 of Effect."
2009 dated 7-8-2009) Supreme Court held" 18. Coming
back to back wages , even if the court finds it STATE OF PUNJAB VS. JAGIR SINGH ( 2004-4- IIn-
necessary to award back wages , the question will be 739) Supreme Court held " 1. Industrial DisputeAct,
whether back wages should be awarded fully or only 1947 , SS . 25F and 25N- Punjab Civil Services
partially (and if so the percentage) . That depends (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 , rules 5 and 8 --
uponthe facts and circumstances of each case . Any Punjab Civil Services Rules , 1953 , rule 3.25
income received by the employee during the relevant Termination of service on ground of misconduct -If
termination of services was for misconduct, question
period on account of alternative employment or
business is a relevant factor to be taken note of while of payment of any retrenchment compensation or
awarding back wages , in addition to the several service of any statutory notice would not arise
factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh and Uday Narain Question ofcompliance of provisions of S.25F ofthe
Pandey. Therefore , it is necessary for the employee Industrial Disputes act arises when services of
to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the concerned workman were terminated on ground
other than misconduct" .
date of his termination . While an employee cannot
be asked to prove the negative , he has to at least BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD . VS. ANIL
assert on oath that he was neither employed nor AND OTHERS (2000-1 - LLJ -619) Supreme Court held
engaged in any gainful business or venture and that "Thereis a difference between an individual dispute
he did not have any income . Then the burden will which is deemed to be an industrial dispute under
shift to the employer. But there is , however, no Section 2 - A of the said 1947 Act on one hand and an
obligation on the terminated employee to search for industrial dispute espoused by the union in terms of
or secure alternative employment" . Section-2( 1 ) of the said 1947 Act . An individual
dispute which is deemed to be a industrial dispute
P. B. PHADKE , PROPRIETOR OF T. VIKRAM under Section 2 - A concerns discharge , dismissal ,
ELECTRICALS , PUNE VS. GYANESHWAR retrenchment or termination whereas an industrial
VIRANKAR (2008-4- LLN - 728 ) the Hon'ble High dispute under Section - 2 ( 1 ) covers a wider field . It
Court of Bombay held " Back- wages grant of - includes even the question of status . This aspect is
Legality - Respondent , a helper, appointed for six very relevant for the purposes of deciding this case .
months , was terminated from service- Labour Court
Inthe case of Radhey Shyam and Another v. State of
held termination to be illegal and passed an award Haryana and another 1998-11 - KKJ - 1217 ( P & H) it
directing reinstatement with continuity of service and has been held after considering various judgments
back-wages - Hence this writ petition by petitioner- oftheSupreme Court that , Section 2-A contemplates
employer - Held, respondent did not join duty in nothing more than to declare an individual dispute
spite of letters from petitioner That would show to be an industrial dispute . It does not amend the
that he was not in need of employment or in any case definition of industrial dispute set out in Section-
he was well placed monetarily Considering this 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 [ which is
fact , the order of reinstatement is confirmed but similar to Section-2( 1 ) ofthe said 1947 Act] . Section
without back-wages". 2-A enables the individual workers to raise an
industrial dispute , notwithstanding , that no other
ADDISSON PAINTS AND CHEMICALS LTD. VS. workmen or union is a party to the dispute . Section
WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ( A.P. 2-A applies only to disputes relating to discharge,
AND C. ) ASSISTANT'S ASSOCIATION AND dismissal , retrenchment or termination of service of
ANOTHER (2001-2-SCC-289) Supreme Court held "A. an individual workman . It does not cover other kinds
Labour Law - Back Wages - Order directing payment of disputes such as bonus , wages , leave facilities
of, for the period employee concerned had not worked etc."
-Held, was not liable to be interfered with - Award of
13. On an overall assessment of the entire facts and
25% of back wages by High Court , despite the
circumstances I am led to conclude that the case of the
employee concerned refusing to accept the transfer
order and not reporting for duty after his transfer, petitioners stands on a better edifice in view of the
held, was within the discretion ofthe court . B. Labour probabilities that preponderate in favour ofthem . Though
Law-Misconduct - Refusal to report for duty upon a fatal accident occurred at the disputed mine resulting in
transfer - Even where workman disputed his transfer the death of a workman on 31-1-2001 and thereafter from
to a non -workman category, he was obliged to report 1-2-2001 , for that reason , the production was being
for duty The dispute could be raised even after postponed by 15 days with no work for the workmen , the
joining duty - Employee cannot refuse transfer order manner in which the said factum was conveyed to the
3417 GI/12-17 7200
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
any charge . All these petitioners submitted representations before the Management for redressal of their grievance which were not heeded then and there whereupon they raised the Industrial Dispute . There is no reason why Section-2A of the ID Act is not applicable to the case which isevidently an instance of termination. So it is only to be said that the ID is maintainable . If it is a case of termination there is no reason why Respondent is not liable for payment ofback wages , though the same is not automatic Ex. M- 7 Letter ofthe Government, from the recital couched in it, is seldom apt to convey the idea that the arraigned affair is an incidence of transfer. That the dispute is one of transfer is nobody's case . Absence and abandonment of service are not synonymous . The absence of the workers from work wasas the effect of a cause emanated from the Management indicating stoppage of work at quarry from 1-2-2001 consequent on the fatal accidents occurred on 31-1-2012 . It ispleaded by the petitioners that there is victimization, arbitrariness and mala fides in bringing about their termination amounting to legal victimization . But that aspect does not stand established in absence of particulars to constitute the same in the pleadings and proof. It is not proved by the Respondent that there is no functional integrity with their other units or undertaking to attract Section- 25FFF of the ID Act. The case on hand does not appear to be one of a bona fide and justified termination amounting to retrenchment in which case compensation or reinstatement is to be given though the latter one is not to be automatic but depends upon discretion on the evaluation of facts and circumstances of each particular case. In the determination of the quantum again has to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Income derived during the relevant period otherwise is a relevant factor to be taken note of to decide the quantum whether back wages should be awarded fully or only partially. In appropriate cases where a demand to join duty is refused back wages is only to be denied if there is reason to hold that the refusal was on account of his being not in need of employment or due to his being well - placed. Regarding payment of back wages for the period the employees concerned had not worked is also not liable to be interfered with in appropriate cases say such as award of25% of back wages even if there is refusal to report for duty upon a transfer .
workmen to refrain from coming to work and to resume work after 15 days is not in expressed and clear terms so as to clearly convey the idea to the workmen as to how they have to act . There is no evidence of the work having been stopped totally for all the 15 days . The case of the petitioner is that the work still continued thereafter which is not rebutted by the Respondent by producing any register or documents to prove the contra . Though there was proposal for providing alternate employment it is admittedly not put tothe workmen on notice in writing . Here it is not a case of complete closure of establishment evidently. The Management is proved to have had a stand that must the workers be re-employed the case already started should be withdrawn . Even the offer of employment elsewhere was made by the Management at a later stage and that too on condition as mentioned above . The argument on behalf of theRespondentthat there is no termination is not apt to be true. It is not a clear case that there has not been any work atKadukkambaram especially at least till the date of expiry ofthe license viz . 7-6-2003 . Though by now, at this distance of time Kadukkambaram unit might almost have been virtually wound up with no work or mining activity the same may not be the situation until 7-6-2003 . True there is no case for the petitioners that the license at Kadukkambaram unit stands renewed even after 2003. There is no proof of Ex . M7 to Ex. M8 - Circulars having come to the live notice of the workmen so as to sufficiently alert them ofthe stoppage of work w.e.f. 1-2-2001 till 15-2-2001 and their duty to resume work specifically on 16-2-2001 because they were not personally served on the workmen . Admittedly they were only orally informed. Such an information cannot normally instill in them the full particulars of the information according to which they are to act or react . The said notice cannot be said to be an effective notice to be a notice in the true sense of the term . Thattheworkmen were clinging for payment of back wages and reinstatement at the same site from which they stopped work and were not willing tojoin the alternate site , though may be true , for such stand the petitioners cannot be attributed of taking obstinate and non - cooperative stand to the Management . Though the work at the site in question cannot be continued for non- renewal of the license after 7-6-2003 there is no reason for denial of employment to the workmen at least on and after 16-2-2002 and until 7-6-2003 . If the case that there is no work at the site is true that is appropriate to be true only after 7-6-2003 , the date of the expiry of the license . If the petitioners being not prepared to work at another site or stood for claim of back wages , they are not much to blame .
14. In the case of P. Chelliya and R. Krishnan they were seen terminated w.e.f. 1-1-2001 . As stated by them no rhyme or reason is found forthcoming why they were terminated . Their termination is without compliance of Section - 25F of the ID Act . Admittedly it is also without holding enquiry after issuance of any show cause or framing
15. At the instance of the petitioners on a move by a memo for local inspection invoking Rule -23 of the Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957 , with the approval oftheRespondent a visit to the relevant sites was made by the Tribunal on 9-6-2012 and the observations and statements obtained from persons present there relating to the business sites were reduced to writing in a Memorandum of Inspection , not intended to form part of evidence but to form part of records and usable for appreciation of facts or evidence to the extent reliable on a total appreciation of the facts , materials as guiding factors as far as acceptable .
[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
7201
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner's side
Ex. No. Date
Description
Ex. W1 26-02-2001 Representation of the petitioner.
Ex.W2
Cover containing the representation of the petitioner.
Ex.W3 28-03-2001 Industrial Dispute .
Ex. W4 24-09-2001
Management reply filedbefore the Conciliation Officer.
Ex. W5 27-10-2001
16. The case on hand attracts an instance of termination from service in violation of Section - 25F ofthe IDAct except in the case of petitioners P. Chelliya and R. Krishnan in whose cases also the same amounts to termination which is in the wake of misconduct regarding which admittedly no show cause notice or charge sheet was issued or was any enquiry held which is illegal and perse void being in violation of the principles of natural justice too. Though in their case violation of Section -25F isnot there, there is violation of principles ofnatural justice for not holding enquiry whereby the termination is rendered void. The case on hand evidently is not a case oftransfer. The termination is in violation of Section - 25F ofthe IDAct for non - issuance of notice , notice pay or compensation prescribed thereunder. Therefore , the termination from services of all the petitioners is not just and legal . The same is set aside .
Replystatement filed before the conciliation Officer by Kanagaraj .
Ex. W6 02-01-2011 Representation of the petitioner.
Ex. W7
Cover containing the representation of the petitioner.
Ex. W8 29-01-2001 Industrial Dispute.
Ex. W9 28-03-2001 Representation of the petitioner.
Ex. W10 19-03-2001 Management's letter.
Ex. W11 10-04-2001
of the Representation petitioner.
Ex. W12 16-06-2001 Management reply filed before the Conciliation Officer.
Ex.W13
WageSlips for P. Chelliya .
Ex. W14 26-02-2001 Representation of the petitioner.
Ex. W15
Cover containing the representation ofthe petitioner.
Ex. W16 28-03-2001 Industrial Dispute.
17. Coming to the relief, the question is whether the setting the termination aside should follow an order for reinstatement or payment of compensation ? As is well said a reinstatement is not to be automatic on the setting aside of the termination of a given employee . It is to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case . In the case onhand evidently there is no license for the mining activity after7-6-2003. The mining site is almost nearing exhaustion to given much more output of granite products . The work at the site has become scanty if not nil . The attempt ofthe Management while may be to provide employment at alternate sites , which is for that reason too in some way, cannot be discountenanced in that perspective as well . Therefore what is attracted is payment of compensation . Then the question is what shall be the quantum ? Let all the workmen receive compensation payable as provided under Section - 25F( b ) of the ID Act, 1947 , that is to say compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of 6 months , Sankarayee , Wife ofthe deceased petitioner, Vellaisamy will also be entitled to get the above compensation . The whole amount has to be paid within a month's time from the date of the publication ofthe award in the gazette failing which workmen wouldbe entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum from that date till date of payment.
Ex. W17 12-04-2001 Management's letter .
18. The reference is answered accordingly.
Ex. W18 21-04-2001 Reply of the petitioner .
Ex.W19 24-09-2001
(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 25th July, 2012) .
Management reply filed before the Conciliation Officer.
Ex. W20 23-10-2001
A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined :
Reply statement filed before the Conciliation Officer by Vellaisamy.
Forthe Ist Party/ : WWI , Sri N. Muthusamy
Petitioner
Ex. W21
WW2 , Sri V.K. Nallamuthu
WageSlips for M. Vellaisamy.
Ex. W22 26-02-2001
Forthe 2nd Party/ : MW 1 , Sri A. Prabhakaran Respondent
Representation of the petitioner.
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7202
Date
Ex. No.
Description
Date
Ex. No.
Description
23-10-2001
Ex. W44
Ex. W23
the Cover containing representation ofthe petitioner.
13-03-2001
Ex.W24
Industrial Dispute.
Reply Statement filed by the petitioner before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai .
12-04-2001
Ex. W25
Management's letter.
22-02-2002 Conciliation Failure Report .
Ex. W45
21-04-2001
Ex. W26
Reply ofthe petitioner.
Ex. W46
Wage Slips for Muthusamy.
Ex. W27 24-09-2001
26-02-2001
Ex. W47
Management reply filed before the Conciliation Officer .
Representation petitioner. of the
Ex. W28 23-10-2001
Ex. W48
Returned cover containing the representation of the petitioner.
Reply statement filed before the conciliation officer by Vellaisamy.
13-03-2001
Ex. W49
Industrial Dispute.
18-07-1997
Ex . W28A
12-04-2001
Settlement under Section 12(3 ) ofthe IDAct, 1947 .
Ex. W50
Management's letter.
26-02-2001
21-04-2001
Ex. W29
Ex. W51
Reply of the petitioner with acknowledgement .
Representation of the petitioner.
ExW30
24-09-2001
Ex .W52
Returned cover containing the representation ofthe petitioner.
13-03-2001
Ex.W31
Industrial Dispute.
Counter Statement filed by the management before the Labour EnforcementOfficer (Central ), Salem.
Ex. W32 12-04-2001
Management's letter.
23-10-2001
Ex. W53
21-04-2001
Ex. W33
Reply of the petitioner with acknowledgment .
Reply Statement filed by the petitioner before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ), Chennai .
Ex. W34 24-09-2001
Conciliation Failure Report .
Ex. W54 22-02-2002
02-01-2001
Ex. W55
Counter Statement filed by the management before the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central ), Salem.
Representation petitioner. of the
23-10-2001
Ex. W35
Ex. W56
Returned cover containing the representation of the petitioner .
Reply statement filed by the petitioner before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ), Chennai .
Ex. W57 29-01-2001 Industrial Dispute.
22-02-2001 Conciliation Failure Report .
Ex. W36
19-03-2001
Ex. W58
Management's letter .
Ex. W37
Wage Slips for Kandasamy.
28-03-2001
Ex.W59
Reply of the petitioner with acknowledgement .
26-02-2001
Ex.W38
Representation petitioner. of the
03-04-2001
Ex. W60
Petitioner letter with acknowledgement .
Ex.W39
Returned cover containing the representation ofthe petitioner .
12-04-2001 Management's letter .
Ex. W61
13-03-2001
Ex. W40
Industrial Dispute.
21-04-2001
Ex.W62
Reply of the petitioner with acknowledgement .
12-04-2001
Ex. W41
Management'sletter .
22-02-2002 Conciliation Failure Report .
Ex. W63
Ex. W42 21-04-2001
Reply of the petitioner with acknowledgement .
26-02-2001
Ex. W64
Ex.W43 24-09-2001 Counter Statement filed by the management before the Labour EnforcementOfficer ( Central ) , Salem.
Original postal cover un- opened containing the representation . RL. 880 showing refusal by the management. The post sent on 27-02-2001.
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7203
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
Ex. No. Date
Description
Ex. W65 02-01-2001 Original postal cover un- opened containing the representation . RL 1869 showing refusal by the management .
Ex. W66 26-02-2001 Original postal cover un- opened containing the representation . RL 884 showing refusal by the management. The post sent on 27-02-2001 .
Ex. W67 26-02-2001 Original postal cover un- opened containing the representation . RL 879 showing refusal by the management . The post sent on 27-02-2001.
Ex. W68 26-02-2001 Original postal cover un- opened containing the representation . RL 882 showing refusal by the management . The post sent on 27-02-2001 .
Ex. W69 26-02-2001 Original postal cover un- opened containing the representation . RL 883 showing refusal by the management . The postsent on 27-02-2001 .
Ex. W70 26-02-2001 Original postal cover un- opened containing the representation . RL 881 showing refusal by the management. The post sent on 27-02-2001 .
Ex . W71 02-01-2001 Original postal cover un- opened containing the representation of Krishnan . RL 1868 showing refusal by the management.
On the Management's side
Ex. No. Date
Description
Ex.M1 20-05-1993 License issued by the Government.
06-12-1993
Ex .M2
Letter from the Government to the 2nd Opposite Party and Quarry Sketch .
Ex. M3
Quarry Plan .
Ex. M4 07-06-2002 Renewal application for extension of licenses .
Ex. M5 2001 Settlement copies of the co- workers.
Date
Ex. No.
Description
Ex .M6 01-02-2001 Inspection Report given to Dy. Director ofMines .
01-02-2001
Ex. M7
Circular issued by the Respondent put up in the notice board stopped the production.
Ex. M8 15-02-2001 Circular put up by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex.M9 15-02-2001 Letter issued by the Director ofMines and Safety.
20-01-2001
Ex.M10
Show Cause Notice issued by the2nd Opposite Party to the petitioner.
29-01-2001
Ex. M11
2A petition filed by Mr. P. Chellaiah by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex.M12 19-03-2001 Letter issued to Mr. P. Chellaiah by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex. M13 28-03-2001 Letter issued by the Mr. P. Chellaiah to the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex. M14 10-04-2001 Letter issued by the Shevaroyas General Employees Union to the Respondent .
Ex. M15 12-04-2001 Letter issued to Mr. P. Chellaiah by the Respondent.
16-06-2001
Ex. M16
Reply filed by the 2nd Opposite Partyto the Labour Officer .
Ex. M17 20-04-2003 AffidavitofP. Chellaiah in WP No. 13391 of 2003 .
26-02-2001
Ex. M18
Letter issued by Mr. A. Kanagaraj to the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex. M19 19-03-2001 Show Cause Notice issued by the2nd Opposite Partyto Mr. A. Kanagaraj .
Ex.M20 28-03-2001 Letter issued by Mr.A. Kanagaraj to the 2nd Opposite Party.
10-04-2001
Ex. M21
Letter issued by the Shevaroyas General Employees Union to the 2nd Opposite Party.
12-04-2001
Ex. M22
Letter issued by the 2nd Opposite PartytoA. Kanagaraj .
7204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
Date
Ex. No.
Description
Ex.M23 28-03-2001
2A petition filed by Mr. A. Kanagaraj before the Labour Officer.
Ex.M24 18-05-2001
Reply filedby the 2nd Opposite Party to the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central ).
Ex. M25 24-09-2001
Counter filed by the 2nd Opposite Party before the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Salem .
Ex.M26
Quotation given by Mr. A. Kanagaraj for doing the civil work to the 2nd Opposite Party plantation.
Ex.M27 26-02-2001 Letter issued by the Mr. M. Vellaisamy to the Respondent .
Ex .M28 19-03-2001 Show Cause Notice issued to Mr. M. Vellaisamy.
Ex. M29 28-03-2001
Letter issued by Mr. M. Vellaisamy to the Respondent .
Ex. M30 10-04-2001
Letter issued by the Shevaroyas General Employees Union to the Respondent.
Ex.M31 12-04-2001 Letter issued to Mr. M. Vellaisamy by the Respondent with acknowledgement card.
Ex.M32 13-03-2001 2A petition filed Mr. M. Vellaisamyto the Labour Officer.
Ex. M33 24-09-2001 Counter filed by the Respondent before the Labour EnforcementOfficer ( Central) , Salem.
Ex.M34
83 -Yercaud Assembly Voter List.
Ex. M35 26-02-2001 Letter issued by the Mr. P. Vadivel to the Respondent .
Ex.M36 19-03-2001 Show Cause notice issued to Mr. P. Vadivel .
Ex.M37 28-03-2001 Letter issued by Mr. P. Vadivel to the Respondent.
Ex. M38 10-04-2001 Letter issued by the Shevaroyas General Employees Union to the Respondent .
Ex. M39 12-04-2001 Letter issued to Mr. P. Vadivel by the Respondent .
[PART II -SEC. 3( ii) ]
Ex. No. Date
Description
Ex . M40 21-04-2001 Letter issuedby Mr. P. Vadivel to the Respondent .
Ex.M41 13-03-2001 2A petition filedby Mr. Vadivel to the Respondent with acknowledgement .
Ex. M42 24-09-2001
Counter filed by the Respondent before the Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central ) Salem.
Ex .M43
Affidavitof P. Vadivel in WP No. 13393 of 2003 .
Ex. M44 19-03-2001 Show Cause Notice issued to the Mr. P. Kandasamy by the Respondent.
Ex .M45 28-03-2001 Letter issued by Mr. P. Kandasamy Respondent. to the
Ex. M46 10-04-2001
Union to the Respondent . Letter issued by Shevaroyas General Employees the
Ex . M47 12-04-2001
Letter issued to P. Kandasamy by the Respondent with acknowledgement card .
Ex. M49 24-09-2001
Counter filed by the Respondent before the Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central ) Salem.
Ex.M50
83-Yercaud Assembly Voter List .
Ex. M51 19-03-2001 Show Cause Notice issued to N. Muthusamy by the Respondent.
Ex.M52 28-03-2001
Letter issued by M.N. Muthusamy to the Respondent.
Ex.M53 10-04-2001 Letter issued by the Shevaroyas General Employees Union to the Respondent.
Ex.M54 12-04-2001 Letter issued to Mr. N. Muthusamy by the Respondent with acknowledgement card .
Ex. M55 13-03-2001
2A petition filed by N. Muthusamy before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) .
[ भाग 11-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7205
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
Ex. No. Date
Description
24-09-2001
Ex.M56
Counter filed by the Respondent before the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central ) Salem .
Ex.M57 19-03-2001 Show Cause Notice issued to Mr. M. Myilvahanan by the Respondent.
Ex.M58 28-03-2001
to the Letter issued by Mr. M. Myilvahanan Respondent.
Ex.M59 10-04-2001 Letter issued by the Shevaroyas General Employees Union to the Respondent .
Ex.M60 12-04-2001
by the Letter issued to Mr. M. Myilvahanan Respondent Acknowledgment Card . with
Ex.M62 24-09-2001 Counter filed by the Respondent before the Labour Enforcement Officer ( Central ) Salem.
Ex.M63
83-Yercaud Assembly Voter List.
Ex.M64 20-01-2001 Show Cause Notice issued to Mr. R. Krishnan by the Respondent.
19-03-2001
Ex. M65
Letter issued to Mr. R. Krishnan by the Respondent .
28-03-2001
Ex. M66
Letter issued by Mr. R. Krishnan to the Respondent .
Ex.M67 10-04-2001 Letter issued by the Shevaroyas General Employees Union to the Respondent .
Ex.M68 12-04-2001 Letter issued to Mr. R. Krishnan by the Respondent .
Ex.M69 16-06-2001 2nd Opposite Party letter issued to Regional Labour Commissioner.
Ex.M70
Conciliation Proceedings Report.
Ex. M71 17-02-2003 Government of India letter issued to the Respondent .
नई दिल्ली, 27 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2958.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सिविल ऐविशन ट्रेनिंग कालेज बामरोली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 31-07-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -11012/ 13/2001- आई आर ( एम ) ] जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव
NewDelhi , the 27th August, 2012
S.O. 2958. 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/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Civil Aviation Training College, (Bamrauli) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 31-07-2012.
[No. L- 11012/13/2001 - IR(M) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , PRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Disputes No. 25 of2001
Between
Sri Mohan Lal Prajapati , S/o Sh . Raja Ram , VillageLodhpur Post Noorpur, District Kaushambi , Allahabad
AND
Civil Aviation Training College, ThePrincipal , Bamrauli , Allahabad
AWARD
1. Central Government Mol New Delhi vide notification No. L- 11012/ 13 /2001 /IR( M) dated 31-10-01 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .
2. Whether the action of the management of Civil Aviation Training College, Bamrauli , Allahabad , in terminating the services of Sri Mohan Lal Prajapati with effect from 01-09-1999 is justified? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled ?
7206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
3. Brief facts of the case are.
4. That the claimant was appointed by the opposite partywitheffect from 01-09-94 and continued to be in service upto 31-08-99 . It is stated that the services of the claimant were illegally terminated with effect from 01-09-99 by verbal order ofthe officer of the opposite party. It is further alleged that the provisions of Section 25N and 25F of Industrial Dispute Act were not complied with at the time of termination ofthe services of the complainant . No notice pay or notice pay was paid to the claimant at the time of termination of his services ; therefore , the termination of the service is illegal and non compliance of the said Act . The work and conduct of the claimant was exemplary and no charge sheet or warning was issued by the opposite party during his employment.
5. The work of maintenance and repair of electrical instruments installed all over the complex of the opposite party is ofpermanent nature and work and the maintenance and looking after the electric sub- station was done round the clock. The claimant along with others was engaged by the opposite party for the regular maintenance and repairs of all sorts of electrical equipments and instruments i.e. , Bulbs , Tubes , Switches , Board Fans , Coolers , Heaters , Geyser , Air Conditioner Equipments etc. and the complainant was also required to maintain a dairy in which the complaints are noted and after rectification of the complaint signatures of the officers and staff of the opposite party obtained as a token of work done by the complainant. The work done by the complainant was also entered inthe complaint register and this complaint register was checked by the officers of the opposite party from timeto time. The complainant also lodged that he continued towork about 5 years under the direct control and supervision of the opposite party but his wages were paid through different labour suppliers from time to time to deprive the claimant from his legal right and even he was not paid minimum wages fixed under the minimum wages Act. Therefore, the aforesaid arrangement of the opposite party was nothing but a camouflage . The claimant has worked for more than 240 days of service preceding one year from the termination of his service . It is further alleged by the claimant that due to filing of writ petition no . 44675 of 99 for pressing the legal rights the opposite party became annoyed and terminated the services of the workman with effect from 01-09-1999 .
6.Onthe basis ofabove pleadings it has been prayed that the action of the management be declared as unjust and unfair and he be directed tope reinstated in the service ofthe opposite party with full back wages and continuity of service also together with all consequential benefits .
7. Opposite party filed written statement on affidavit refuting the claim ofthe claimant on a number of grounds . By way of preliminary objection it has been stated that the terms of reference of the instant case has been framed on
[PART IISEC. 3(ii) ]
the presumption made by the appropriate government that therewas relationship of employer and employee between the parties. It is also alleged that the Hon'ble High Court in CMWP No. 53702 of 1999 vide order dated 24-10-2000 has observed that the only dispute between the parties is whether the petitioners are the employees directly of the authority or they are employees of contractor engaged by him(contractor) for doing work. The question is a disputed question of fact and can be done into in appropriate proceedings by the labour court . In view ofthis it would be appropriate that the petitioners may be permitted to raise the industrial dispute before the appropriate authority but the claimant has not raised any dispute till the date .
8. Onmerit of the case it is alleged that the claimant was never employed/ appointed by the opposite party. The opposite party had awarded the contract to different firms from time to time by call of tenders . The payment for the said works was also made to the contracting agency. The contractor has deputed their different persons from time to time to execute the work . Various documents were required to be maintained by the contracting agency during the currency of the contract . Therefore , the documents mentioned by the claimant are not required to be maintained by the opposite party hence the said documents are not available with the office of the opposite party. It is also alleged that the opposite party had not made any payment tothe claimant/applicant and whatever payment were made thatwas made to the contracting firm to whom the contract wasawarded for execution of work . It is also pleaded that the claimant was never been appointed or his services were terminated by the opposite party hence it is not in the knowledge of the opposite party whether the provisions ofSection 25 - N and 25 - F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , were complied with by the immediate employer of the claimant or not and hence the contents of Para under reply arenot admitted. It is not in the knowledge of the opposite party that whether his immediate employer had given him any notice or notice pay at the time of his alleged termination services or not . The master and servant relation with the contracting agency and the claimant deputed by the said Agency, and all such liabilities rest with the said agency and not upon the opposite party. In rest of the paragraphs of the written statement the opposite parties has relied upon various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which at this stage is not considered to be reproduced and the same will be discussed at the time of appreciating the evidence of parties . Under the facts and circumstances ofthe case the claim of the claimant is liable to be rejected .
9. Whereas the workman has filed affidavit in evidence and apart from it he himself has produced in witness box as w.w. 1. Along with affidavit the claimant has also filed photocopy annexure 1 which is annual maintenance of external and internal electrical installations at the office of the opposite party.
7207
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-संडे 3 (ii ) ]
10.Heardand perused the record.
11. It is a casewhere opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence in support of their pleadings.
12. Claimant has specifically stated on oath that he wasappointed/engaged on 01-09-94 in Civil Aviation Training Coilege, Allahabad, and he worked there up to 31-08-99. When he went to the office on 01-09-99 but he was not permitted to work. It is admitted by him that he was not given any appointment letter as well as termination letter. He stated that he worked there continuously as an electrician . When he was removed he was neither paid any notice pay, notice or retrenchment compensation.
13. He stated that there used to be maintained a complaint register there were 9 blocks and his work was being supervised by the junior engineer. His attendance was being recorded by junior engineer. He was paid wages by the office. To enter inside a token pass was issued.He has filed a copy of pass issued by the opposite party, though it does not contain any stamp . He stated that whatever the work was being aliotted to him he use to maintain hisdairy. He has filed certain diaries that are works dairy with effect from 01-06-95 to 31-08-99. In the cross- examination he has stated that it does not contain the signature ofJE.
14. I have examined the relevancy and evidentiary value ofthese documents , though there are certain lacking, still it has not its evidentiary value because these diaries werebeing maintained by the workman in a regular routine manner and opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence to rebut this evidence . Simply putting a question in the cross -examination that these are the forged documents will not give weightage to the contention of the opposite party unless a statement is given by the opposite party on oath . These diaries are from paper No. 10/1 Kato 10/1 Cha .
15. It has been contended by the authorized representative for the workman that the matter has also gone to the Hon'ble High Court for the regularization of 10 employees including the claimant . They have filed the documents and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court , Allahabad. They have drawn my attention towards the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in its judgment dated 24-10-2000, which is paper No. 12/9-13 . At page no . 2 there is a finding as well as observation ofthe Hon'ble High Court that it is also not disputed between the parties that the petitioner are workman . The only dispute between the parties is whether the petitioners are the employees directly of the authority or they are employees of the contractor engaged him (contractor ) for done work . This question is a disputed question of fact and can be gone into in appropriate proceedings by a labour court.
3417 GJ/12-18
16. Therefore , the point to be decided is whether there exist relationship of employer and employee between the management and the claimant.
17. On this point claimant has specifically stated on oath that he was never recruited or engaged by any contractor.No contractor ever came to supervise his work. On this point I would like to say now the burden shifts upon the opposite party that the workman was engaged through a contractor. But the opposite party has not produced any cogent evidence either oral or documentary whichmay indicate that the workman was engaged through, acontractor as alleged by them in their pleadings. They have failed to prove this fact .
18. The claimant has placed his reliance upon a decision 2008 ( 117 ) FLR 819 Gujarat High Court, in between Agriculture Produce Market Committee and Bhanderi Dhiru Bhai Narsingh Bhai . It is held that pleadings are required to be proved and substantiated by the party by producing necessary evidence ; pleading cannot take place of evidence.
19. Similarly it is held that no limitation has been prescribed under the act, dispute has to be raised within a reasonable period.
20. Therefore, considering the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High court'the claimant is also entitled to get relief in the present case also .
21. Similarly in a case 2003 (99 ) FLR 587 Bombay High Court NewHind Textile Mills Mumbai and Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh it has been held that even a X - rox copyofnotice of change may be considered by the Court.
22. It is also held that the complainant has proved hisworking for over and above 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of termination of his service and also that he had not been paid any notice pay, notice or retrenchment compensation by the employer at the time oftermination of service . The evidence of the claimant on thispoint remains uncontroverted . Therefore it is held that the employer has breached the provisions of section 25F ofI.D. Act . Therefore , it is held that the termination ofthe workman is held to be unjust illegal and unfair and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in :service with 50% of backwages.
23. Reference is answered accordingly in favour of the workman and against the opposite party.
RAM PARICAS , Presiding Officer
नईदिल्ली, 28 अमला, 2012
का.आ. 2959.-औद्योनिक विकार अधिशियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीयश सरकार पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 7208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA TEMBER 22 , 2012 / BHADRA 31 , 1934 [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
ofGuards ( Goods ) from the DTE his Junior Shri Upendra Prasad was promoted , is legal and justified? To what reliet, the Union/ Workman is entitled ? " .
अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संख्या 43/2011 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-08-20 गां अन्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-41011 / 111 /2010- आर )
रमेश सिंह , काका?
New Delhi , the 28th August , 20
3. The Order of reference was endorsed to the Vice President, United Trades Union Congress ( UP ) , 107/76 Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur ( U.P. ) with direction to the party raising the dispute to filed the statement of claim along with relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the receipt ofthe order of reference and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in thisdispute under sale 10(B ) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) , Rules , 1957 .
S.O. 2959. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial .Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ret. No. 43/2011 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cur : bour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , te suustal Dispute between the management of Purvotta Railway and their workman , which was received by Central Government on 28-08-2012.
[No. L-41011 / 11/2016 ( - ).
RAMESH SINGH DO
ANNEXURE
INDUSAL
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR CONC
LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Dr. Manju Nigam, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 43/2011
Ref. No. L- 41011 / 111 /2010 - IR ( B- 1) dated 2-4-9363
BETWEEN
VicePresident , United Trades Union Congress ( UP) 107/76 , Jawahar Nagar , Kanpur (U.P. ) (Espousing case of Shri Ashok Kumar )
AND
Mandal Rail Prabandhak
Purvottar Railway Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
4. The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal on 4-4-2011 and the office was directed to issued registered notice to the workman for filing the statement of claim with list ofreliance and list of witnessed before this Tribunal with advance copy to the management on 11-05- 2011 ; and accordingly, registered notice was issued to the workman's Unior vide deted 21-04-2011 . None appeared on behalf of the workman's union on 11-5-2011 and on the subsequent das also ie . 13-7-2011 , therefore , another netice viude dated 20-07-2011 was issued to workman's union on the address provided in the reference order, calling upon to file the statement of claim on 13 09-2011 ; but again neither ar one turard up from the workman's union on 13-09-2011 που any statement of claint was filed nor the envelop co taining notice was received back in the office. Moreover, the workman's union did not put up its appearance on the date fixed le . on 14-10-2011 , 04-01-2012, 13-02-2012, 00 04 2012 , 21-05-2012 , 04-06-2012 and even on today The workman's union did not turn up in spite of repeated rice registerca post and also the envelops containing the notices were not received back in the office; accordingly service of the notice upon the workman's union was presumed and the file was reserved for award considering the fact of long pendency of the case before thisTribunal since 04-04-2011 and non - appearance of the party raising the dispute i.e. United Trades Union Congress (U.P.) .
AWARD
5. The reluctance of the workman's union in appearing before this Tribunai and Bling their statement of claim indicates that the workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on the basis of which it has raised present industrial dispute.
6.Accordingly, the present reference order is decided as ifthere is no grievance left with the workman . Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the workman concerned . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly .
By Order No. L- 41011 / 111 /2010 - IR ( B - I ) dated 24-03-2011 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between Vice President , United Trades Unior Congress (UP ) , 107/76 , Jawahar Nagar , Kanpur (U.P.; and Mandal Rail Prabandhak , Purvettar Railway, Ashok Marg , Lucknow for adjudication .
7. Award as above .
2. The reference under adjudication is:
Dr. MANJU NIGAM , Presiding Officer
Lucknow: 31-07-2012
"Whether the demand ofUnion for pront Shri Ashok Kumar from he post of Kantewar [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7209
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
नई दिल्ली , 28 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2960.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/09 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-08-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/72/2008- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th August, 2012
S.O. 2960. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 03/09 ) 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 workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-08-2012 .
[No. L- 12012/72/2008 - IR (B -i ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT /LC/R/ 3/09
Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan , PresidingOfficer.
Workman Shri Shivlal , S /o Bheru Lal , R/ o H. No. 119 , Anna Nagar , BHEL Area, Bhopal(MP)
Versus
The General Manager ,
hasreferred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :
"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, State Bank of India , Bhopal in terminating services of Shri Shivlal S /o Shri Bherulal w.e.f. 31-12- 2006 is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"
2. The workman appeared in the case in person and through his counsel on 28-1-2010 but did not file statement ofclaim till 15-2-2011 . Thereafter the reference proceeded ex-parte against the workman on 15-2-2011 .
3. The management also appeared and was represented through his lawyer. The learned counsel for the management has submitted that the workman has not raised any dispute before the Tribunal . It is submitted that it is clear that the workman does not want to contest the reference . Under the circumstances , the management has not filed any written statement and this is a case of no dispute. Accordingly the reference is answered .
4. In the result, a no dispute award is passed without any order to costs.
MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 28 अगस्त, 2012
का. आ. 2961.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 143/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/316/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th August, 2012
Management
State Bank of India, Personnel & HR Deptt . LHO : Hoshangabad Road , Bhopal(MP)
AWARD
Passed on this 30th day of July 2012
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 12012/72 /2008 - IR(B- I ) dated 15-1-2009 S.O. 2961. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 143/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Nandan Mine No. 1 of Western Coalfield Ltd. , and theirworkman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2012 .
[No. L-22012/316/ 2002 - IR (CM - II ) ] Β . Μ . PATNAIK , Section Officer 7210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT -CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 143 /2003
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
Date:8-8-2012
PartyNo. 1 : The Manager, Nandan Mine No. 1 ofWCL, PO: Dungaria ,
Distt. Chinddwara, (M.P. )
Vs.
Party No. 2 : The President , P.K.K.K.K. Sangh , Damua, PO : Damua. Distt. Chinddwara (MP )
AWARD
(Dated:8thAugust . 2012)
In exercise of the powers conferred clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short ) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the WCLL and their workman . Shri Mahtub Shah , for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 2201236 /2002- IRICM - 11 ) dated 12-5-2003 , with the following schedule:
"Whether the action of the manager, Nandan Mine No. 1. WCL , Kanhan Area in terminating the services ofShri Mahtub Shah S/o . Sh . Jabbal Shah , Trammer of Nandan Colliery No. I w.e.f. 13-9-2001 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled ? "
2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of clan and written statement and accordingly , the workman , Shri Mahtub Shah, ( " the workman " in shot) , through the union , " P.K.K. K.K. Sangh " , ( " the union " in short) filed the statement of claim and the managennt of WCL. , ("Party No. 1 in short ) fled its written statement .
eState 5. The case of the woman is that while he was working in Nandan Mine No. 1 , charge heet dated 25-7-2001 , for commission of unisconduct under clauses 26.16 and 26.40 of the certified standing orders was issued against him and the allegation in the charge sheet ainst him was for making a complaintto the office Government against the Sub- Area Manager , Manger and Shift incharge and he was suspended w.e.f. 26 - and he submitted his reply, denying the charges and she. Anil Mishra was appointed as the enquiry off and the enquiry officer was biased and he completed the enquiry with empty formalities and the Sub Area Manager and Manager against whom complaint was made by him as alleged were not competent to submit the charge sheet and the Manager and Sub Area Manager considered the reply submitted by him and the evidence recorded in the enquiry, even though they were biased against him and the Sub area manager , manager and shift incharge were not examined and management had predetermined to proceed with the enquiry ex -parte and as such , the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and completed the same on 10-8-2001 itself, while he was on sick leave from 6-8-2001 to 13-8-2001 and he was dismissed from service vide order dated 13-9-2001 and the report of the enquiry officer, the proceedings of the enquiry and show cause notice were not supplied to him and he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and the order ofdismissal is illegal and vitiated.
4. The party no . 1 has pleaded inter alia that the workman was working as a trammer in Nandan Mine No. 1 and he was a habitual offender and had committed misconducts several times , for which he had been punished by way of issuing charge sheet and warning letters and the management did not take serious action against him. for the misconduct committed in the past , to give the workman opportunity to improve himself, but the workman did not improve his conduct, rather he continued to commitmisconduct one after the other and the workman made a false complaint against the officials of the company, with a view to create industrial unrest and therefore , he was issued with the charge sheet bearing no . 1907 dated 25-7-2001 , under clauses 26.16 and 26.40 of the standing orders and the workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet and as the reply to the charge sheet was found unsatisfactory, it was decided to hold the departmental enquiry against him and Shri Anil Mishra was appointed as the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer vide memo ofenquiry no . 1995 dated 4-8-2001 fixed the first sitting of the enquiry to 7-8-2001 ( wrongly mentioned as 7-7-2001 in the written statement) and as the workman did not attend the enquiry, inspite of receipt of the information about the date of enquiry, the enquiry proceedings was adjourned to 10-8-2001 and inspite of receipt of the notice , as the workman did not attend the enquiry on 10-8-2001 , the enquiry was conducted ex parte and the management representative produced 13 documents and also examined Gopal Singh as a witness and as the workman did not take part in the enquiry, the enquiry was closed and the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report , holding the workman guilty of the charges and the workman was issued with show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report on 21-8-2001 ( wrongly mentioned as 21-8-2000 in the written statement) and taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case , the proved misconduct and the past record of the workman , the competent authority imposed the order of
termination from service on 13-9-2001 against the workman .
7211
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]
5.As this is a case of termination of the services of the workman, after holding of a departmental enquiry, the fairness of the departmental enquiry was taken for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated 15-7-2011 , the enquiry was held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice.
6. As the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1973 SC - 1227 (Firestone Tyres & Rubber Co. of India Vs. The management and others ) have held that, " the act is a beneficial piece of legislation and enacted in the interesi of the employee and as such this must be interpreted accordingly and it is also well settled by the Hon'ble Court that the enquiry will be vitiated and will show the prejudice of enquiry officer , if the enquiry conducted is in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the relevant standing orders and the dismissal order cannot be justified and the labour court must avert to all point raised before it atleast on facts and evidence and the Tribunal is not only at liberty to consider as to whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer are correct, but also to differ from the said findings , if a proper case is made out and what was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employed has ceased to be so and now, it is the satisfaction or the Tribunal that finally matters and law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is binding on all and the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the non -payment of subsistence allowance will vitiate the ex parte enquiry conducted against the workman and the certified standing orders of WCL was certified on 19-2-1993 and came into force on 26-2-1993 or to say on 1-3-1993 and clause 28 of the certified standing orders of WCL provides the time limit for submission of charge sheet , submission of explanation by the workman , payment of subsistence allowance , the time limit for completion of the enquiry and the procedure of the enquiry and in this case , the charge sheet is a vague one and does not contain the details of the charges levelled against the workman and the list ofdocuments and list of witness to be produced and examined respectively and the enquiry officer did not consider the stands taken by the workman in the show cause filed by him to the charge sheet and even failed to mention about the same in his enquiry report and the letter of appointment of the enquiry officer was not served on the workman and even though , the workman had requested to appoint an outsider as the enquiry officer , management did not consider his report and appointed Shri Anil Mishra , a Senior Asstt . Manager of the colliery as the enquiry officer and as the Manager and Sub Area Manager were interested parties , there was gross violation of natural justice . It was also submitted that notices of the departmental enquiry and the copy of the enquiry report were not served on the workman intentionally and the enquirywas conducted ex parte . The learned advocate for the workman described the alleged defects in the departmental enquiry by tits and bits. It was also argued that this is a case of no evidence and the findings ofthe enquiry officer are based on no evidence and as such, the findings are perverse and the disciplinary authority without applying his mind passed the order of termination mechanically and the punishment is harsh and disproportionate and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
Insupport ofsuch contentions , the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1970 LLJ- 1 (The management of Travancore Titamium Products Ltd. Vs. Their workman ), 2010 Mh . L.J. -587 (Shriram V. Deshpande Vs. Presiding Officer ) and(1973) 1 SCC-656 ( Ghanshyam Vs. State ofMP).
7.Onthe other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 that it has already been held by this Tribunal that the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman fair and valid, as per order dated 15-7-2011 and the workman did not appear in the departmental enquiry inspite of due notice and thus, he waived his right to cross - examine the witnesses by absenting himself and there was no violation of natural justice and the punishment imposed against him is in commensurate to the proved serious misconduct in a properly held departmental enquiry and the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate and there is no scope to interfere with the punishment.
In support of such contentions , reliance was placed onthe decision reported in (2003 ) 4 SCC -670 (State ofUP Vs. Chandrapal Singh ) and AIR 2010 SC- 142 ( Biecco Lawarie Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal ) .
So, keeping in view, the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts in the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the parties , now, the present case in hand is to be considered .
8.After taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned advocate for the workman , it is found the most of the submissions relate to the fairness of the enquiry. At the cost of repetition , it is to be mentioned that by order dated 15-7-2011 , the enquiry has already been held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice . So , there is no question of considering the submissions made in that regard.
9. On perusal ofthe materials on record , it is found that the enquiry officer has properly assessed the evidence onrecord ofthe enquiry and has given his findings basing on such evidence. Moreover , it is clear from the evidence of the workman that he has admitted about submitting complaint against his higher authority to the collector.
7212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/ BHADRA 31. 1934 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
CaseNo. CGIT/NGP/ 120 /2004
Date: 16-8-2012 The enquiry officer has not based his findings on any extraneous material . When, the workman did not take part in the enquiry and did not adduce evidence in support of his case, there was no question of taking the grounds mentioned in the show cause for consideration at the time ofgiving ofthe findings by the enquiry officer . Hence, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.
PartyNo. 1
: The Chief General Manager, Chandrapur Aren of Western Coalfields Limited , Post & Distt. Chandrapur , Maharashtra
Versus
Party No. 2
10. So for the punishment is concerned , it is found that commission of serious misconduct by the workman has been duly proved against him in a properly conducted departmental enquiry. Therefore , the punishment of termination of the services of the workman cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate . So , there is no scope to interfere with the punishment. Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
: Shri S. R. Pendre , General Secretary, Lal Bavta Koyla Kamgar Union , Bhiwapur Ward No. 27 , Post& Distt . Chandrapur
AWARD
(Dated: 16th August , 2012)
The action of the manager, Nandan Mine No 1 , WCL , Kanhan Area in terminating the services of Shri Mahtub Shah S/ o . Sh . Jabbal Shah , Trammer of Nandan CollieryNo. I w.e.f. 13-9-2001 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त , 2012
In excrcise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A ) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Aci , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( "the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the Wo and their workman , ( as per list enclosed) for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 22012/ 8 / 2004 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 3-11-2004 , with the following schedule :
"Whether the action of the management in relation ofChandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. , in not paying group wages and SPRA to the Loaders (as per list enclosed) is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workmen entitled ? "
का. आ. 2962.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/8/2004- आई आर ( सीएम-11 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th August, 2012
2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman , Shri KonkatKomraiya , filed the statement of claim on behalf of 12 workmen , as per the list attached ( " the workmen " in short) and the management of WCL , ( " Party No. 1 " in short) filed its written statement .
S.O. 2962. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2012 .
[No. L -22012/8 /2004 - IR ( CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
The case of the twelve workmen as presented in the statement of claim is that the party no . 1 is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. and is an industry and all of them , from the respective date of their appointment were working as loaders and were being paid group wages with SPRA up to 30th June , 1999 and as per the direction of the party no . 1 , workmen , namely Konkat Komraiya , Marmula Madnaiya, Mangalsingh Niranjan , Chanchala Yenkati Durgaiyya , Chintala Rajam Rajaiyya, Lakhanlal Ramprasad , Ramsajiwan Jagdeo , Jhinka Kimaiyya , Devatur Pedda
[ भाग 1 ]-खंड 3 ( ii ) ] भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934 7213
Narsaiyya, More Durgaiyya , Khadasi Odel and Ramasaew dispute, in other words , there was no community of interest
Chandrika from the year 1993 , Workmen , namely, Marmatta between the general body of workers and the 12 workmen
Madnaiya and Lakhanlal Pramprasad from the year 1995 , and in absence of any nexus and community of interest
workmen namely, Ramsajiwan Jagdeo and Ram Asare between the workers in general and the individual
Chandrika from the year 1994, workmen , Jhinka Kimaiyya 12 workmen , the dispute is to be treated as individual
from the year 1988 and workmen More Durgaiyya from the dispute and the Secretary, R.K.K.M.S. union had informed
year 1989 were allowed time rated job , but they were being them vide his letter dated 11-12-2003 that five of the
paid group wages with SPRA of Loader till June , 1999 and workmen including K. T. Komrraya were members of their
the party no . 1 by misusing the power and in violation of union and hence no grievance on their behalf could be
the provisions of Schedule V of the Act and without any taken up by any other union and therefore , raising the
notice for change of service conditions issued office order dispute on their behalf by Konkat Komaraiya or Lal Bavata
No. WCL/CHA/ MGR/ RAI/ 96 dated 6-5-2000 to reduced union has to be treated as unauthorized and in the
their rank and to pay them wages of General Mazdoor representation dated 5-8-2003 it was admitted on behalf of
Category- I w.e.f. 1st July, 1999 and the non - payment of the workmen that the case was not sponsored or espoused
group wages with SPRA to them violates the principles of by any of the five unions , who are enjoying the status of
natural justice and the provisions of NCWA and they were recognized unions , which clearly shows that the dispute
not responsible for not doing the job of loaders and as has been raised as a result of inter - union rivalry and Lal
such , they are entitled for group wages with SPRA and Bavta union remains on paper and does not comply with
clauses3.3.3 and 3.5.2 of NCWA provide for payment of the statutory provisions of Indian Trade Union Act , 1926.
100% full back wages to an employee , who was unable to
perform the work up to the norms , on account ofthe factors The further case of party no . 1 is that the cause of
forwhich , he was not responsible and the settlement dated action had arisen on 1-7-1999 , where as the dispute was
2-11-1992 signed by the party no . I and the union under raised in the year 2003 , after a gap of five years and during
section 12( 1 ) ofthe Act also provides to give alternate job the intervening years , neither the 12 workmen nor any of
to the employees particularly to loaders , who are the major unions made any demands , allowing the financial
physically week due to old age , sickness or I.O.D. implications to mount heavily and the 12 workmen
irrespective of vacancies and to protect the group wages continued to draw wages at the alleged reduced rates
including SPRA on conversion from piece rated to time voluntarily and having accepted the wage for four long
rated wherever applicable and they were converted to time years, they are estopped to challenge the action of the
rated workers from piece rated workers , as they were management and they were aware that in case of claiming
declared medically unfit to work as loaders and as such , group wages , they would be placed to work as loaders by
they are entitled for protection of their group wages with the management , which would have been quite legitimate
SPRA and due to non - protection of their wages each of and it is evident that they opted for the lower category of
them is sustaining a loss of Rs . 111.19 p per day and they job and corresponding wages , which they cannot
are also getting less payment towards house rent , yearly challenge belatedly and the terms of reference is vague in
bonus and quarterly bonus and in the mean time, workmen , as much as the date , from which the group wage with
namely, Marmulla Madanaiya, More Durgaiya and Kadasi SPRA was not being paid to the workmen has not been
Odely have already retired from services . mentioned and on the date of reference , i.e. 3-11-2004, the
workmen were in time rated categories and were being
The workmen have prayed that to set aside the order paid wages of the corresponding categories and neither
passed by party no . I for reduction of their rank with effect they were designated nor working as loaders and SPRA is
from 1-7-1999 .
payable to piece rated loaders and therefore , the question
ofpayment of SPRA to the workmen does not arise and in
3. The party no . I in their written statement have
the statement of claim, prayer has been made to set aside
pleaded inter - alia that this instant dispute is not an the order of reduction of their rank , but the terms of
industrial dispute as because , the dispute on behalf of the
reference do not speak of the legality of any conversion ,
1? workmen was raised before the ALC ( C ) through a letter so the Tribunal cannot decide the issue , by going beyond
dated 13-3-2003 signed by Shri Konkati Kamaraiya and the terms of reference .
the same was not signed by the other workmen and due to
non -signing of the application by other workmen and in The further case of party no . I is that workmen ,
absence of any authority in favour of Kamaraiya by the Marmula Madnaiaya , More Durgaiya and Kodari Odelu
other 11 workmen , the status of the representation should had already been retired from the service of the company,
not have been treated as industrial dispute by the ALC ( C) before the reference was made the Tribunal and the fact
and at Chanda Rayatwari Colliery, where the 12 workmen was made known to the Ministry before the reference was
were employed has a total of 612 workers and none of the made and as such , they fell outside the scope of the
other workers of the colliery was interested in the alleged adjudication and out of the remaining nine persons , except
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012 /BHADRA 31 , 1934
7214
stipulation in the office order that they would be paid wages of time rated in which they would be deployed and the workmen had never objected to the said arrangements and their deployment in time rated category was not according to the needs of the management , rather it was according to the needs of the workmen and therefore to claim protection of wages by them is not justified .
In this cross -examination , this witness has admitted that the initial appointment of the workmen was in piece rated category and no notice was given to the workman at thetime of fixation of their pay in time rated category.
serial no . 8 , Jinka Kimaiygu opted for time rated jobs due to their physical disability to do the job of loaders and serial no . 8 is still performing the job of PR Loader and getting group wages and as the rest workmen were not able to perform the job of loaders , which was affecting their earnings and causing economic difficulty, they requested the management to work on lower and physically less strenuous post and none of them applied or demanded protection ofgroup wages of loader and when the loaders are put on time rated jobs for a short or limited duration , as interim , arrangement before fixing permanently on time rated jobs , they are being paid group wages and when they are permanently placed in time rated categories , their wages are fixed at the midpoint of the time rated category in accordance with the policy decision of the company taken from time to time and there was a shift in the job of the workmen on permanent and regular basis and as such, they are not entitled to any relief.
4. In the rejoinder, it was mentioned that the dispute cannot be said to be individual dispute , because the application was signed only by Konkat Komarai, a, as the dispute has been raised by a group of workmer .
7. Witness , Dayal Zunga Gurnule produced the documents regarding the proposal for obtaining approval for conversion of the workman from piece rated to time rated category and office orders dated 4-5-1999 and 1/3-6-2002 converting the workman from piece rated to time rated category and the circulars issuedby G.M. (MP & IR) , WCL. This witness has stated that the workmen had never complained about their conversion from piece rated to time rated and the conversion of workmen , Zinka (serial no . 8 in the list ) from piece rated to time rated categorywas concelled vide office order dated 11-9-1991 and he worked as a loader and retired from services on 30-6-2011 . The evidence of this witness has virtually remained unchallenged in the cross - examination .
5.Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence , both the parties led oral evidence in support of their respective claim. On behalf of the workmen , evidence of workmen Konkat Komariaya , Chintala Rajan Rajiaya , Devatur Pedda Narasaiyya , Lakhanlal Ramprasad , Ram Sajiwan Jagdeo , Chanchala Yenkati Durgaiyya , and Marmulla Madnaiyya was filed on affidavit. The said workmenwere present in court on 22-9-2008 for their cross- examination , but none appeared on behalf of the party no.1 to cross -examine them , so their evidence remained unchallenged.
Intheir evidence on affidavit, the said workmen have reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim .
8. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workmen that the workmen were working with party no . I at Chanda Rayatwari Colliery on permanent job of underground loaders and were getting group wages with SPRA as per NCWA till 30-6-1999 and as per the direction of the management , they were allowed time rated job and were paid group wages with SPRA till 30-6-1999, but party no . I without any notice and without any option submitted by the workmen , changed their service condition and reduced their rank without any valid reason , by way of victimization and unfair labour practice w.e.f. 1-7-1999 and due to such illegal reduction in rank, each ofthe workman sustained a loss of about Rs . 1.17 per day and the workmen approached the union , " INTUC " for redress of their grievances in the year 1999 and the Secretary of the union raised the dispute before the conciliation officer (C) Chandrapur and case no . ALCH/ 54/100/99 was registerd, but the result of the same was not intimated to the workmen till 2001 , so the workmen withdrew the matter from " INTUC " union and they raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer (C) Chandrapur on 13-3-2003 and during the conciliation , the management representative intimated in writing that they had moved a 6. Two witnesses , namely, Bhuvanagiri Anjaniya Prasad, the ex-colliery Manager of Chanda Rayatwari Colliery and Dayal Zunga Gurmule, a clerk of Chanda Rayatwari Colliery have been examined by the party no . 1 insupport of their case . The witness , B. Anjaneya Prasad in his evidence has stated that during his tenure as the colliery manager, the 12 workmen had been working as loaders and deployed in time rated jobs from time to time, in terms of request either on health ground or accident disability or on voluntary option and in respresponse to their written applications , he had allowed them light surface duty in time rated jobs from time to time with specific 7215
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II ---खंड 3 ( ii) ]
proposal for an amicable settlement in the matter to the company Headquarters for approval and for that the conciliation proceeding was adjourned for several times , but lastly, the conciliation failed and the evidence of the workmen file on affidavit remained unchallenged, as none appeard on behalf of the party no. 1 to cross - examine them and as per the provisions of Chapter III of NCWA , the workmen are entitled for payment of full back wages and the rank of the workmen was reduced by party no . 1 in violation of the principles of natural justice and without giving them any reasonable opportunity to show cause and as such , the action of party no. 1 is illegal and the workmen are entitled to get the back wages for the period from 1-7-1999 till the finalization ofthe case .
Insupport of such contentions , the learned advocate for the workmen relied on the decisions reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC - 391 ( Managing Director , ECCL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar), 2000- I - LLJ - 226 ( Jaysynth Dyechem Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical workers union ) and 1985 11 -LLJ -4 (Theworkmenof the Food Corporation of India Vs. Food Corporation of India).
It is necessary to mention here that though the learned advocate for the workmen has mentioned about several decisions in the written notes of arguments , except the three decisions mentioned above , other decisions of the Hon'ble Courts were not filed for perusal of the Tribunal .
9. Per Contra , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no . I that the union , namely " Lal Bavta" is not competent to raise the alleged industrial dispute in question and Konkat Komaraiya , who has raised the alleged dispute and signed the statement of claim has no locus standi to do so and the dispute is not an industrial dispute and is purely an individual , dispute, so the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the same . It was further submitted by the learned advocate for party no . I that the disputewas raised belatedly i.e. about five years after the cause of action without any reasonable cause , so the reference is not maintainable on the ground of delay and latches and the fixation of the wages of the workmen was done as per the provisions of the settlement dated 2-11-1992 and modified settlement dated 30-10-1995 and the workmen had given option for lighter time rated job due to their own reasons and were not converted to time rated jobs on administrative grounds and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Insupport ofsuch contentions , the learned advocate for the party no . I placed reliance on the decisions reported
3417 GI/12-19
inAIR 1966 SC- 182 ( Workmen of Dharampal Premchand Vs. Dharmpal Prem Chand) and AIR 1970 SC- 73 ( Workmen ofIndian Express News Papers Ltd. Vs. The Management ofIndian Express News Paper Ltd. ) .
10. The first contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no . I is that the dispute is an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute and that being so , it was wrongly referred to Tribunal and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it. It was also contended that the union which had espoused the dispute is a outside union and the said union is only on paper and doesn't have 25 % workmen of the concerned establishment as its members and as such , the union has no authority to represent the workmen . In support of such contentions , the learned advocate for party no . 1.placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 1966 SC- 182 (Supra) andAIR 1970 SC - 737 ( Supra) .
Onthe other hand, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workmen that the dispute is an industrial dispute, the same being sponsored by the union and the fivemajor unions working in WCL did not take any interest in the case of the workmen and as such , the said workmen approached the present union to take their cause for redress.
Inthe decision reported in AIR 1966 SC - 182 ( Supra ) , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947 ) , S. 2( k ) and Section 36- " Industrial Dispute " --Individual dispute becomes industrial dispute , if sponsored by the union ofworkmen or by number of workmen - Union ofworkmen in one establishment can represent cause of workmen in another establishment belonging to same industry. "
In the decision reported in AIR 1970 SC- 737 ( Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:
" Industrial Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947 ) , S. 2 (k ) individual dispute in establishment espouse by outside union having 25 % workmen of concerned establishment as members - Individual dispute held was transformed in to industrialdispute . "
With the touch stones principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above , now, the present case in hand is to be considered.
11. On perusal of the materials on record , it is found thatthe dispute was raised before the ALC ( C) Chandrapur [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
7216
circumstances of the case , it is held that the dispute is an individual dispute and therefore , the reference made by the Central Government is not justified.
12. The next contention raised by the party no . 1 is in regard to the delay in raising the dispute . According to the learned advocate for the party no . 1 , the cause ofaction arose in 1999 , whereas , the dispute was raised in 2003 , about five years after the cause of action and there is unreasonable delay in raising the dispute and as such , the reference is not maintainable .
On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workmen that the dispute was raised on behalf of the workmen by the union " INTUC " before the conciliation officer in the year 1999 and a case was registered, but the result of the same was not intimated to the workmen till 2001 , so the workmen withdrew the matter from INTUC union and raised the dispute again on 13-3-2003 and there was no delay in raising the dispute.
bythe workman, Konkat Komraiya for himself and 11 others by filing an application dated 13-3-2003 . During the pendency of the conciliation proceeding, by letter dated 5-8-2003 , the complainant authorized Shri S.R. Pendre, General Secretary, Lal Bavta Koyla Kamgar union to espouse their case . On failure of the conciliation , the failure report was submitted by the ALC to the Central Government and in the letter of reference issued by the Central Government Shri Pendre was shown as a party to the dispute. However , the statement of claim was filed before this Tribunal not by the concerned union or by Shri Pendre . The statement of claim was filed by the workman , Konkat Komraiya . The said statement of claim has only been signed and verified by workman , Konkat Komraiya, even though it has been mentioned in the said statement of claim that the same is a statement of Konkat Komraiya and 11 others . The other workmen have not signed the statement of claim . When the party no . 1 raised objection regarding the filing of the statement of claim by Konkat Komraiya on behalf of other workmen unauthorisedly, the rejoinder was filed being signed by Shri S.R. Pendre , mentioning himself to be the authorized representative for the applicants . The said rejoinder has not been signed even by Konkat Komraiya .
It is necessary to mention here that advocates , Shri Anil Kumar P. Ghule and Shri Kiran M. Lad filed joint Vakalatnama for the workmen , namely, Konkat Komraiya , Marmula Madnaiya , Chanchala Yenkati Durgaiyya , Chintala Rajam Rajaiyya , Lakhanlal Ramprasad , Ramsajiwan Jagdeo , Devatur Pedda Narsaiyya , More Durgaiyya , and Khadasi Odel . Though the name of the workmen , Ram Asare Chandirka has been mentioned in the Vakalatnama , against the said name , signature of one Lakshmi Yadav is there . It is not known as to why Lakshmi Yadav has signed against the name of Ram Asare . So it cannot be said that workman Ram Asare executed any Vakalatnama in favour the advocates . The statement of the claim was also never ratified by the other workmen .
13. On perusal of the record , it is found that not a single document has been filed to show that the INTUC union had raised the dispute in the year 1999 before the ALC and case no . ALCH/ 54/ 100/99 was registered and the same was pending till 2001. The ALC has also not mentioned about filing of such a case before him by INTUC union in the year 1999 , in the failure report submitted by him to the Central Government on 30-12-2003 . It is clear from the letter of the ALC dated 30-12-2003 that the dispute was raised for the first time on 13-3-2003 . So there was delay of 5 years in raising the dispute . It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of recent decisions that no formula of universal application can be laid down for determination of the question of delay in seeking reference and it would depend on facts of each individual case and it is for the workman concerned to show that the dispute was raised within a reasonable time and that he wasnot responsible for any delay . In the present case , the workmen have not placed any material to show that they had raised the dispute within a reasonable time and they were not responsible for the delay in raising the dispute . So the delay of 5 years in unreasonable and on that count also , the reference is not maintainable.
14. The next point for consideration is as to whether the workmen are entitled for protection of their group wages with SPRA . In this connection , it is to be mentioned here that the reference has been made to adjudicate the dispute regarding the legality of the non - payment of group wages with SPRA to the workmen , who were working as loaders by the party no . 1. However, in the statement of There is no material on record to show that Lal Bavta Koyla Kamgar union has 25% of workmen of Chanda colliery as its members . There is also no material on record to show that the workmen were members ofthe said union . The dispute was raised by the workman Konkat Komraiya . There is also nothing on record to show that the other workmen had ever authorized the workman , Konkat Komraiya to raise the dispute on their behalf. There is also no resolution of the union concern to espouse the dispute on behalf of the workmen . Hence , the dispute cannot be said to an industrial dispute from the facts and [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7217
भारत का राजपत्र : मितम्दर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
claim, prayer has been made to set aside the action ofthe party no . 1 in reducing in rank of the workmen, which is beyond the scope of the reference.
an application before the A.L.C. ( C) Chandrapur. So the action of the party no . 1 cannot be said to be change of service condition of the workmen or reduction of the rank ofthe workmen .
It is to be mentioned here that the provisions of clauses 3.3.3 and 3.5.2 of NCWA regarding payment of backwages have no application to the case of the workmen .
In view ofthe facts and circumstances as mentioned above , with respect, I am of the view that the three decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the workmen have no application to the case in hand . Hence , it is ordered :
ORDER
The action of the management in relation of Chandrapur Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. , in not paying group wages and SPRA to the Loaders ( as perlist enclosed) is legal and justified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
SCHEDULE
Sl . Name of the workman
No.
Date from which SPRA not paid
1-7-1999 1. Shri Konkat Komaraiya
15. It is notdisputed that the workmen were working as loaders and getting group wages with SPRA and they were given alternative light jobs on their request, due to their inability to work in the underground as loaders and theywere paid group wages with SPRA till 30-6-1999. The documents filed as annexure A and B by the party no . 1 , relating to the written applications given by the workmen and order passed for providing light job temporarily to them have been admitted by the workmen . The documents filedby the party no. I show that the workmen applied at different times to give them light jobs for different reasons and considering their applications , party no . I provided them light jobs and lastly by order dated 4-8-1999, the workmen were converted to time rated category from piece rated category permanently. This action of the party no . 1 was in accordance with the settlement dated 2-11-1992 , M- 11 , on which, the workmen have mainly based their claim. No doubt , in clause I ( iii) of the said settlement, provisions were made to protect the group wages with SPRA on conversion from piece rated to time rated/monthly rated categories , wherever applicable , but , clause 1 ( iii ) of the settlement dated 2-11-1992 was modified by another settlement dated 31-10-1995 and it was provided that "All such piece rated workers who have given or may give option for time rated/monthly rated jobs or in case of their selection through internal notification for any time rated/ monthly rated job will be fixed in the middle of commensurate category for which they opt in time rated only and no personal pay will be allowed w.e.f. 1-11-1995 and " Hence - forth the piece rated workers who are engaged on time rated jobs will be paid as per the nature of work performed by them . "
1-7-1999 2. Shri Marmula Madnaiyya
1-7-1999 3. Shri Mangalsingh Niranjan
4. Shri Chanchala Yenkati Durgaiyya 1-7-1999
1-7-1999 5. Shri Chintala Rajam Rajaiyya
1-7-1999 6. Shri Lakhanlal Ramprasad
1-7-1999 7. Shri Ramsajiwan Jagdeo
24-5-2002 8: Shri Jhinka Kimaiyya
It is also necessary to be mentioned here that in the office orders issued by the party no . I to provide light job to the workmen for temporary periods , it was clearly mentioned that they would be paid according to the work done by them . It is also clear from the materials on record thatbasing on the settlement referred above , the wages of the workmen were fixed at midpoint of General Mazdoor Category-1 .
24-5-2002 9. Shri Devatur Pedda Narsaiyya
1-7-1999 10. Shri More Durgaiyya
11. Shri Khadasi Odel
It is also clear from the materials on record that the workmen did not object to such fixation of their wages and received such wages without any complaint or objection till 13-3-2003 , when the dispute was raised by the workman , Konkat Komaraiya for the first time by filing
1-7-1999
1-7-1999 12. Shri Ramasaew Chandrika 7218
[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
नईदिल्ली , 28 अगस्त, 2012
(CM - II ) dated 5-6-2008 , for adjudication with the following schedule :
"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . WCL in not correcting the date of birth of Shri Arun M. Bongle as 2-8-1963 instead of 2-8-1962 is legal and justified? To what reliefs is the workman concerned entitled ?"
का.आ. 2963.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 30/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-08-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/ 17/2008- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th August, 2012
2.On receipt ofthe reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the union , " Sanyukta KhadanMazdoor Sangh (AITUC ) " , ( " the union " in short ) filed the statement of claim , on behalf of the workman , Shri Arun Bongle , (" the workmen " in short) stating that the actual date of birth of the workman is 2-8-1963 and wrongly his date of birth was mentioned as 2-8-1962 in the officials record of party no . 1 and as such , it is necessary to correct the date of birth of the workman as 2-8-1963 instead of 2-8-1962 .
3.The management of WCL , (" party no 1 " in short ) filed written statement pleading inter - alia that there was no mistaken in recording the date of birth of the workman and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
S.O. 2963. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between management of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 28-08-2012 .
[No. L-22012/ 17/2008 - IR ( CM - II) ] Β.Μ. ΡΑΤΝΑΙK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NG P 30/2008
PartyNo. 1
4.During the pendency of reference i.e. 8-8-2012 the advocates for the parties filed a joint applications stating therein that there was a amicable settlement between both the parties and the parties have signed a settlement in form no. ' H ' as per the provisions of the Act and Rules and party no . I has agreed to correct the date of birth of theworkman as 2-8-1963 in its records . As , the settlement arrived at by the parties is a legal settlement, the application was allowed . As the industrial dispute has already been resolved by way of a settlement, it is necessary to pass a "consent" award . Hence , it is ordered:
ORDER
: The ChiefGeneral Manager, Wani Area of WCL, PostUrjagram Tadali , Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
V/s
PartyNo. 2
The reference may be treated as " consent" award in terms of settlement entered between the parties dated 27-7-2012 . The application dated 8-8-2012 and copy of the settlement in form ' H ' dated 27-7- 2012 are made part of the award.
J.P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER : The Secretary, Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC) , Sanyal Bhavan , Gandhi Nagar , Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur -442505.
AWARD
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
(Dated : 8th August , 2012)
Ref. case No. CGIT/NGP/ 30/2008
Employers in relation to the
Management of Chief General Manager , Wani Area , WCL
AND
Secretary, Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , Ghugus .
Inexercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , Shri Arun Bongle, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/ 17 /2008 - IR [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
7219
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
APPLICATION FOR CONSENT AWARD
The parties to the dispute most humbly & respectfully begs to submit the following for its kind consideration :
1. That, the above case while it was pending for its adjudicationbefore this Hon'ble Tribunal , both the parties inclined to settle the matter amicably and accordingly arrived at a settlement of the dispute by signing a settlement in ' Form - H ' as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and Rules . Accordingly the date of birth of Shri Arun Mukunda Bhongle Workman shall be corrected from 1-7-1958 to 2-8-1963 in the records in which it was wrongly recorded.
2.Copy ofthe settlement dated 27-7-2012 is enclosed herewith.
3. In view of the above it is humbly prayed that dispute between the parties be graciously declared as amicably settled and accordingly ' Consent Award' in the case may kindly be given .
Hence this application .
Prayer : Prayed for Accordingly.
Nagpur:
Dt. 8-8-2012
प्रकरण का संक्षिप्त विवरण
श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंग्ले, एन.ई.आई.एस. क्र. 19860568, ऑपरेटर , नायगॉव ओपनकास्ट खान , वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र के संबंध में एस.के.एम.एस (ऐटक ) संघ द्वारा औ . सं. की बैठकों में मांग उठाया था कि श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंग्ले की जन्म तिथि , नायगॉव ओ.सी.एम. (वर्तमान इकाई जिसमें वह पदस्त हैं ) में स्थानांतरन ( वर्ष 1988 ) होने पर भरे गए फॉर्म- बी ( क्र. 89 ) में गलती से वर्ष 1987 में 29 वर्ष (यानी आई.आई. 76 के अनुसार 1-7-1958- एक जुलाई उन्नीस सौ अट्ठावन ) दर्ज हो गया है । श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंगले की प्रथम नियुक्तिपर भरे गए फॉर्म- बी ( यानी घुग्गुस कॉलरी में वर्ष 1982 में भरे गए फॉर्म - बी क्र. 1814 ) , वर्ष 1987 में बने सेवा पुस्तिका एवं एन.ई.आई.एस. डाटा में अंकित जन्म तिथि दिनांक 2-8-1963 है । संघ ने मांग की है कि वर्ष 1988 में स्थानांतरन होने पर भरे गए फॉर्म-बी ( क्र. 89 ) में गलती से अंकित जन्म तिथि ( 1-7-1958 ) को सुधार कर , उनकी जन्म तिथि, उनके नियुक्ति ( दिनांक 4-12-1982 ) के समय ( घुग्गुस कॉलरी में ) भरे गए प्रथम फॉर्म- बी (क्र. 1814 ) , में अंकित जन्म तिथि ( 2-8-1963- दो अगस्त उन्नीस सौ तरेसठ ) , किया जाए। इस संबंध में सी.जी.आई.टी. नागपुर के समक्ष प्रकरण क्र . CGIT /NGP/ 30/2008 , भी लम्बित है ।
Sd/-
Counsel for
PartyNo. 2
Sd/- Counsel for PartyNo. 1
फॉर्म-एच
औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 की धारा 18( 1 ) के तहत , औद्योगिक विवाद ( केन्द्रीय ) नियम , 1957 के नियम
58के अनुसार
समझौता ज्ञापन दिनांक 27-07-2012
पक्षों का नाम:
प्रबंधन प्रतिनिधी:
1. श्री इकबाल सिंह , उप महाप्रबंधक (कार्मिक) वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र
2. श्री राजेश व्ही नायर , प्रबंधक (कार्मिक औ.सं. ) , वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र
कामगार/संघ प्रतिनिधी:
1. श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंग्ले , 19860568 ऑप्रेटर , नायगांव ओ.सी. , वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र
2. श्री नरेन्द्र चन्द्रैय्या, सचिव , एस.के.एम.एस. (ऐटक ) वे. को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र
श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंग्ले , एन.ई.आई.एस. क्र. 19860568 , ऑपरेटर, नायगॉव ओपनकास्ट खान , वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र , को आयु सुधार का प्रकरण समस्त आवश्यक दस्तावेजों सहित , सक्षम अधिकारी के अवलोकन एवं निर्णय हेतु , वे. को.लि. मुख्यालय , नागपुर को नोटशीट क्र. WCL/WA/CGM /PER/IR/ D.O.B./Arun M. Bhongle/45/ 2012 /3801 dtd . 30-4 /04-05-2012 द्वारा भेजा गया। इस प्रकरण का विस्तृत जांच मुख्यालय में गठित समिति द्वारा किया गया ।
क्षेत्र द्वारा प्रस्तुत नोटशीट क्र. WCL/ WA/CGM / PER / IR/ D.O.B./Arun M. Bhongle/45 /2012/ 3801 dtd . 30-4/04-05- 2012 में मुख्यालय ने टिप्पणी अंकित की है कि प्रकरण की जांच में यह पाया गया है कि श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंगले के प्रथम नियुक्ति पर भरेगए फॉर्म -बी ( यानी घुग्गुस कॉलरी में वर्ष 1982 में भरे गए फॉर्म- बी क्र. 1814 ) , वर्ष 1987 में बने सेवा पुस्तिका एवं प्रणाली विभाग के एन.ई.आई.एस. डाटा में अंकित जन्म तिथि दिनांक 02-08-1963 है , तथा क्षेत्र के अन्दर ही एक इकाई से दूसरी इकाई में वर्ष 1987/1988 में स्थानांतरित होने पर लिपिकीय त्रुटी के कारण इनकी जन्म तिथि, स्थानांतरित इकाई के फॉर्म- बी ( क्र. 89 ) में दिनांक 1-7-1958 अंकित हो गई है । मुख्यालय अनुसार , क्योंकि प्रथम फॉर्म- बी सेवा पुस्तिका एवं एन.ई.आई.एस.डाटा में अंकित जन्म तिथि दिनांक 2-8-1963 है , स्थानांतरित इकाई के फॉर्म- बी में लिपिकीय त्रुटी से अंकित जन्म तिथि में सुधार करने के लिए , प्रस्ताव मुख्यालय भेजने की आवश्यकता नहीं है । अतः श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोगले के वर्ष 1982 में प्रथम नियुक्ति पर भरे गए फॉर्म- बी, वर्ष 1987 में बने सेवा पुस्तिका एवं प्रणाली विभाग में एन.ई.आई.एस. डाटा में अंकित जन्म तिथि के आधार पर , उनसे संबंधित अन्य 7220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
कार्यालयीन रिकॉडों में जहां कहीं भी दिनांक 2-8-1963 से भिन्न जन्म तिथि अंकित है , को सुधारने का निर्णय लिया गया है । अतः यह जन्म तिथी सुधार निम्न अंकित शर्तों पर स्वीकृत किया है ।
समझौता ज्ञापन की शर्ते :
1. श्री अरुण मुकुन्दाभोंग्ले , एन.ई.आई.एस. क्र. 19860568 , ऑप्रेटर नायगाँव ओपनकास्ट खान , वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र की जन्म तिथि दिनांक 1-7-1958 से सुधार कर 2-8-1963 ( दो अगस्त उन्नीस सौ त्रेसठ ) किया जाता है ।
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
4. सचिव , भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली
5. मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र
6. महाप्रबंधक ( कार्मिक औ.सं. ) वे.को.लि. , नागपुर
7. उप महाप्रबंधक ( खनन ) , नायगाँव उपक्षेत्र , वणी क्षेत्र
8. मुख्य प्रबंधक ( प्रणाली ) , वे. को.लि. , वणी क्षेत्र
9. समस्त समझौता हस्ताक्षरकर्ता
10. प्रबंधक ( कार्मिक औ.सं. ) वे. को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र
11. मास्टर फाईल
2. श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंग्ले , एन.ई.आई.एस. क्र. 19860568 , ऑप्रेटर , नायगाँव बिना कोई शर्त , उनके जन्म तिथि के संबंध में सी.जी. आई.टी. , नागपुर के समक्ष , चल रहे प्रकरण क्र. CGIT/NGP / 30/2008 , को वापस लेंगे।
3. श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंग्ले, इस प्रकरण को लेकर , और किसी भी फोरम ( Forum) पर किसी भी प्रकार का विवाद नहीं उठाएंगे तथा मांग नहीं करेंगे ।
4. यह समझौता , श्री अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंग्ले , बिना किसी दबाव के , उनकी पूर्ण सहमती से किया जा रहा है ।
पक्षों का समझौता स्वीकृती हस्ताक्षर
नियोक्ता प्रतिनिधि :
संबंधित कामगार :
ह.
ह.
(इकबाल सिंह)
(अरुण मुकुन्दा भोंगले )
उप महाप्रबंधक ( कार्मिक)
(ऑप्रेटर )
वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र
नायगॉव खान , वे.को. लि. वणी क्षेत्र
ह.
कामगार प्रतिनिधी : ह.
(राजेश व्ही नायर)
(नरेन्द्रचन्द्रैय्या)
प्रबंधक ( कार्मिक औ.सं.)
वे.को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र
सचिव, एस.के.एम.एस. (ऐटक) , वे.को.लि.
वणी क्षेत्र
समझौता के गवाह :
( i ) श्री हरी खांडासकर , वरीय लिपिक , क्षेत्रीय मुख्यालय, वे. को.लि. वणी क्षेत्र हरिखांडासकर । ( ii ) श्री सुनील आसोने , निजी सहायक, कार्मिक विभाग , क्षेत्रीय मुख्यालय , वणी क्षेत्र । ह.
प्रतिलिपी :
1. सहायक श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय , चन्द्रपुर
2. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय , नागपुर
3. मुख्य श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , भारत सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली
नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त , 2012
का.आ. 2964.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आर.सी.एफ. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या -1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( आईडी संख्या 48/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-08-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012 /219/2004- आई आर (सी. - 11 ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th August, 2012
S.O. 2964. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.48/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of RCFL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-08-2012.
[No. L-42012/219/2004 - IR (C - II ) ] B.M. PATNAIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI
PRESENT :
Justice G.. S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT- 1/48 of 2006
Parties
: Employers in relation to the
management of Rashtriya
Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.
AND Their Workmen 7221
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]
Appearances:
For the Management : Shri Alva , Adv.
ForGeneral Employees : None
अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आई डी संख्या 147/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-08-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Association
State:Maharashtra
[सं. एल-22012/335/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी Mumbai , the 7th day of August , 2012 .
New Delhi , the 28th August, 2012 AWARD
1.This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
S.O. 2965. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 147/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Nandgaon Inc of Hindustan Lalpeth of WCL, and their workman , receivedby the Central Government on 28-08-2012.
[No. L-22012/335/2002- IR (CM - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
(1) Whether the contract between the contractor and Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Mumbai is sham and bogus and is a camouflage to deprive the workmen whose names are enlisted at Exhibit " A" from the benefits available to permanent workers ofthe Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited ?
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 147/2003 (2) Whether the workmen whose names are enlisted at Exhibit " A" should be declared as permanent workers and wages and consequential benefits to be paid to concerned workers ?
Date 13-8-2012
PartyNo. 1
2. General Employees Association has not turned up inspite of service of notice and has not filed any statement of claim .
3. The first party has also not filed written statement .
: The Sub-Area Manager, Nandgaon Inc. of Hindustan , Lalpeth of WCL , PO . Lalpeth , Distt . Chandrapur (MS) V/s.
PartyNo. 2 : Shri Rameshwar S. Chandel , Netaji Chowk, Mahadeo Mandir Road, Babupeth , Chandrapur ( MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 13th August , 2012) 4. There is absolutely nothing on the record to prove that the contract between the contractor and Rastriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. , Mumbai is sham and bogus and is a camouflage to deprive the workmen whose names are enlisted at Ex -A from the benefits available to permanent workers of the Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. There is also no material on the record to show that the workman whose names are enlisted at Ex - A should be declared as permanent workers and wages and consequential benefits should be paid to them.
5. The conclusion is that in the absence of any material on the record the workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Award is passed accordingly .
Justice G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (" the Act " in short) , the Central Government had referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Nandgaon Inc. of Hindustan Lalpeth of WCL and their workman , Shri Rameshwar Chandel , for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 22012 /335 /2002 - IR (CM- 11 ) dated 16-6-2003 , with the following schedule:
नई दिल्ली, 28 अंगस्त, 2012
"Whether the action of the management in relation to Nandgaon Incline of Hindustan Lalpeth U /G Sub Area of WCL in dismissing from service Sh . Rameshwar Shankar Chandel , Loader from services का.आ. 2965.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , 1222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
videoffice order no . WCL/CHA/HLUGSA/NI / SOM/ PER/1095 dated 5-8-2000 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. On receipt of the reference , parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement , in response to which , the workman , Shri Rameshwar Shankar Chandel , ("the workman " in short ) filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL ("party no . 1 " in short) filed the written statement .
The case of the workman as projected in the statement of claim is that he was appointed as a loader on 8-10-1986 with party no . 1 and his service record was clean and unblemished and on 25-3-1999, he was served with a charge sheet and he submitted his explanation , but the party no. 1 being not satisfied with the explanation , conducted a departmental enquiry and vide order dated 5-8-2000 , he was dismissed from services and he submitted a representation to the General Manager on 6-7-2001 , but nothing had come out of the same. The further case ofthe workman is that the inquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is totally illegal and against the principles of natural justice and therefore , the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and necessary documents produced in the inquiry were not supplied to him inspite of repeated demands and he was not supplied with the day to day proceeding of the inquiry, in absence of which , he was not able to get himself prepared for the next date of the inquiry and the inquiry officer did not maintain any order sheet mentioning the next stage of the inquiry and fixed the stages according to his sweet will , favouring the management and the inquiry was completed in a haste by the inquriy officer and proper and sufficient time was not given to him to defend himself and the enquiry officer arbitrarily did not allow the participation of the defence representative , Shri Ram Murat Yadav, without any authority on false ground , as a result of which , he was not able to defend himself properly and through , the enquiry was fixed to 05-06-2000, the enquiry officer did not mentioned the purpose for which the enquiry was fixed on that date and on 05-06-2000 , some management's witnesses were examined , but such examination was not done in his presence and he was not given chance to cross - examine the witnesses and the enquiry officer completed the enquiry without giving him any opportunity to examine his witnesses , which facts clearly demonstrate the favouritism and bias attitude of the enquiry officer and on 05-06-2000 , though he had filed an application before the enquiry officer to allow Shri Ram Murat Yadav to act as his defence representative , neither his request was turned down nor any date was given to him and before passing of the order of his dismissal from services , no show cause notice was served and therefore , the dismissal order is totally illegal and he had submitted his say on the enquiry report dated 1-7-2000 , but party no . 1 , without referring to his say, passed the dismissal order
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]
andthe enquiry report is totally vague and illegal and the findings are without any evidence and the enquiry officer did not refer to any evidence in support of his findings and the findings are perverse . It is further pleaded by the workman that the charge sheet dated 25-3-1999 is regarding the allegation relating to 1986 and management has not given any explanation for taking such a belated action after 14 years and the submission of the charge sheet is illegal and with mala fide intention and before dismissal , his past service record was not considered and the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate to the unproved charge and the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice . The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the order ofdismissal and for his reinstatement in service with continuity and fullback wages.
3. The party no . 1 in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the service conditions of the employees working with it are governed mainly by the National Coal WagesAgreement and Certified Standing Orders and one Dewaj Shankarrao Pardi , who was working as Trammer at Kanhan area of WCL was declared unfit medically on 27- 4-1985 and the workman by way of giving fraudulent, false and incorrect information , claimed and applied for employment as the dependent of said Dewaji Pardi and suppression offacts and fraudulent information was given by the workman willfully with ulterior motive , to obtain employment in the services of WCL and such facts came to the knowledge of the management subsequently and such acts on the part of the workman were misconducts asincorporated in the Standing Orders and it was therefore, feltnecessary for the management to investigate into the facts and acts of misconduct committed by the workman, in the interest of discipline and therefore , a regular departmental enquiry was ordered by issuing necessary charge sheet clearly spelling out the allegations against theworkman and enquiry officer was appointed to make enquiry into the charges mentioned in the charge sheet and the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in a most fairmanner and all reasonable opportunities of defence as per the rules were given to the workman and adjournments as demanded by the workman were granted and services of the defence representative were allowed to be availed as per the provisions of the Standing Orders and the workman himself decided not to co - operate with the enquiry and sought unreasonable adjournments to prolong the enquiry, so the enquiry officer was constrained to continue with the enquriy ex- parte and duringthe enquiry, all the proceedings were made available for perusal and inspection of the workman and the workman himself failed to cross -examine the witnesses of the management or to produce defence witnesses , by willfully preferring to remain absent on 15-6-2000 before the enquiry officer, so the enquiry officer was constrained to close the enquiry and submitted his report on 1-7-2000 7223
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग ।।-खंड 3 ( ii) ]
to the competent authority and in his report , the enquiry officer had declared all the charges framed in the charge sheet as proved and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on evidence recorded during the course of the enquiry and the competent authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and after supplying the copy of the findings of the enquiry officer and giving opportunity to submit his say over the findings to the workman , initiated further necessary action and before taking the final action , all the rules incorporated in the Standing Orders , past record of the workman , as well as the say ofthe workman were taken into consideration and as serious charges involving fraud , misrepresentation , suppression of facts and dishonesty were proved against the workman , the punishment of dismissal was passed by the competent authority vide order dated 5-8-2000 and the order dated 5-8-2000 was just and fair.
4.Asthis is a case of dismissal of the workman from services , after holding a departmental inquiry against him, the fairness of the departmental enquiry was taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and as per orders dated 20-01-2012 , the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be legal , proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
5. At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that before dismissal of the workman , no show cause notice was served on the workman and as such , the dismissal order is totally illegal and the findings of the enquiry officer are totally vague and illegal and the findings are without support of any evidence and the enquiry officer has not mentioned any specific document or evidence of any witness by which he held the charges to have been proved and therefore, the findings are perverse and the charge sheet dated 25-3- 1999 is regarding allegation relating to 1986 and management has not given any explanation of such belated action and as such, the submission of the charge sheet itself was illegal and before dismissal , the past service record of the employee was not considered and the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate.
6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. I that the workman by way of giving fraudulent , false and incorrect information wilfully claimed and applied for employment as the dependent of Dewaji Shankarrao Pardi , who was working as a Trammer atKanhan area of WCL and who was declared medically unfit on 27-4-1985 and when such facts came to the knowledge of the management , charge sheet was submitted against the workman clearly spelling out the allegations against him and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on evidence recorded during the course of the enquiry and after supplying the copy of the said findings to the workman and giving him opportunity to submit his say over the findings of the enquiry officer,
3417 GI/12-20
further necessary action was initiated and before taking the final action , past record of the workman as well as his say was taken into consideration and as charges of serious nature involving fraud , misrepresentation , suppression of facts and dishonesty etc. were proved against him , the competent authority awarded the punishment of dismissal from services against the workman and the punishment is not only legal but also justified .
7.The first contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman is that no show cause notice was served on the workman before imposition of the punishment and as such , the dismissal order is totally illegal . However, on perusal of the pleadings of the workman as mentioned in paragraph 2 ( H ) of the statement of claim , wherein it has been mentioned that , " The employee has submitted his say on the enquiry report dated 1-7-2000 , but the management without referring the say of the employee passed the dismissal order " , it is found that there is no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman . The above mentioned statement clearly shows that the workman not only received the copy ofthe enquiry report but also submitted his say on the same . Moreover, the workman in his cross - examination has also admitted that he received the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer . So , the contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman on that score fails.
8. The next contention raised by the learned advocate for the workman is regarding the delay in submission of the charge sheet . According to the learned advocate for the workman , the submission of the charge sheetitself is illegal , as the charge sheet was submitted on 25-3-1999 pertaining to vogue allegations of 1986 . However , I find no force in such contentions , as because , it isfound from record that the charge sheet was submitted by the party no . 1 against the workman , when it came to light that the workman got himself employed as a dependent of another workman , who was declared medically unfit , fraudulently , dishonestly and by suppressing real information . Hence , there is no question of any delay in submitting charge sheet against the workman.
9. So far the perversity of the findings of the enquiry officer is concerned , on perusal of the enquiry report , it is found that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the evidence on record. The enquiry officer has assessed the evidence on record in a rational manner and has assigned reasons in support of his findings . Hence , the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be held to be perverse.
10. So far the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, it is found that grave and serious misconduct involving fraud , dishonesty , suppression of real information and misrepresentation have been proved 7224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
against the workman in a properly held departmental enquiry. So , the punishment of dismissal of the workman from services cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate , calling for any interference . Hence , it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management in relation to Nandgaon Incline of Hindustan Lalpeth U / G Sub Area of WCL in dismissing from service Sh . Rameshwar Shankar Chandel , Loader from services vide office order no . WCL/CHA HLUGSA/ NI /SOM/ PER / 1095 dated 5-8-2000 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presing Officer
नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2966. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट ( आईटीआईडी संख्या 53/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22013/1 /2012- आई आर ( सी -11) ] बी. एम. पटनायक , अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 28th August . 2012
S.O. 2966. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court . Godavarikhani ( IT/ ID/ 53: 2006) as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman , which was recened by the Central Government on 28-8-2012 .
[No. L -22013/1/2012 - IR ( C - II ) ] B. M. PATNAIK , Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT GODAVARIKHANI
PRESENT:
Sri M.A. Shareef, B.Sc. , LL.B. ,
I Additional Sessions Judge , Karimnagar , FAC : Chairman , Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Godavarikhani
[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii )]
Saturday, the 4th day of August , 2012
Industrial Dispute No. 53 of 2006
BETWEEN :
I Mogal Sab , S/ o Wali Modh , Aged about 50 years , Occ: Coal Filler 3B , R/ B R/ o Village Janagaom Mandal Ramagundam Distt . Karimnagar
Petitioner/Employee
AND
1. Colliery Manager, VI th Incline , Godavarikhani ;
2. General Manager . S.C. Company , Ramagundam Area I. Godavarikhani ;
3. Managing Director , Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,Kothagudem, Khammam District
Respondents
Thiscase is coming on 21-7-2012 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. B. Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri D. K. Murthy . Advocate, for the Respondents: and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day. the Court delivered the following:
AWARD
1. This petition is filed U/ Sec . 2 - A ( 2 ) of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity, and other attendant benefits including full back - wages .
2. The averments of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an employee in Respondent's company on 1-1-1980. From January , 2002 to December, 2002 the petitioner absented to his duties for 177 days . The petitioner's wife and his five years son are the patients of Epilepsy, they were getting strokes and fits , so, the petitioner absented from duty to get treated to his wife and son . Thereafter, the petitioner was issued charge sheet U/S 25 : 25 standing orders of company for absenteeism and held domestic enquiry and finally the petitioner was removed from service . The punishment imposed on the petitioner is in-proportionate as such the petitioner prayed to direct the respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity and other attendant benefits including full back wages .
3. The second Respondent filed counter which is adopted by other respondents admitting that the petitioner worked in Respondent's company not from 1-1-1980 but from 11-3-1981 . The petitioner failed to exhaust conciliation procedure as laid down in I.D. Act. The respondent company is carrying out mining operation for winning coal and at the same time it is running hospitals for the workers and other employees . If the disease is complicated the said hospital can refer the patients to other hospitals . The [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
7225
petitioner though fully aware of the same did not avail this facility, so , the petitioner remained absent without obtaining leave and he put only 88 actual musters in calendar year 2002, therefore , a charge was issued to the petitionerdt . 1-1-2003 under company's standing order No. 25.25 as follows : " habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause " . The petitioner fully participated in the domestic enquiry but he himself did not take defence assistant . Moreover, the petitioner pleaded guilty of misconduct as he admitted to have been absence from the duty except 88 working days . The petitioner did not obtain prior permission from the competent authority for his absence . As assurance was givenby the petitioner he was counseled on 2-7-2003 and he was given opportunity to improve his attendance for a. period of three months from 1-7-2003 to 30-9-2003 . The petitioner put 26 musters only instead of 60 minimum musters . As there was no improvement in the performance the respondent dismissed the petitioner from company's service . Therefore , the respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. From the above pleadings preliminary issues were framed by this Court as follows :
and had he been continued in service for two more years the petitioner would have been retired from service on his superannuation . This case itself is filed in the year 2006. There was a voluntary retirement scheme announced by respondent company two times and the petitioner applied for the voluntary retirement also under Ex. W.6 but the respondent issued letter to himdt. 5-2-2002 stating that as the petitioner was put less than 100 musters in the year 1998 his application for voluntary retirement under Golden Hand Shake (GHS) was not considered. The learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that he obtained some documents from the respondent's company under RTI Act which he filed in this case . As per the Circulardt . 11-7-2007 of the respondent company Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced for various categories ofthe workman in which Coal Filler at Sl . No. 34 is also included , that means the petitioner was being Coal Filler he was able to avail this opportunity. At clause 2.1.5 of this Circular it is mentioned that after the disciplinary proceedings are disposed off during the operation ofthe scheme they may seek Voluntary Retirement if they are otherwise eligible . The learned advocate for the petitioner contended that already petitioner was removed from service by that time, so , he should have been given an opportunity ofVoluntary Retirement.
( 1 ) Whether respondent not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses .
(2) Whether the enquiry proceedings are in English , as the petitioner is illiterate and obtained the thumb impression without explaining the contents .
(3) Whether there is no specific charge of absenteeism .
10. In reply to this the learned advocate for the respondents contended that as the petitioner was removed from service he was not eligible for Voluntary Retirement Scheme . The learned advocate for the petitioner filed memornadum of settlement between Management of SCC and their Workmen ,dt . 9-8-2011 and among the terms of settlement under Item No. 2 Para No. 3 it is mentioned as follows:
Hence, domestic enquiry is not valid .
5. The petitioner filed memo U/ s . 11A of I.D. Act not disputing the validity of the domestic enquiry. Therefore , the petitioner and respondents were ordered to argue the case.
6. Onbehalf of the petitioner Exs . W. I to W. 6 filed and on behalf of Respondents Exts . M. 1 to M. 9 filed.
" However , in view of the persistent request of theRecognised Union , it was offered to examine the cases of those workmen who were dismissed on account of absenteeism during the period from 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2010 on the same criteria that was followed in the years 2000 and 2004 by the High Power Committee in terms of MoSdt . 21-2-2000 and 20-8-2004 . "
7. Heard both sides .
8. The point for consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner can be reinstated into service with continuity and other attendant benefits with full back wages ? "
Point:
The perusal of the above terms of settlement shows that the petitioner comes under this category as he was dismissed from service due to absenteeism during the period from 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2010 i.e. 6-11-2003 . So , when the petitioner applied for Voluntary Retirement it was rejected to him , but, subsequently from the above terms of settlement it is clear that the respondents i.e. Management agreed to examine the cases of that period to consider for Voluntary Retirement . Therefore , the petitioner comes under this category as such he can be extended the benefit of Voluntary Retirement .
9. The contention of the petitioner is that admittedly he put in service for 22 years 7 months as it is mentioned in the notice issued to the petitioner under Ex . W. 4 by the respondent for payment of gratuity. At this juncture , it is the contention of learned advocate for the petitioner that as on 16-2-2004 the petitioner put in 22 years of service
11. This case is of the year 2002 under which admittedly the petitioner has put only 88 musters in place 7226
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22, 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
of190 musters per year, the reason for putting less musters was explained by the petitioner that his wife and his son were attacked by epilepsy and for their treatment he absented from the duty. The petitioner did not say anything whether he informed this fact to the respondent before he was absent from the duty or not . But inspite of that the petitioner should not have been removed from service but lessor punishment would have been imposed on the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied on a decision of Madras High Court reported in 2011-11- LLJ- 785 (Mad) between Somasundaram Vs. Labour Court , Coimbatore and Another where it was held that :
"discharge of a workman who was driver on theground of physical unfitness held not sustainable and it was contrary to Sec . 25 - F of I.D. Act, so the driverwas ordered to pay compensation of five lakhs rupees ."
In the instant case even the petitioner had not become physical unfit but the allegation is only absenteeism , therefore , he should not have been removed from the service and when he was removed he should have been compensated to that extend. In the first instance the petitioner prayed to award compensation of eight lakhs rupees but as an alternative he prayed to modify the removal order into compulsory retirement by granting full back wages of solitary from the date of removal to the date of realization together with gratuity and other attendant benefits . As the petitioner prayed this alternative relief, it appears proper to modify the removal order of the petitioner into voluntary retirement order even as per the circular and terms of settlement between Management and Workmen as referred above .
12. In the result, this petition is allowed . Accordingly the respondents shall treat the removal order as voluntary retirement scheme (Golden Handshake ) order and shall pay to the petitioner all the amounts which an employee is entitled to get under voluntary retirement scheme after deducting amount if any already paid to the petitioner after his removal from service . However, the petitioner is not awarded any back wages from the date of his removal from service .
M. A. SHAREEF, Addl . Sessions Judge, Chairman- cum- Presiding Officer
Appendix of Evidence
Witness Examined
ForWorkman:
ForManagement :
-Nil- -Nil-
Exhibits
ForWorkman :
Ex. W- 1 Dt. 10-3-1981 Office order Appointment order of petitioner as Badli Filler,x. copy.
Ex. W-2 Dt. 11-2-2002 SCCL employee family members medical prescription registration form x . copy.
Ex. W-3 Dt. 11-4-2005 Letter issued to the petitioner by Colliery Manager , GDK6 Incline advising to attend the High Power Committee Head Office on 21-4-2005 .
Ex. W-4 Dt . 16-2-2004 Advance notice for payment ofgratuity.
Ex.W-5 Dt . 11-4-2005 Letter issued to the petitioner bythe Colliery Manager, GDK 6 Incline to attend the High Power Committee in Head Office , Kothagudem on 21-4-2005.
Ex. W-6 Dt. 5-2-2002 Letter issued to the petitioner that his VRS (Golden hand shake ) application not considered.
ForManagement :
Ex. M - 1 Dt. 19-1-2003 Charge sheet office copy
Ex .M-2
Reply to the charge sheet Dt. 16-2-2003
Ex. M-3
Enquiry notice office copy Dt. 18-5-2003
Ex. M -4
Enquiry proceedings Dt. 20-5-2003
Ex.M-5
Enquiry report
Dt. 8-6-2003
Ex. M-6 Dt. 2-7-2003 Undertaking letter of the petitioner submitted to the respondent
Show cause notice Ex. M -7 Dt. 9-7-2003
Ex. M-8 Dt. 15-7-2003 Reply to the show cause notice
Ex .M-9 Dt . 3-11-2003 Dismissal order नई दिल्ली , 28 अगस्त, 2012
का. आ. 2967. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( आइडी संख्या 149/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -22012/229/2002- आई आर ( सीएम-II ) ] बी. एम. पटनायक, अनुभाग अधिकारी 7227
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 28th August, 2012
Shri G. L. Dhawale, (" the workman " in short) , filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL, (" Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
S.O. 2967.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 149/2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Pipla Colliery of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-8-2012 .
[No. L- 22012/229 /2002 -IR (CM- II) ] Β . Μ. PATNAIK, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Date: 6-8-2012
Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 149/2003
PartyNo. 1 : The Personal Officer, Pipla Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd., Tah . Saoner, Distt. Nagpur
TheSuperintendent of Mines , Pipla Colliery ofWestern Coalfields Ltd., Tah . Saoner , Distt . Nagpur
Vs
PartyNo. 2 : Shri Gajanan Lahanujee Dhawale, R/ o 4, PO Pipla (Dak Bunglow) , Tah . Saoner, Distt. Nagpur
AWARD
(Dated: 6thAugust , 2012)
Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section 2( A) of Section 10 of industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ("the Act " in short ), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the WCL and their workman , Shri G. L. Dhawale, for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 22012/229/ 2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 11-7-2003 , with the following schedule :
The case of the workman as presented in the statement of claim is that he joined the services of party no. 1 on 17-3-1973 and within a short period, he was confirmed as a loader and worked as such till 7-5-1992, the date of his termination and his service record was clean andexcellentthroughout his service period and the party no. 1 by its letter dated 9-11-1991 , directed him and some other employees to remain present at Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital , Kamptee on 14-11-1991 for medical examination bytheAreaMedical Board and accordingly, he appeared before the said Board and party no . 1 by its letter dated 23-11-1991 again directed him to remain present to appear before the Area Medical Board at Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital for treatment and investigation purpose and he attended the Board accordingly and thereafter, he was referredto Central India Institute of Medical Sciences , Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur by party no . 1 for further investigation and report and as per the report of the Advance Scanning Research Institute Pvt . Ltd. , Ramdaspeth, Nagpur dated 20-2-1992 , given by Dr. G. M. Taori , there was no demonstrable abnormality detected on C.T. Scan examinations of his brain and party no . I was directedby letter dated 20-2-1992 ofCentral India Institute ofMedical Sciences to give him job in a protected place and party No. I by letter dated 25-2-1992 (wrongly mentioned as 25-1-1992 in the statement of claim) again directed him to attend the WCL Medical Board at Chandrapur Area Hospital on 3-3-1992 at 9.30 A.M. and he attended the Medical Board and the party no . 1 thereafter, by its office order dated 7-5-1992 terminated his services and removed hisname from the roll , with immediate effect, as per C.M.O. letter no . NGP/WCL/CMD/ Feb/72-74/92 dated 3-4-1992, ashe was declared unfit for duty. The further case of the workman is that the termination ofhis services was without one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice andwithout payment of compensation and by notice dated 23-10-1992, he requested the party no. 1 to reinstate him in service on light duty, but party no. 1 failed to consider his request and termination of his services dated 7-5-1992 was against the Standing Orders applicable to party no . 1 and so also the Act and party no. 1 terminated his services , without giving him duty in a protected place and the action of party no . 1 was totally illegal and unlawful and the termination of his services was not in good faith , but was colourable exercise of rights of the management and the same amounted to victimization and he is fully fit to perform hisduty till his retirement and as such , he is entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages .
"Whether the action of the management of Pipla Colliery through its Superintendent of Mines , WCL, Tah . Saoner , Distt . Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri G. L. Dhawale R/ o . Pipla Dak Bangla , Tah . Saoner, Distt. Nagpur w.e.f. 7-5-1992 is proper, legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the said workman entitled ? "
2. On receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman ,
The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the orderof the termination of his services dated 5-7-1992 and to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages.
3417 GI/12-21 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 7228
SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA
ground to terminate his services except the medical unfitness .
3. The party no . 1 in its wirtten statement has pleaded inter- alia that the application as framed and filed is not maintainable in the eye of law and the workman has already exhausted the remedy by filing Misc . (ULPA ) No. 71/93 , which was dismissed by the Labour Court on 6-8-2003 and as such , the workman is not entitled to claim the relief again before this Tribunal and the claim is hit by the provisions of res -judicata and is liable to be dismissed summarily.
It is further pleaded by the party no . 1 that there is absolutely no merit in the case , as the workman slept over his alleged rights of reinstatement for a period of 12 years and the delay is fatal to the proceeding and the reference is liable to be dismissed on this count only.
5.At the time of argument , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that the services of the workman were terminated on 7-5-1992 and as per the direction ofthe party no . 1 , the workman appeared before the Medical Board on 14-11-1991 for his medical examination and after his medical examination, he was referredto CIIMS for further examination and investigation regarding epilepsy and on 28-11-1991 , the workman was again examined by the Area Medical Board as per the direction ofthe party no. 1 and he was referred to Advance Scanning Research Institute Pvt . Ltd. C.T. Scan of brain and the said institute submitted the Scanning Report on 20-2-1992 stating that no demonstrable abnormality was detected on C.T. Scan examination of his brain and the CIIMS hospital recommended to give him job in a protected place and the workman was again medically examined on 3-3-1992 by the WCL Medical Board and basing on the report of the Medical Board , party no . 1 terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 7-5-1992 , without considering the expert opinion .
The further case of party no . I is that the workman was very well aware of his " unfitness " and was duly apprised that be being unfit was liable to be terminated, but due to the instigation of the union , the workman filed the instant dispute for the sake ofraising the same , without their being any reason to do so and the workman was declared medically unfit by the Board , which to Supreme, and'as such , the report of Dr. G. M. Taori is of no relevance and the workman being unfit to work could not be absorbed atany other place and as the Board declared the workman unfit for duty, he was rightly removed and the question of giving alternative job at a protected place does not arise and the workman is mentally unfit and there was no breach ofanyprovision of the Act and the workman is not entitled toany relief.
4. Besides placing reliance on the documentary evidence , the workman examined himself as a witness in support of his claims . Management placed reliance on documentary evidence only and did not adduce any oral evidence.
It was further argued that Limitation Act is not applicable to industrial dispute and the judgment cited have no application and the workman was vigilant in the matter and soon after his termination , he raised the dispute before the Labour Court at Nagpur, but unfortunately, the same was filed before the wrong forum by his counsel and the workman is entitled to get the protection as provided in Section 47 of the " Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and as the services of the workman were terminated without any notice and payment of compensation to him , the termination amounts to retrenchment as per the definition under Section 2(00) of the Act and as such , the workman is entitled to full relief. "
Insupport of such contentions, the learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported in1987 II CLR -page 1 ( Kishorilal Vs. Santoshi Tel Utpadan Kendra ) , 2009 II CLR -367 ( Belliyappa Gowda Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation , Bangalore and another) , 2008 I CLR--789 ( Bhagwan Dass Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board ) and 2012 ( 133 ) FLR - 286 ( Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Inder Singh) .
6. Per Contra , it was submitted by the learned adovate for the party no. I that as the dispute has been raised about 12 years after the termination of the services ofthe workman , the claim is a stale claim and the same cannot be entertained . In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in 1998 (2) Mh . L... 141 ( State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Rakmaji ) , 1950 ( 11 ) LLJ - 71 ( SC ) ( Jhagrakhand Collieries Vs. CGIT) , 1980 ( 41 ) FLR 109 ( Raurkela Mazdoor Sabha Vs. State) .
The examination- in- chief of the workman is on affidavit . In his evidence , the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim . However , in his cross - examination , the workman has stated that he is unable to understand English and his affidavit is in English and he cannot say about the contents of his affidavit . He has further admitted that WCL provides medical facilities and treatments in its hospitals and WCL takes medical fitness test as per the provisions of the Mines Act and he was being treated medically during his tenure and on 26-8-1991 , he took treatment and on 14-11-1991 , he was referred to CIIMS Hospital and in that hospital , he was told that he was unfit to perform the duties of loader and he was referred to Apex Medical Board , where he was declared unfit for the job of loader . The workman has admitted that since , he was unfit , he was removed from service and he received the amount of the Provident Fund and his approach application was rejected by the hity no . 1 on 27-6-1992 and he did not approach the ALC challenging the order till 2001 and there was no other 7229
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]
of the ULPA No. 71/1993 on merit and the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Courts in the decisions cited by the parties , it is found that this is not a case of a stale claim or that the delay in raising the dispute has not been explained . Hence , I find no force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the party no . 1 .
It was further submitted that the termination of the workman from services was due to the reason of his unfitness to work and the decision of the Medical Board is final and basing on the report of the Medical Board, the termination was made and such termination does not amount to retrenchment and as such , there was no question of compliance of the provisions ofSection 25 - F of theAct and the workman is also not entitled to get the protection of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities , Protection of Rights and Full Participation ) Act, 1995 , as the termination was prior to the coming of the Act in to force .
8. The next question raised by the learned advocate for the workman is regarding the entitlement of the workman of the protection under Section 47 of the Persons withDisabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection ofRights and Full Participation ) Act, 1995. It is to be mentioned here that the services of the workman were terminated on 7-5-1992, whereas the above mentioned Act came into force in 1995. The said Act has no retrospective effect . Hence , the provisions of the Act , Persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities , Protection of Rights and Full Participation ) Act, 1995 have no application to the case of the workman . Therefore, with respect , I am of the view that the three decisions cited by the learned advocate for the workman in this regard are also not applicable to this case .
7. First of all , I will take up the submissions made regarding the delay in raising the dispute by the workman. In this regard, that party no . I in the written statement itself has, pleaded that there is absolutely no merit in the case of the workman , as he slept over the alleged rights of reinstatement and wages , for a period of over 12 years and as such, the delay is fatal to the proceedings . In support of such submission , party no. I has placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1998 (2 ) Mh . L.J. - 141 (Supra), 1960 ( 11 ) LLJ - 71 ( SC ) ( Supra) and 1980 (41 ) FLR- 109 (Supra).
According to the submission made by the learned advocate for the workman , there was no delay in raising the dispute by the workman and soon after the termination , the workman raised the dispute , but however wrongly in the Labour Court and the workman was vigilant in the matter and the decisions cited by the party no . I are not applicable to this case . The learned advocate for the workmanplaced reliance on the decision reported in 1987 ( II ) CLR -page 1 (Supra) .
In this case , admittedly, the services of the workman wereterminated w.e.f. 7-5-1992 . The present reference was made by the Central Government as per letter dated 11-7-2003, that is more than 12 years after the termination ofthe services of the workman .
9. So far the termination of the services of the workman is concerned , it is not disputed that the workman was found not fit to work by the Medical Board of party no . 1 and basing on such report , the services of the workman wereterminated . No doubt , it was suggested by the doctor of Central India Institute of Medical Sciences , Nagpur to provide work in a protected place . Such report also shows that the workman was not fit to do his normal duty. The workman was working in the colliery and in the colliery there is no question of any protected place, where the workman was to be given job . Moreover, the Medical Board of the party no . I is the final authority regarding giving of findings about the fitness or unfitness of an employee working in WCL . The findings of the Medical Board that the workman was unfit for duty was not challenged by the workman . Hence , the action ofthe party no . I in terminating the services of the workman , basing onthe report ofthe Medical Board is not illegal .
The termination of the services of the workman does not amount to retrenchment as the same comes under the exception ofthe proviso ( c) of Section 2(oo) of the Act i.e. as the termination of the workman was on the ground of continued ill health . Hence , there was no question of compliance ofthe provisions of Section 25 - B and 25 - F of the Act .
Inview ofthe materials on record and the discussions made above , it is found that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence , it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of Pipla Colliery through its Superintendent of Mines , WCL , Tah. Saoner, Distt . Nagpur in terminating the services of The workman in the statement of claim has mentioned that he approached the wrong forum of Labour Court , Nagpur after his termination from services and the case was withdrawn by him on 6-8-2003 as not maintainable in law. The workman in his evidence on affidavit has also stated the same thing . Though , the workman has not mentioned the date on which , he approached the Labour Court and the number of complaint of the Labour Court, the party no . I in the written statement has mentioned that the workman has already exhausted the remedy by filing Misc . ( ULPA ) No. 71/1993 , which was dismissed on 6-8-2003 . From such pleadings , it can be held that the workman approached the Labour Court , Nagpur in 1993, i.e. soon after his termination from services . No doubt , the workman approached a wrong forum for redress , but by taking the entire facts and circumstance of the case into consideration and that the Labour Court did not dispose [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 7230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/BHADRA 31 , 1934
3-9/9/2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :
Shri G. L. Dhawale R/o . Pipla Dak Bangla, Tah . Saoner, Distt. Nagpur w.e.f. 7-5-1992 is proper, legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2012
"Whether the action of the management of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India , Region - II Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Rajiv Babanrao.w.e.f. 11-12-1998 is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled for ? " का.आ. 2968. औद्योगिक विवाद आंधनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 151/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआं था ।
[सं. एल -12012/ 108/2003- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 29th August, 2012
2. The case of the workman , in short , is that he was appointed by the management Bank as temporary daily wages peon against the vacant post w.e.f. 19-1-1992 . Не worked continuously till 11-12-1998 when his services were terminated without any reason arbitrarily. He had completed 240 days in one calendar year and got right equivalent to permanent/regular employee of the bank . It is stated that Shri Ram Singh Raikwar and Raju Nimbołkar were also appointed on daily wages but they were made regular appointment. It is stated that several posts are vacant and similarly situated employees were regularized in the services . The termination of the services of the workman is illegal , unjust and improper. It is submitted 1 atthe workman be reinstated with full back wages .
S.O. 2968. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( kef. No. 151 / 2003) 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 the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-8-2012.
[No. L- 12012/ 108/2003 - IR (B - I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/ LC/R/151/2003
Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer.
Workman
Shri Rajiv Babanrao , S/ o Shri Bhaban Rao , Rajpura, Behind Dr. Ashok Shah , Supra, Burhanpur . (M.Ρ. )
Versus
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , inter alia , is that the workman was engaged as daily rated contractual employee on the exigency of work for discharging the duties of " Hammal " at Burhanpur branch of the State Bank of India , Burhanpur. He worked in the year 1992-255 days , in 1994-265 days , in 1995-256 dnys , in 1996-278 days , in 1997-251 days and in 1998-222 till the date of disengagement . His case is covered under the provision of Section 2 (oo ) ( bb ) of the Industrial DisputesAct , 1947 ( in short the Act , 1947 ) . He was not a retrenched employee and he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation under the provision of Section 25-F of the Act , 1947. He had not worked 240 days in a calendar year as required under Section 25 - B. of the Act, 1947. However he was paid one month wages in lieu of one month notice and also retrenchment compensation of Rs .5400 on 11-12-1998 . The casual employees who were engaged prior to 1991 were given opportunities for absorption in the bank services on settlement arrived between the management and the Union. The case of the workman did not cover the said settlement . Under the circumstances , the workman is not entitled to any relief.
The Asstt . General Manager,
4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties . the following issues are settled for adjudication :-
Maement
State Bank of India, Region- II , Zonal Office, Hamidia Road , Bhopal (M.P. )
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of July, 2012
1. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Rajiv Babanrao w.e.f. 11-12-1998 is justified ?
II . To what relief the workman is entitled ?
1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012 / 108/2003 - IP ( B - 1 ) dated 7231
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22 , 2012/ भाद्र 31 , 1934
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
5. It is clear from the pleadings of the parties that thefollowing facts are admitted :-
(1 ) The workman Shri Rajiv Babanrao was engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 19-1-1992 at Burhanpur Branch of the management Bank .
(2) He worked till 11-12-1998 in the bank when his services were terminated.
Raikwar and Raju Nambolkar were engaged in the Bank on daily wages before his engagement . This itself shows that their cases were on different footing as they were engaged prior to 1991. He is unable to say that as 'to from which period to which period they were engaged . He appears to be not competent to say about their case who are said to have been regularized in the services of the Bank. His evidence does not prove that there was any illegality or discrimination done to him .
(3) He worked 240 days in every calendar year in accordance with Section 25 ( B )(2 ) of the Act , 1947.
6. Issue No.1 :
Nowthe important point for consideration is that as to whether his termination was within the provision ofthe Act , 1947 or not . The workman has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The documents filed by the 'workman are admitted by the management . Accordingto the workman , no showcause notice was served on him before terminating from services . On the other hand , the management states that one month wages in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation were paid to the workman ontermination from services in compliance of Section 25- F of the Act, 1947 .
9. On the other hand, the management has examined Shri Kamal Shankar Vyas . He is working as Branch Manager in the Main Branch , Burhanpur. He has supported the case ofthe management . He has admitted that the workman was engaged on daily wages . He has stated at para - 3 that one month wages was paid in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation of Rs . 5,400 was paid to the workman on 11-12-1998 . He has corroborated the document filed by the workman which is marked as Exhibit W/1 . His evidence clearly shows that the workman was disengaged after complying the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act, 1947. He has further stated in his evidence that those casual labour who worked prior to 1991 were given chances to take in the bank Service in view of the settlement between the management and the Union . Admittedly the workman was engaged after 1991 and therefore the said settlement was not applicable to the workman . Thus this issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the Bank .
10. Issue No. II:
On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is , accordingly, answered.
11. In the result , the award is passed without any order to costs .
12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment asper rules .
MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 29 अगस्त, 2012
का.आ. 2969.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार राजगढ़ सिहोर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक 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 27/05 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-8-2012 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
7. Exhibit W/ 1 is the photocopy of letter dated 11-12-1998 ofthe management bank . The said letter clearly shows that one month wages of Rs . 1350 and retrenchment compensation of Rs . 5,400 was paid to the workman in compliance of Section 25 - F of the Act, 1947. This shows that his services were terminated in accordance with provisions of the Act , 1947. Exhibit W/2 is the statement of days of work done by the workman . These facts are also admitted in the pleading by the management . Exhibit W/3 is the application filed by the workman raising dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner , Bhopal . Para - 4 of the said application clearly shows that the workman had admitted that one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid to him . This clearly shows that the workman was terminated by the management Bank in accordance with the provision of law and there was no illegality. Exhibit W/4 is the reply given by the management before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) Bhopal . Exhibit W/ 5 is the failure report ofthe Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C) Bhopal whereby it was reported to the Ministry that the dispute raised was not amicably settled between the parties . Exhibit W/6 is the reference order whereby the dispute is referredto the Tribunal . Thus the documentary evidence filed by the workman clearly show that the menagement had complied the provision before terminating the workman and the action of the management was justified .
[सं. एल-12012/273/2004- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 8. The workman Shri Rajiv is examined in the case . He has stated that he was appointed in the year 1992 and worked till 1998. He has further stated that Shri Ram Singh 7232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 22 , 2012/ BHADRA 31 , 1934 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
New Delhi , the 29th August, 2012
Narender Joshi is again taken in employment by the management Bank on the basis of the settlement. It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .
S.O. 2969.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 27/05 ) 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 the management of Rajgarh Sehore Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-8-2012 .
[No. L- 12012/273 /2004 - IR (B - 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , inter alia, is that the workman was never appointed in the service of the Bank. There is recruitment rules for appointment in the service of the Bank . It is stated that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the management Bank and the alleged workman. The alleged workman was engaged for few days on daily wages due to either increase of work or due to absence of regular/permanent sub- staff of the Bank. He was never engaged in work for 240 days in any calendar year. The Section 25 - F of the Act, 1947 is not applicable. It is submitted that the alleged workman is not entitled to anyrelief.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/27/2005
4. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues are settled for adjudication :-
Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan , Presiding Officer
Shri Rameshwar Makaria ,
I. Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Rameshwar Makariya is legal and justified ?
S/ o Shri Hiralal Makaria,
II . To what relief the workman is entitled ?
Narsinghgarh Road,
Galla Mandi , Sehore ,
Workman
Sehore(M.P. )
Versus
The Chairman,
Rajgarh Sehore Kshetriya Gramin Bank, HeadOffice , Bhopal - Indore Highway,
Sehorė , Madhya Pradesh
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of August , 2012
5. The workman Shri Rameshwar Makariya is examined in the case . In examination- in- chief he has supported his case . He has stated that no appointment letter was issued and he was engaged on daily wages . He has further stated that he was engaged in case of contingency of work. He has supported the case of the management that he was engaged on daily wages in case of need . This clearly shows that he was not engaged regularly and was not appointed on Class IV post . He has not supported his pleadings . His story of engagement of the pleading is not acceptable as such the story of the management is to be accepted that he was engaged intermittently and was never engaged 240 days in any calendar year.
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L - 12012/ 273 /2004 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 5-4-2005 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :
"Whether the action ofthe Chairman , Rajgarh Sehore Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Head Office, Sehore , ( M.P. ) in terminating the services of Shri Rameshwar Makaria , S / o Shri Hirałal Makaria ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "
6. Theworkman has also filed documentary evidence which are admitted by the management and are marked as Exhibit W/ 1 to W/ 16 . Exhibit W/ 1 is a letter dated 26-1- 2002 which was given by the workers Union to the management whereby the Union demanded to regularize the alleged workman and also Shri Narendra Joshi . Exhibit W/2 is the settlement dated 14-1-03 between the management and Shri Narendra Joshi and Rameshwar Makariya whereby they agreed to withdraw the dispute raised before the ALC . Exhibit W/3 is another letter dated 17-1-2003 to the management by the Union for taking them in employment . Exhibit W/4 is the letter dated 22-1-2003 of the alleged workman to the management requesting him to take in employment . Exhibit W/ 5 is the reply of the management filed before the ALC(C) Bhopal , MP whereby the management had taken the same plea that the alleged workman was engaged on daily wages for 2 to 4 days on 2. The case of the workman , in short , is that he was appointed in the year 1989 in Rajgarh Sehore Kshetriya Gramin Bank as class IV employee and was working continuously till 11-11-2002 when the management terminated without notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation as has been provided under Section 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( in short the Act , 1947 ) . It is stated that when the workman raised for regularizing him, he was terminated from the service . It is stated that similarly situated worker namely Shri [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
7233
भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 22, 2012/भाद्र 31 , 1934
exigency of work , Exhibit M/6 is another reply dated 12-2-2004 by the management before the ALC( C) Bhopal onthe dispute raised by the workman and the management denied the claim of the workman . Exhibit M/7 is the representation dated 28-9-2004 given by the workman to themanagement. Exhibit W/ 15 is same document as Exhibit W/2 . Exhibit W/ 16 is another reply dated 11-10-2004 filed by the management before ALC ( C ) Bhopal wherein the management took the same stand and denied the claim of the workman. These all documents go to show that there was demand of the alleged workman that he worked continuously but the same was denied by the management . These documents do not prove that he was working continuously as has been alleged by him .
7. Exhibit W/ 8 is the chart of work and payment of wages of the workman Shri Rameshwar Makariya . This shows that he was not engaged on daily wages in the year 1992 for 24 days and in the year 1993 for 42 days . This itself shows that he was regularly employed and was not engaged 240 days in a calendar year as has been claimed by the workman . Exhibit W/9 is the voucher of the year 1992 of 24 days . Exhibit W/ 10 to Exhibit W/ 13 are also vouchers of the year 1993. These vouchers also show that he had not worked 240 days on casual basis in the year 1993. Exhibit W/ 14 is photocopy of pass book of recurring deposit in the name of the workman . These documents do not show that he had worked continuously specially 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination . There is no vouchers or other
papers to show that the workman was engaged after 1993 . Thus it is clear from the oral and documentary evidence thatthe workman shall not be deemed to be in continuous service for the period of one year during the period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference as provided in Section 25 ( B ) (2 ) of the Act, 1947. This shows that there is no violation of the provision of Section 25-F of the Act , 1947 .
8. The management has also adduced one witness . The management witness Shri Dada Maloda is working as General Manager in the management Bank . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the alleged workman was never employed in the service of the Bank. He might have been engaged as daily wager occasionally. His evidence also shows that he had not worked continuously on daily wages . Thus it is clear that the workman had never worked 240 days in any calendar year and especially in twelve calendar months prior to the date of alleged termination . This issue is decided against theworkman and in favour of the management .
9. Issue No. II :
On the basis of the discussion made above , it is clear that there is no violation of the provision of Section 25 -F of the Act . As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is , accordingly, answered.
10. In the result , the award is passed without any order to costs .
11. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment asper rules.
MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press , Ring Road. Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054, 2012