x`g&ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 779.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa] x`g ea=ky; ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; esa fgUnh dk

dk;Zlkèd Kku j[kus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 80% ls vfèd gks

tkus ds QyLo:i ,rnn~okjk vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

dk;kZy;] egkfujh{kd]

jktLFkku lsDVj]

dsUnzh; fjt+oZ iqfyl cy]

t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½&302023

[lañ 12017@1@2012&fgUnh]

voès'k dqekj feJ] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 779.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of

the Official aLanguages (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

the following office of the Ministry of Home Affairs wherein

the percentage of the staff having working knowledge of

Hindi has gone above 80%.

Office of the Inspector General,

Rajasthan Sector,

CRPF Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302023

[No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi]

AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director(OL)

¼bZ-ih- vuqHkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 780.—'k=q laifr vfèfu;e] 1968 dh èkjk 3 }kjk

iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk

Jhefr dsñ vkjñ lsB] vèh{kd] Hkkjrh; 'k=q lEifÙk vfHkj{kd dk;kZy;]

eqEcbZ }kjk fu;qDr djrh gS Hkkjr ds fy, 'k=q lEifÙk lHkhj{kd lgk;d

ds :i esa eqEcbZ 'k=q lEifRr vfHkj{kd dk;kZy; esa eqEcbZ] 01@10@2012

ls izHko ds lkFk eqEcbZ ;k tc rd og 'kqYd gSa] tks Hkh igys gks tkrh gSA

[lañ 37@51@2009&bZñihñ]

,lñ dsñ vgwtk] voj lfpo

2321

1235GI/2013

jftLVªh lañ Mhñ ,yñ

jftLVªh lañ Mhñ ,yñ—(,u

,u)04@000

@000

@0007@200

@200

@2003—05

0505

REGISTERED NO. DL—(N)04/0007/2003—05

izkf/kdkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

lañ

lañ 14]

ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 31

ubZ fnYyh] ekpZ 31 — vizSy 6] 2013] 'kkfuokj pS= 10

vizSy 6] 2013] 'kkfuokj pS= 10

vizSy 6] 2013] 'kkfuokj pS= 10 — pS= 16] 1935 ¼'kd½

pS= 16] 1935 ¼'kd½

No. 14]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 31 — APRIL 6, 2013, Saturday CHAITRA 10 — CHAITRA 16, 1935 (SAKA)

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g vyx ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk ldsA

Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation.

Hkkx

Hkkx II — [k.M

[k.M

[k.M 3—mi&[k.M

mi&[k.M

mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II — Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=ky;ksa ¼j{kk ea=ky; dks NksM+dj½ }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/kd vkns'k vkSj vf/klwpuk,a

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

———————

2322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

(ENEMY PROPERTY SECTION)

New Delhi, the 01st April, 2013

S.O. 780.—In excercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 the Central

Government hereby appoints Smt. K.R. Seth,

Superintendent in office of Custodian of Enemy Property,

Mumbai as Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property for

India, Mumbai in the office of Custodian of Enemy property,

Mumbai with effect from 01/10/2012 or until she assumes

duty, whichever is earlier.

[No. 37/51/2009-EP]

S.K. AHUJA, Under Secy.

dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vizSy] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 781.—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vfèfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vfèfu;e lañ 25½ dh èkjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 5 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsjy jkT; ljdkj] x`g ¼,e½ foHkkx] fr#vUuriqje dh

fnukad 29-01-2013 dh vfèlwpuk thñvksñ¼,eñ,lñ½

lañ 28@2013@gkse }kjk izkIr lgefr ls ,d O;fDr }kjk iqfyl vèh{kd]

dsanzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks] dksfPp dk izfr:i.k djus ls lacafèr iqfyl

LVs'ku gseaefcdk uxj] iyDdM+ esa iathd`r ekeyk vijkè

lañ 470@2012 rFkk mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijkè ds lacaè esa ;k laca)

esa iz;kl] nq"izsj.kk rFkk "kM;a= rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa fd;k x;k ;k

mUghsa rF;ksa ls mRiUu dksbZ vU; vijkè ;k vijkèksa dk vUos"k.k djus

ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa rFkk

{ks=kfèdkj dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ dsjy jkT; ds lEcUè esa djrh gSA

[lañ 228@17@2013&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2013

S.O. 781.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25

of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department,

Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No.

28/2013/Home dated 29th January, 2013, hereby extends

the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of

Kerala for investigation of case Crime No. 470/2012

registered at Police Station Hemambika Nagar, Palakkad

relating to the impersonation by a person as the

Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of

Investigation, Kochi and attempts, abetments and

conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the above

mentioned offence and any other offence or offences

committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/17/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 01 vizSy] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 782.—thou chek fuxe vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956

dk 31½ dh èkjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;

ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh eatjh dDdM+ dks vfèlwpuk dh frfFk ls

rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]

Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds funs'kd e.My esa va'kdkfyd

xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qk-lañ ,&15011@06@2012&chek&

fiz;k dqekj] funs'kd

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 01st April, 2013

S.O. 782.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of

1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Manjari

Kackar as part-time non-official Director on the Board of

the Life Insurance Corporation of India for a period of three

years from the date of Notification or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. A-15011/06/2012-Ins-I]

PRIYA KUMAR, Director (Insurance)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vizSy] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 783.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk

ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e]

1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼p½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls

ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] lsaUVªy cSad vkQ bafM;k ds lgk;d

izcaèd Jh ,lñ chñ jksMs ¼tUe frfFk 15-03-1957½ dks mudh fu;qfDr

dh vfèlwpuk dh frfFk ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok lsUVªy

cSad vkQ bafM;k ds vfèdkjh deZpkjh ds :i esa muds inHkkj NksM+

nsus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] lsUVªy

cSad vkQ bafM;k ds funs'kd e.My esa vfèdkjh deZpkjh funs'kd

ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS tks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] psUuS dh 2012

dh fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 2220 ds ifj.kke ds v/;èhu gksxhA

[Qk-lañ 9@16@2009&chvks&

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2323

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2013

S.O. 783.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (f) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 9 of the

The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby

appoints Shri S.B. Rode (DoB: 15.03.1957), Assistant

Manager, Central Bank of India, as Officer Employee

Director on the Board of Directors of Central Bank of India

for a period of three years from the date of notification of

his appointment or until he ceases to be an officer of the

Central Bank of India or until further orders, whichever is

the earliest, subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal No.

2220 of 2012 of Hon'ble High Court of Chennai.

[F. No. 9/16/2009-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 04 vizSy] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 784.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi&[kaM

¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½

vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ

c®d ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] bykgkckn c®d ds

egkizcaèd Jh ohñ ,lñ d`".kdqekj ¼tUe frfFk% 01-05-1955½ dks

muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 30-04-2015 rd vFkkZr~

muds }kjk vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr dj ysus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] dsujk c®d ds dk;Zikyd

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 4@5@2011&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2013

S.O. 784.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and

sub-clause (1) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks

(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,

1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with

the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri V.S.

Krishnakumar (DoB:01.05.1955), General Manager,

Allahabad Bank as Executive Director, Canara Bank, with

effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post

and upto 30.04.2015, i.e. the date of his attaining the age

of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F.No. 4/5/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 785.—bl ea=ky; ds fnukad 25 ebZ] 2011 dh

lela[;d vf/klwpuk ds vuqØe esa vkSj pyfp= ¼izek.ku½ fu;e]

1983 ds fu;e 3 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp= vfèfu;e] 1952 ¼1952

dk 37½ dh èkjk 3 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, dsUnzh; ljdkj Jh vlhe dSLFkk dks rRdky izHkko ls 3 o"kZ

dh vofè ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd dsUnzh; fQYe izek.ku cksMZ

ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 809@2@2010&,Q¼lh½]

fu:iek dksr:] funs'kd ¼fQYe½

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND

BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 18th March, 2013

S.O. 785.—In continuation of this Ministry's Notification

of even No. dated 25th May, 2011 and in exercise of the powers

conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Cinematograph

Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rule 3 of the Cinematograph

(Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased

to appoint Shri Aseem Kaistha as Member of the Central Board

of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of three

years or until further orders.

[File No. 809/2/2010-F(C)]

NIRUPAMA KOTRU, Director (Films)

ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;

¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk ;wfuV½

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 786.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4 ds

vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalkèu fodkl ea=ky; ¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

,oa ¼Ldwy f'k{kk vkSj lk{kjrk foHkkx½ ds varxZr Øe'k% xq: ?kklhnkl

xq: ?kklhnkl

fo'ofo|ky;] dksuh] fcykliqj&495009 NÙkhlx<+ rFkk tokgj uoksn;

fo|ky;] vgenuxj] egkjk"Vª

fo|ky;] vgenuxj] egkjk"Vª dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa ds :i esa] ftlds

80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr

dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ 11011&1@2013&jkñHkkñ,ñ]

vuUr dqekj flag] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Deptt. of Higher Education)

(O.L. Unit)

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2013

S.O. 786.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

2324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Koni,

Bilaspur-495009 Chhattisgarh and Jawahar Navodaya

Vidyalaya, Ahmadnagar, Maharashtra respectively

under the Ministry of Human Resource Development,

(Deptt. of Higher Education) and (Deptt. of School

Education & Literacy) as offices, whose more than 80%

members of the staff have acquired working knowledge

of Hindi.

[No. 11011-1/2013-O.L.U.]

ANANT KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kkn~; vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 21 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 787.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7

ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekud dh la'kksèu dk

fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, g® og LFkkfir gks x, g®%—

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k]

la'kks/ku la[;k

la'kks/ku ykxw

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkSj o"kZ

gksus dh frfFk

vkbZ ,l 9361% 1980 vykDyksj

la'kks/ku la[;k 3 31 ekpZ]

nkuksa dh fof'kf"V

o"kZ 2013

2013

bl la'kks/ku dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9]

cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] pSUubZ] eqEcbZ] paMhx<+ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa

vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq

miyC/k g®A

[lanHkZ% ,Q,Mh@th&128]

dqekj vfuy] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼[kkn~; ,oa d`f"k½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND

PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 21st March, 2013

S.O. 787.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-

rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby

notifies that the amendment to the Indian Standard,

particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed has been established on the date indicated

against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the Indian

No. & Year

Date of which

No.

Standards

of the

the Amendment

Amendment

shall have

effect

IS 9361: 1980 Specification

Amendment

31 March

for alachlor granules

No. 3

2013

Year 2013

Copy of this standard is available for sale with the

Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional

Offices: New Delhi, Kokatta, Chandigarh, Chennai,

Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad,

Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore,

Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,

Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. FAD/G-128]

KUMAR ANIL, Scientist ‘F’ and Head

(Food & Agri.)

ubZ fnYyh] 25 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 788.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7

ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps

vuqlwph esa fn, x, g® os LFkkfir gks x, g®%—

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ ,l 5986%2011 Qy®t dk;Z

vkbZ ,l 5986%2002 Qy®t dk;Z

31 tuojh] 2013

,oa lajpuk vfHk:i.k gsrq rIr

csfYyr bLikr ds QySV mRikn &

fof'kf"V ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

fof'kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 11513%2011 vrIr

vkbZ ,l 11513%1985 vrIr

1 tuojh] 2013

csYyu iz;kstuksa gsrq rIr csfYyr

dkcZu bLikr dh iRrh & fof'kf"V

dkcZu bLikr dh iRrh

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2325

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou]

9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ

fnYyh] dksydkrk] paMhx<] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa]

vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k g®A

[lanHkZ% ,eVhMh 4@Vh&129 & 177]

;wñ dsñ [ksj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½

New Delhi, the 25th March, 2013

S.O. 788.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-

rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian

Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian

Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards,

particulars of which are given in the Schedule here

to annexed have been established on the date

indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

No. & Year of the Indian

Date of

No.

Indian Standards Established

Standard, if any,

Established

Superseded by the New

Indian Standard

IS 5986:2011 Hot rolled steel flat products

IS 5986: 2002 Hot rolled steel

31 Jan., 2013

for structural forming and flanging purposes-

flat products for structural

Specification (third revision)

forming and flanging purposes-

(second revision)

IS 11513:2011 Hot rolled carbon steel strip

IS 11513:1985 Hot rolled

1 Jan., 2013

for cold rolling purposes-Specification

carbon steel strip for cold

(first revision)

rolling purposes—

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kokatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. MTD 4/T-129 & 177]

U.K. KHER, Scientist 'F' & Head (MTD)

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 789.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ,l 4209%2013 jlk;u iz;ksx'kkyk

31 tuojh] 2013

lqj{kk lafgrk ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ

fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ% lh,pMh 08@vkbZ,l 4209]

,lñ ,uñ pVthZ oSKkfud&^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u foHkkx½

2326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 789.—In pursuance of clause (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 of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of Indian Standards,

Date of Established

Indian Standard Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 4209: 2013 Chemical

—

31 January, 2013

Laboratories—Code of Safety (Second Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,

New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at:http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref: CHD 08/IS 4209]

S.N. CHATTERJEE, Scientist—‘F’&Head(CHD)

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 790.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~ }kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ,l 3025 ¼Hkkx 14½% 2013@vkbZ,lvks 7888%1985

—

31 tuojh] 2013

ty vkSj vif'k"V ty ds uewus ysus rFkk ijh{k.k ¼HkkSfrd

,oa jlk;u½ i)fr;k¡ Hkkx 14 fof'kf"V pkydrk

¼ohVLVksu] fctz]pkydrk lsy½ ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh]

dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj]

iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www. standardsbis. in }kjk baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ% lh,pMh 32@vkbZ,l 3025 ¼Hkkx 14½% 2013@vkbZ,lvks 7888%1985]

,lñ ,uñ pVthZ oSKkfud&^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 790.—In pursuance of clause (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 of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of Indian Standards,

Date of Established

Indian Standard Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 3025 (Part 14): 2013/ISO 7888:1985

—

31 January, 2013

Methods of Sampling and Test (Physical

and Chemical) for water and waste paper

Part 14 Specific Conductance (Wheatstone

Bridge, conductance cell) (Second Revision)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2327

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at:http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. CHD 32/IS 3025 (Part 14)/ISO 7888:1985]

S.N. CHATTERJEE, Scientist-‘F’ & Head (CHD)

ubZ fnYyh] 26 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 791.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~ }kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ,l 5785 ¼Hkkx 5½@vkbZ,lvks 8022%1990 lrg

31 tuojh 2013

lfØ; vfHkdeZd& fueTtu }kjk vknzdj.k 'kfDr Kkr

djuk Hkkx 5 vknzdj.k 'kfDr ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%

ubZ fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in. }kjk baVjuSV ij

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ lh,pMh 25@vkbZ,l 5785 ¼Hkkx 5½% 2013@vkbZ,lvks 8022%1990]

,lñ ,uñ pVthZ] oSKkfud&^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2013

S.O. 791.—In pursuance of clause (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 of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of Indian Standards,

Date of Established

Indian Standard Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

Is 5785 (Part 5): 2013/ISO 8022:1990 Surface

31 January 2013

Active Agents—Determination of wetting

power by immersion part 5 wetting power

(First Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. CHD 25/IS 5785 (Part 5):2013/ISO 8022:1990]

S.N. CHATTERJEE, Scientist- ‘F’ & Head (CHD)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 792.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~ }kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

2328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ ,l 16070% 2013 xq.krk izca/k i)fr;kaµikWoj

28 Qjojh 2013

lsDVj midj.k fuekZ.k] lsok rFkk ;qfVfyVh laxBu ds fy,

vkbZ,lvks 9001%2008 ds vuqiz;ksx dh fo'ks"k vis{kk,¡

bl ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ fnYyh]

dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxyq:] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]

dkuiqj] Hukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA

[lanHkZ ,e ,l Mh@th&8]

fueZy dqekj iky] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼izca/k ,oa ra=½

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013

S.O. 792.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules,

1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which is given in the Schedule

hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the

No. & year of Indian Standard,

Date of Established

Indian Standard Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

Is 16070 : 2013 Quality management systems—

28 February 2013

particular requirements for the application of

ISO 9001:2008 for power sector equipment

manufacturing, service and utility organization.

Copy of above Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices at Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

at Ahmedabad, Bangaluru, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune

and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. MSD/G-8 Notification]

NIRMAL KUMAR PAL, Scientist 'F' & Head

Management & Systems Department

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 793.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x,s gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZñ,l 3910%2013@vkbZ ,l vks 2537%2007

vkbZ,l 3910% 1992

31@01@2013

tyfefr&èw.khZ ,yhesaV okys djaV&ehVj

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2329

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psékbZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] HkqousÜoj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxijq] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV

}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lnaHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 1@T&7]

tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkñ ,Q ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalkèu foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013

S.O. 793.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Scheudle hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. Title and Year of the

No. & year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Establisment

Indian Standards Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 3910: 2013/ISO 2537:2007 Hydrometry—

IS 3910:1992

31/01/2013

Rotating-Element Current-Meters

(second revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. WRD1/T-7]

J.C. ARORA, Sc-F& Head (Water Resources Deptt.)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 794.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x,s gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZñ,l 1192%2013@vkbZ ,l vks vks 748%2007

vkbZñ,l 1192% 1981

31@01@2013

tyfefr&djaV&ehVjksa ;k IyksVksa ds iz;ksx ls [kqys

pSuyksa esa nzo izokg dk ekiu ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psékbZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] HkqousÜoj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV

}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lnaHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 1@T&2]

tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkñ ,Q ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalkèu foHkkx½

2330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013

S.O. 794.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No., Title and Year of the

No. & year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Establishment

Indian Standards Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 1192: 2013/ISO 748:2007 Hydrometry—

IS 1192:1981

31/01/2013

Measurement of liquid flow in open channels

using current-meters or floats (second revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. WRD1/T-2]

J.C. ARORA, Sc-F & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 795.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x,s gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZñ,l 9108%2013@vkbZ ,l vks 1438%2008

vkbZñ,l 9108% 1979

31@01@2013

tyfefr&iryh& IysV ds ckaèksa }kjk [kqys iz.kky

dk izokg ekiu ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ubZ fnYyh]

dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psékbZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] HkqousÜoj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj]

ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV }kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk

gSA

[lnaHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 1@T&22]

tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkñ ,Q ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalkèu foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013

S.O. 795.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Scheudle hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No., Title Year of the

No. & year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Establishment

Indian Standards Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 9108: 2013/ISO 1438:2008 Hydrometry—

IS 9108:1979

31/01/2013

Open channel flow measurement using

thin-plate weirs (first revision)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2331

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. WRD1/T-22]

J.C. ARORA, Sc-F & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 796.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x,s gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZñ,lñ 3912%2013@vkbZ ,l vks 3454%2008

vkbZñ,lñ 3912% 1993

31@01@2013

tyfefr&lhès xgjkbZ ekius vkSj fuyacu ds

midj.k ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;k¡ Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psékbZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] HkqousÜoj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV

}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lnaHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 1@T&9]

tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkñ ,Q ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalkèu foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013

S.O. 796.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No., Title and Year of the

No. & year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Establishment

Indian Standards Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 3912: 2013/ISO 3454:2008 Hydrometry—

IS 3912:1993

31/01/2013

Direct Depth Sounding and Suspension

Equipment (second revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar

Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. WRD1/T-9]

J.C. ARORA, Sc-F & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 797 Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/

klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkfir gks x, gSaA

2332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZ ,l 10060%2013 ikoj gkÅl

vkbZ ,l 10060%1981

31@01@2013

gsrq LFkyksa ds fy, Hkwrduhdh tkap

jhfr lafgrk ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekud dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV

}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 5@T-17]

tsñlhñ vjksM+k] oSKkñ ,Q ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013

S.O. 797.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No., Title & Year of the

No. & year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Establishment

Indian Standards Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 10060:2013 Geotechnical

IS 10060:1981

31/01/2013

Investigation for Power House Sites-

Code of Practice (first revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standards.bis, in.

[Ref. WRD5/T-17]

J.C. ARORA, Sc-F & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 798.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkfir gks x, gSaA

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

vkbZñ,lñ 12752% 2013@vkbZ ,l vks

vkbZñ,lñ 12752% 1989

31@01@1013

8368%1999 tyfefr vkadyu&

lajpukvksa ds iz;ksx ls [kqys pSuyksa esa

izokg ekiu& lajpuk ds p;u ds ekxZn'khZ

fl}kar ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2333

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa

ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekud dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV

}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ MCyw vkj Mh 1@T-29]

tsñlhñ vjksM+k] oSKk&,Q ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½

New Delhi, the 28th March, 2013

S.O. 798.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards

Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No., Title & Year of the

No. & year of the Indian Standards,

Date of Establishment

Indian Standards Established

if any, Superseded by the

New Indian Standard

IS 12752:2013/ISO 8368:1999

IS 12752:1989

31/01/2013

Hydrometric determinations-Flow

Measurements in Open Channels using

Structures-Guidelines for Selection of

Structure (first revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http.//www.standardsbis, in.

[Ref. WRD1/T-29]

J.C. ARORA, Sc-F & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 27th February, 2013

Present: A.N. JANARDANAN

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

No. 93/2011

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between

the Management of Indian Bank and their Workman)

BETWEEN

Sri S.P.T. Sundaram

1st Party/Petitioner

Versus

The Dy. General Manager/Circle Head : 2nd Party/Management

Indian Bank

100-101 East Avani Moola Street

Madurai-1

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 799.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&1212@42@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2013

S.O. 799.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2011) 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 Indian Bank and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 05.03.2013

[No. L-12012/42/2011-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

2334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

Appearance:

For the Petitioner

Sri J. Suresh,

Authorized Representative

For the Management

M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide

its Order No. L-12012/42/2011-IR(b-II) dated 09.11.2011

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"whether the action of the Management of Indian

Bank in imposing the punishment of "Dismissal

without notice" w.e.f. 30.09.2009 upon Sri S.P.T.

Sundaram, Ex-Sub-Staff is legal and justified? What

refief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 93/2011 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their Claim, Counter and

Rejoinder Statement as the case may be.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement briefly read

as follows:

The First Party Petitioner who joined as Sub-Staff

under the Respondent during March 1997 was awarded

punishment of dismissle without notice. While working

at Sivagangai Branch he had been suspended on

07.01.2008 . He was alleged of having prevailed upon

Mr. R. Joseph. Sub-Staff, Kalayar Koil Branch to secret

the 3 BP Cheques numbering 812,813 and 814 dated

07.12.2007 in the name of Santiagu, C. Kulandaisamy and

A. Vincent with IOB Kalayar Koil as the drawee branch

respectively for amount 1,23,500/-, 124,500/- and 1,24,000/-

purchased at Sivaganga Branch and thereafter sent for

collection to Kalayar Koil Branch. (a) It was done by the

petitioner in order to delay the presentation of the said

cheque on the drawee bank's at Kalayar Koil. He also

prevailed upon Mr. Suresh of Franch Express Couriers,

Sivagangai to keep the tapal addressed to Service Branch,

Madurai without sendin it to them to delay collection of

cheques. (b) When on 25.01.2007 Mr. Baskar of M.s Green

Land Harvest visited the branch for cash withdrawal from

IBKC Account, First Party had demanded and received

undue consideration of Rs. 1,000/- from him. (C) On

08.01.2008 petitioner alongwith Mr. Dhanpal, Mr. Santiago

and three others visited the office of Franch Express

Couriers and compelled Mr. Suresh to give a letter/written

statement that he was forced by Vigilance Inspector, Mr.

Ramabadran and Mr. Rajaram of Sivagangai Branch to

give a complaint against him. Though petitioner submitted

explanation, he was issued a Show Cause Notice on

13.05.2008 without any reference thereof. Another Show

Cause Notice dated 30.05.2008 alleging (a) that petitioner

had connived with the then Branch Manager, Sri P. Rajaram

and demanded and received bribe from Mr. Kottaiyan of

Indira Nagar, Sivagangai (Husband of Mrs. K. Irulayee,

whose loan application under the Land Purchase Scheme

for Adi Dravidar and Tribal Women was sponsored to Indian

Bank, Sivagangai Branch By TAHDCO). He had demanded

and received a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- during June 2006 and

another sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 25.08.2007 from the said Mr.

kottaiyan. (b) on 30.10.2007 he demanded and received Rs.

20,000/- from Mr. P. Kottaiyan ostensibly as hand loan at

the instance of Sri P. Rajaram, Branch Manager. He refused

to return the amount when it was demanded back saying

that it was due and set off for the loan amount given thus

far. The First Party had pocketed the amount of Rs. 20,000/

- as bribe. (c) Thus he took bribe as above in connivance

with Mr. P. Rajaram. First Party Petitioner submitted replies

to both the Show Cause Notices. Charge Sheet was issued

on 25.06.2008 and enquiry was held. Nine exhibits marked

and six witnesses were examined on the Management's

side. There were two witnesses on the defence side but

with no documents marked. The finding held all charges

other than Charge No.4 as proved. First Party offered its

comments. Second Show Cause Notice proposing

punishment of dismissal without notice was issued on

14.09.2009. The same was imposed on 30.09.2009 despite

submissions made. In the appeal dated 27.10.2009, the

punishment was confirmed on 19.06.2010. The ID raised

having ended in a failure report this reference is occasioned.

The punishment is illegal, unjustified, in victimization,

indiscrimination and unfair labour practice. He is made a

scapegoat for no fault on his part. Management acted under

a cadre based Bias Mr. Ramachandran, Clerk and Mr. P.

Rajaram, Branch Manager were suspended alongwith

petitioner. But Rajaram was reinstated within three months

pending disciplinary proceedings leaving the other two in

the lurch. The discrimination was meted out in the appeal

decision. While both P. Rajaram and First Party were

dismissed, in appeal decision, First Party's dismissal was

confirmed without consideration. Allowing the appeal of

the Manager, he was reinstated further allowing a peaceful

and hon'ble retirement thereafter. P. Rajaram had been

depicted by the IO as the abettor and active accomplice in

the misconduct. The Branch Manager was the real culprit

who masterminded it. Expecting highest standards of

honesty and integrity on Sub-Staff alone rather than on

the higher Officers is nothing but blatant discrimination

and cadre based bias. Interse Award Staff, reinstating

Mr. Ramachandran, Clerk, petitioner alone was dismissed,

Second Party was bent upon targeting the Second Party

(Actually First Party). Second Party created evidence

instead of collecting it. Letter dated 16.07.2008 subsequent

to date of Charge Sheet i.e. 25.06.2008 was relied on as a

document as proof of the charge. The three complainants

viz. Mrs. Irulayee Loanee. Mr. Suresh, Courier Man and

Mr. Joseph, Sub-Staff of Kalayar Koil Branch were not

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2335

examined. No adverse inference was drawn by the EO for

non-production of vital withnesses despite demand by the

defence. So also R.C. Sundaram, Mr. Bharatidasan and

P. Rajaram, Branch Manager were not examined but

P. Kottaiyan was allowed to depose without any role.

Complaints against the petitioner as a Sub-Staff are not

sustainable. If at all the amount was received it could be on

behalf of the Branch Manager. There was no demand from

the First Party on his own. The complaints show a

desperate mood of the complainant to get the loan

sanctioned. Evidence is to be re-appreciated under

Section-11A of the ID Act. Hence the petitioner is to be

reinstated with all benefits.

4. The Counter Statement averments briefly read as

follows:

Managers of Indian Bank have been given discretion

to purchase cheque presented by an account holder

and credit the account subject to clearance.

Immediately after the purchase of the cheque the

Branch will have to send the cheque for clearance

without delay. In respect of three account holders of

the Sivaganga Branch, cheques drawn on Indian

Overseas Bank, Kalayar Koil Branch were presented

and the petitioner engineered to see that the cheques

sent for clearance were delayed to accommodate the

account holders. During investigation on 28.12.2007

by Mr. R. Ramabadran, IO a phone call was received

from one Mr. Baskar, Manager, Green land Harvest

regarding petitioner's collection on demand a sum of

Rs. 1000/- from him forcing one Mr. Suresh of M/s

Franch Express Couriers to delay the despatch of

the instruments to be sent to the Respondent's

Service Branch at Madurai. Mr. Suresh gave a written

statement about the same. On 08.01.2008 the

petitioner with Mr. Dhanapal, Mr. Santiago and three

others visited the office of M/s Franch Express

Couriers and compelled Mr. Suresh to give a

statement that he was forced by the Vigilance Officer,

Mr. Ramabadran to give a complaint against him.

Written complaint dated 19.04.2008 from one Mrs. K.

Irulayee was received by the Chief Vigilance Officer

as per which petitioner had received on demand a

bribe of Rs. 5,000/- in June 2006 and Rs. 5,000/- on

25.08.2007 from Mr. M. Kottaiyan (Husband of

Smt. K. Irulayee). Again on 30.10.2007 the petitioner

similary received Rs. 20,000/- from Mr. Kottaiyan

ostensibly as a hand loan which the petitioner later

refused to return on the ostensible reason that it was

paid to the Branch Manager, Mr. Rajaram. Dismissal

on the basis of misconduct proved in the enquiry is

only justified and valid in law and is not liable to be

interfered with. Action was initiated against the

Branch Manager, Mr. Rajaram and Clerk,

Ramachandran. Allegations against Mr. Rajaram were

that he had violated the norms in the matter of

purchase of cheques exceeding without authority

the credit discretionary limit, not informing the higher

officials about the unauthorized purchase or

extension of credit facilities and for not taking action

against subordinates for certain irregularities noticed

by him. For want of material evidence at the stage of

investigaiton for the allegaitons, he was made to

compulsorily retire which in appeal was modified to

one of reduction to a lower grate of post. It is on

finding, inter alia that he has not actively connived

with Sri SPT Sundaram by asking him to take bribe.

He is only negligent in following HO guidelines. So a

lenient view is taken for valid reasons. Clerk,

Ramachandran had facilitated the unauthorized

transactions but was not involved in receiving bribe.

So he was given lesser punishment. That petitioner

received bribe is proved by diret evidence. The fact

of receiving money from Mrs. lrulayee by petitioner

has not been disputed, thus deserving different

treatment. Modification of the punishment of the

Branch manager would not absolve the guilt of the

petitioner for the justificaiton of the punishment

awarded to him. Question of discrimination arises

only with similarly placed persons. if treated

differently He is not entitled to same treatment on

par with others. Views of IO are not binding on the

EO or DA. Receiving illegal gratification and act of

mere irregularity deserve different treatment. Petitoner

was given opportunity to vindicate his stand. It is

immaterial whether petitioner had any power to help

the borrower because of his position in the Bank.

Evidence of Rajaram in not having received complaint

against the petitioner from M. Irulayee would not

mitigate the charge against him. The power under

Sction-11A is more to see whether an enquiry finding

was holy uncalled for in the light of the material.

Punishment is only to be upheld.

5. Rejoinder Statements in a nutshell are as follows:

Purchase of chqeues by the Branch Manager to

accommodate the account holders is admitted.

Branch Manager alone was interested in delaying

the un-authorizedly purchased cheques. Petitioner

had no interest over the said cheques. Statement of

Mr. Suresh would show that it bristles with too many

contradictions. It can be seen that the allegations of

Suresh are not based on facts but a figment of his

own imagination. Suresh was not examined. It is

evident that petitioner acted at the behest and

instructions of the Branch Manager only. The Branch

Manager himself instructed the party to meet the

petitioner and act as per his directions and the said

very fact evidences that Branch Manager was directly

interested in the alleged transactions and in the

ultimate benefit. Mrs. Irulayee had all along implicated

the Branch Manager only as the main culprit. But

she was kept behind the screen. They found a

2336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

convenient ploy in Mr. Kottaiyan. The acts of

misconducts were not proved clearly in the enquiry.

Justice has not flowed equally to all. Disciplinary

Authority discriminated in the matter of punishment

calling for interference. For what purpose Branch

Manager exceeded his powers to accommodate the

parties in violaiton of HO guidelines is to be

pertinently answered. The drastic deviation is proof

of the fact that Branch Manager was keenly

interested in the illegal transactions and is the

ultimate beneficiary. Every action of a person is

propelled by certain motive as a normal human

conduct. Branch Manager himself had demanded

money as stated by Irulayee. Branch Manager

supervising his staff, if fails to take a corrective

action, on coming to know of illegal acts it amounts

to conniving and colluding with the activity. Silence

speaks for itself. Omission is no way different from

commission. Branch Manager's complicity is there

in the alleged acts. Suresh in his complaint had

alleged that he had paid Rs. 250/- twice to

Mr. Ramachandran. He also deposed in the enquiry

likewise. Still Respondent's exonerating him shows

partial attitude of the Respondent. The reasons of

the Respondent for differential treatment are not

logical and convincing. Denial of allegations against

Respondent is without any plausible reason.

Administration is duty bound to treat all employees

equally without discrimination. Lenient view to the

Branch Manager on the ground of no loss to the

Bank is equally applicable to the petitioner since

Branch Manager only decided to purchase a cheque.

When the Branch Manager and the petitioner are

not similarly placed, Branch Manager only committed

more lapses. Branch Manager only had been the

principal culprit in whose hand the petitioner was

only a stooge. Views of Investigating Officer are

based on investigation and enquiry only. None will

be naive to act in rash and negligent manner

encountering grave risk for no reason at all. Highest

degree of honesty and integrity is to be expected

from Senior Manager also occupying more

responsible position. By not producing material

withnesses opportunity of cross-examination to

petitioner is denied to vindicate his stand. No reason

is assigned for denying averments against the

Respondent. Vital witnesses were not produced in

the enquiry with a view to book the petitioner

through hook or crook. P. Kottaiyan not releated to

the case was allowed to appear in the enquiry to

depose. Without material evidence petitoner is

alleged of having received bride. If petitioner had

actually demanded bribe any customer would have

taken up the issue with the Branch Manager.

Allegation is false and far from truth. Section-11A of

the ID Act empowers Tribunal for re-appreciation of

the evidence to come to an independent conclusion

about the proof of charge and gravity of punishment.

6. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the punishment of dismissal without

notice upon Sri SPT Sundaram, Ex-Sub-Staff is

legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

7. Evidence consists of testimony of WW1 and

Ex. W1 to Ex. W20 on the petitioner's side and Ex.M1 to

Ex. M39 marked on consent with no oral evidence adduced

on the respondent's side.

Points (i) and (ii)

8. Heard both sides. Perused the records,

documents, evidencce and written arguments on

petitioner's side. Both sides keenly argued in terms of

their contentions in their respective pleadings. Going

by the materials on record it could be found that the

petitioner is guilty of the misconducts as have been

proved in the enquiry. He has been meted out with

punishment of dismissal without notice. As to whether

the Branch Manager, who originally stood compulsorily

retired as per the orders of the Disciplinary Authority

has thereafter been reinstated into service with the

imposition of some grade cut, whether petitioner has

thereby been grossly discriminated against him on the

basis of cadre based bias is a question calling for

consideration. On a scrutiny of the materials, even as

logically probative materials, it cannot be found to lead

to the conclusion that the punishment of the petitioner

amounting to his economic death resulted in on a cadre

based bias meted out by the Management. From the

materials sufficient indications are lacking to hold that

the Branch Manager, Shri P. Rajaram has any connivance

with the petitoner in fishing out the different amounts

by the petitioner from any person. In the absence of any

logically probative materials showing that the Branch

Manager received or shared bribe amounts with the

petitioner it cannot be found so. While the disciplinary

Authority found the Branch Manager also to have had

been an ally with the receiving of bribe by the petitioner,

the finding of the Appellate Authority as per Ex. M 39

that there is no evidence or material to hold that the

Branch Manager obtained bribe is only sound and

reasonable. The finding and imposition of Compulsory

Retirement by the Disciplinary Authority discernibly is

in the absence of any materials. That the petitioner

received bribe stands proved by clinching materials apart

from not disputing it. There is discernibly no

discrimination interse the delinquents. It is also to be

noted that results of investigation appearing as views

of the Investigating Officer cannot be of evidence or

even materials. As held in the decision in Food

Corporation of India Workers Union Vs. Food

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2337

Corporation of India Workers Union Vs. Food Corporation

of India and Another (1996-2-LLJ-920) rendered by the

Apex Court "The only question was whether on weighing

the probabilities the materials placed by the petitioner

was acceptable or rendered probable". While invoking

Section-11A of the ID Act the Court has to be

circumspect to see whether an enquiry finding was

wholly uncalled for in the light of the material. So viewed,

there was no any material for the Disciplinary Authority

to hold that the Branch Manager is guilty of accepting

bribe, Despite that Disciplinary Authority was imposing

on him punishment of Compulsory Retirement, which is

uncalled for. Then it was for the Disciplinary Authority

itself to leave the Branch Manager, scot free in relation

to that charge. But that course was not resorted to by

him which is unreasonable. To accuse cadre based bias

against the Management the allegations have to be

proved with materials rendering probability to the same.

It cannot be by seeking reliance on conjectures or

surmises or even presumptions, even if they are products

of statute. In fact finding process technical rules of

Evidence Act, which are at best tools of guidance have

no application. When in the absence of evidence

Disciplinary Authority chose to impose punishment of

Compulsory Retirement upon the Branch Manager, the

proper course would have been to hold that there is no

evidence or material against the Branch Manager to

punish him under that charge. The said error could only

be seen to be rectified by the Appellate Authority by

holding that Branch Manager is not guilty of connivance

in accepting bribe by the petitioner. Hence it is difficult

to read in any cadre based bias against the petitioner.

Therefore on this ground also the punishment of the

petitioner is not liable to be interfered with but on another

ground of the petitioner being put to economic death by

reason of his dismissal from service which is a

punishment shocking to the conscience of the Court. It

is deemed expedient to consider payment of some pro-

rata pension to him, if applicable under relevant rules

under the Bank since the petitioner has put in

approximately 11 years of service, as on the date of his

termination by converting his dismissal from service into

Compulsory Retirement Ordered accordingly and the

petitioner is entitled to the relief as above.

9. 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 27th February, 2013)

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri S.P.T. Sundaram

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked:

From the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

25.06.2008

Charge Sheet No. MCo:VG:DP:AS:410

issued to Shri SPT Sundaram

Ex. W2

27.12.2004

Complaint letter of Sri Suresh, marked

as MEX 2 in the enquiry

Ex. W3

16.07.2008

Sivaganga branch letter enclosing the

representation of Sri R.C. Sundaram,

marked as MEX 3 in the enquiry

Ex. W4

19.04.2008

Letter from Mrs. Irulayee marked as

MEX 4 in the enquiry

Ex. W5

17.05.2008

Investigation report of Sri R.

Rambadran marked as MEX 6 in the

enquiry alongwith enclosures

Ex. W6

Investigation report of Sri R.

Rambadran marked as MEX 7 in the

enquiry alongwith enclosures

Ex. W7

08.01.2008

Sivagangai branch letter addressed to

Circle Office, Madurai

Ex. W8

18.05.2009

Defence summing up by the defence

representative

Ex. W9

09.07.2009

Disciplinary Authority letter enclosing

the Findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex. W10

01.08.2009

Comments on Enquiry Officer's

findings by Sri SPT Sundaram

Ex. W11

14.09.2009

Second Show Cause Notice issued by

Asstt. General Manager/Disciplinary

Authority, Circle Officer, Madurai

Ex. W12

30.09.2009

Speaking orders of Asstt. General

Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Circle

Office, Madurai

Ex. W13

27.10.2009

Appeal submitted by Sri SPT Sundaram

to Deputy General Manager/Appellate

Authority

Ex. W14

19.06.2010

Orders of the Deputy General Manager/

Appellate Authority

Ex. W15

09.07.2010

Petitioner under 2(A) of ID Act

Ex. W16

18.10.2010

Counter submitted by the Management

for the ID

Ex. W17

04.11.2010

Rejoinder to the counter submitted by

Sri SPT Sundaram

Ex. W18

11.06.2008

Charge Sheet issued to Sri K.

Ramachandran, Clerk/Shroff, Indian

Bank, Sivaganjai branch

Ex. W19

28.05.2009

Letter from Asst. General Manager/

Disciplinary Authority enclosing the

findings of the enquiry Officer for the

Departmental enquiry conducted

against Sri K. Ramachandran

Ex. W20

30.09.2009

Speaking orders of Asstt. General

Manager/Disciplinary

Authroity

imposing the punishment order of

Sri K. Ramachandran

2338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

From the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

07.01.2008

Letter No. MCO/VIG/442/2007-08

issued to petitioner leveling certain

allegation and placing under suspension

effective from 07.01.2008

Ex. M2

29.01.2008

Memo ref. MCO/VG/DP/AS/408 issued

the

petitioner

calling

for

explanation in respect of allegations

leveled against him

Ex. M3

11.02.2008

Explanation of petitioner to the Memo

dated 29.01.2008

Ex. M4

13.05.2008

Show Cause Memo bearing ref. MCO/

UG/DP/AS/408 issued to petitioner

Reply of petitioner to the Show Cause

Memo dated 13.05.2008

Ex. M6

30.05.2008

Another Show Cause Notice bearing

No. MCO/CG/DP/AS/410 issued to

petitioner calling for his explanation

Ex. M7

21.06.2008

Reply of petitioner to the Show Cause

Notice dated 30.05.2008

Ex. M8

25.06.2008

Charge Sheet bearing No. MCO/VG/

DP/AS/410 covering Show Cause

Notice

dated

13.05.2008

and

30.05.2008 and also referring to

petitioner's reply dated 30.05.2008 and

21.06.2008

Ex. M9

31.10.2008

Proceedings of enquiry held against the

06.01.2009

petitioner in respect of charge sheet

07.01.2009

dated 25.06.2008

17.03.2009

Ex. M10

27.12.2007

Letter of R. Joseph, Sub-Staff of

Kalayar Koil Branch

Ex. M11

27.12.2007

Letter of S. Suresh

Ex. M12

16.07.2008

Letter from R.C. Sundaram addressed

to Indian Bank, Sivaganga in Tamil

with liberal translation in English

Ex. M13

19.04.2008

Complaint of Mrs. K. Irulayee

addressed to Vigilance Officer, Indian

Bank, Chennai

Ex. M14

28.12.2007

Statement of A. Senthilraja—Asstt.

Manager—Agri, Sivaganga Branch

addressed to Vigilance Department,

Chennai

Ex. M15

17.05.2008

Report of Investigation by R.

Ramabadran—Sr.

Manager—HO,

Vigilance Department with Six

Enclosures

Ex. M16

(1)

— 14.05.2008—Record

interrogation by P. Kottayam,

Husband of Mrs. K. Irulayee—

Borrower

and

Complainat

(Annexure-II)

Ex. M17

(2)

— 14.05.2008—Record of interrogation

of S. Bharadidasan, Indira Nagar,

Sivaganga (Annexure-II)

Ex. M18

(3)

— 14.05.2008-Record of interrogation

of SPT Sundaram—Sub-Staff,

Sivaganga Branch

Ex. M19

(4)

Record of interrogation of K.

Rajaram—Asstt.

Manager,

Sivaganga Branch (Annexure-IV)

Ex. M20

(5)

— 14.05.2008—Record

interrogation of Rowthar Nainar

(Annexure-V)

Ex. M21

(6)

— Record of Interrogation of C.

Selvaraj—Clerk/Shroff (Annexure-

VI)

Ex. M22

— Relevant extract investigation of

Ramabadran— Pages 8, 9 and 10

with annexure

Ex. M23

10.12.2007

Copy of branch despatch register

Ex. M24

08.01.2008

Letter of Manager, Sivaganga Branch

addressed to Indian Bank, Circle Office,

Madurai

Ex. M25

18.05.2007

Statement of Account of M/s Green

t o

Land Harvest with the branch

30.11.2008

Ex. M26

13.04.2009

Presenting Officer's summing up in

respect of enquiry conducted against

the petitioner against Charge Sheet

No. 410 dated 25.06.2008

Ex. M27

20.09.2009

Reply to Petitioner to the 2nd Show

Cause Notice dated 14.09.2009

Ex. M28

02.01.2008

Report

Investigation

Ramabadran—Sr. Manager, Vigilance

Department on the allegation of

purchase of cheques from various

parties etc., in respect of investigation

conducted during December, 2007

Ex. M29

—

Annexure-I—Itemwise details of

cheques purchased on 01.08.2007 to

26.12.2007

Ex. M30

26.12.2007

Annexure-II—Recast cheque BP

details of M/s Sundaravalli Coirs, Muthu

Irulandi Coirs and Shanthi Blue Metal

Ex. M31

26.12.2007

Annexure-III—List of BP cheques

returned unpaid from 01.08.2007 to

26.12.2007

Ex. M32

27.12.2007

Annexure-IV—Statement

dated

27.12.2012 of Josept—Sub-Staff,

Kalayar Koil Branch

Ex. M33

27.12.2007

Annexure-V—Statement

dated

27.12.2007 of Suresh of Franch

Express Couriers, Kalayar Koil

Ex. M34

28.12.2007

Annexure-VI-Record of Interrogation

dated 28.12.2007 of SPT Sundaram-

Petitioner

Ex. M35

28.12.2007

Annexure-VII—Record of interro-

gation dated 28.12.2007 of K.

Ramachandran, Clerk, Sivaganga Branch

Ex. M36

28.12.2007

Annexure-VIII—Statement

dated

28.12.2007 of Senthi Raj—-Asstt.

Manager-Agri, Kalayar Koil Branch

Ex. M37

Annexure-IX—List of STPL Accounts

(Short Term Production Loan)

Ex. M38

01.10.2009

Order of disciplinary authority issued

to P. Rajaram—Sr. Manager-Sivaganga

Branch

Ex. M39

Order of Appeal preferred by the

Branch Manager, Sri P. Rajaram.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2339

ubZ fnYyh] 5 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 800.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy cSad ds

izcaèra= ds lac) esa fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 81@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@95@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2013

S.O. 800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2007 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

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 05.03.2013

[No. L-12012/95/2007-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Monday, the 25th February, 2013

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 81/2007

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the

Management of Punjab National Bank and their Workman)

BETWEEN

Sri P. Sekaran

1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The Functional Manager (HRD) :

2nd Party/Management

Punjab National Bank

160, Greams Road,

Chennai-600 006

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

M/s Balan Haridas, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Management :

M/s Jayaraman & H. Balaji,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its

Order No. L-12012/95/2007-IR(B-II) dated 27.11.2007

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the order of dismissal without notice imposed

on Sri P. Sekaran by the management of Punjab

National Bank, Chennai is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 81/2007 and issued notics to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through authorized

representative. On challenge of the order dated 18.01.2008

not permitting the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner,

further proceedings in the ID stood stayed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Madras by order dated 12.02.2008 and by

the order dated 30.07.2012 in WP No. 3562 of 2008, the said

order was set aside, the matter was remanded for fresh

disposal in a time-bound manner and the petitioner was

permitted to engage a counsel with similar right to the

Respondent Management. Accordingly both sides made

representation through their respective counsel. Afterwards

both sides filed their claim, counter and reply statement as

the case may be.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement briefly read

as follows:

Petitioner who had joined service of the Respondent

as a Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper on 23.04.1984,

thereafter on successive transfers while was working

at West Boulevard Branch, Trichy was suspended

on 22.04.2003 pending enquiry. He was issued Show

Cause Notice dated 23.09.2003 regarding renewal of

three Fixed Deposit Receipts and alleged taking away

of Pay Order relating to one Sri C. Velusamy. On

19.11.2003 he denied the allegations. Thereafter he

was issued Charge Memo on 04.11.2004 which he

also denied in the reply. An enquiry was held without

considering his explanation. Five witnesses on the

side of the Bank and two witnesses on the defence

side were examined. By the finding the charges were

held proved to which petitioner offered comments

stating it to be perverse. Disciplinary Authority

concurring with the finding by Show Cause Notice

dated 18.03.2006 proposed the punishment of

dismissal without notice. He was dismissed form

service without notice on 31.03.2006. Appellate

Authority by a cryptic order dated 30.06.2006

dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner without

applying mind. The allegations are untrue. One C.

Thangaraj took a Fixed Deposit on 14.11.1997 for Rs.

80,000/- for 13 months which got matured on

14.12.1998. Another Fixed Deposit for Rs. 85,000/-

dated 14.11.1997 for 13 months and Fixed Deposit for

Rs. 85,000/- dated 14.11.1997 for 13 months were

also matured as early as 14.12.1998, but not renewed.

Hence the three Fixed Deposits were carried forward

to the overdue Fixed Deposit Ledger as per practice

and rule. The petitioner prepared vouchers signed

2340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

by the Officer, the enclosures to which were stapled.

He also prepared ledger sheet. The Fixed Deposit

Receipts were thereafter generated by the concerned

and same singed by the Manager and Officer.

Delivery of the receipts to the party was not done by

the petitioner. The Fixed Deposits of Sri C. Thangaraj

was renewed for Rs. 88, 102/-, that of S. Annalakshmi

was renewed for Rs. 93,609/- and thrid was renewed for

Rs. 93,609/-. The three Fixed Deposits were again

renewed and entries and vouchers were made by

Vasudevan and Cashier Mr. Nair. Pay Orders also

have been issued by the Officer and Manager

concerned. Petitioner was not involved in the

process of renewal. There is no mention of token

under which the payments were made. Except the

voucher for the first renewal petitioner had not part

in the subsequent renewal or towards the issuance

of the Pay Order or encashment thereof. No complaint

has been made for non-receipt of the FD proceeds

by Annalakshmi and Vasudevi. Petitioner , a Clerk

had only renewed the Fixed Deposits as per Bank

Manager's instructions. Once the voucher is

authorized by the Manager it only confirms the

transaction as perfect in all respect and the writing

of the voucher is no longer questionable. Manager

Vishwanathan has admitted his having signed the

voucher and the Fixed Deposit Receipts. The

enclosures to the voucher dated 07.03.2001 were

missing. According to Arockiadass when enclosures

are not available it will be reported to the Branch

Manager. There is no legal evidence to show that

petitioner was following up the matter and that the

payment out of the Fixed Deposit was received by

the petitioner. T. Narayanan, Son of Sri Thangaraj as

claimed has not mentioned in Ex.-PD24 letter that he

had met the petitioner and informed his father's death.

T. Narayanan never met the petitioner. While others

were punished with increment cut petitioner is

dismissed without notice. There is no evidence to

show that petitioner had removed the cash order on

26.02.2003. The Cash Order being time-barred no

question of the stale Cash Order being made use of

to open Fixed Deposit on the same at WB Road

Branch does arise. Based on the voucher Fixed

Deposit was made in the name of Sri Velusamy

without obtaining Account Opening Form. Since

petitioner was canvassing Fixed Deposit he was

merely asked to obtain the AOF form the customer.

How voucher for making Fixed Deposit was made on

the basis of a stale Cash Order. It was not petitioner

who opened the ledger sheet. C. Velusamy's National

Savings Loan Account had been closed on

03.10.2001. So there was no necessity for Cash Order

dated 19.04.2002 for Rs. 10.700/- to be in Velusamy's

name. The letter itself will show that all was not well

in the industrial area branch. Enquiry Officer held

the charge proved with tutored deposition of

K. Ramanan, Officer and Mr. R. Thiagarajan. They

had candidly admitted that the debit sundries and

credit fixed deposit voucher and fixed deposit ledger

were authorized by them. It was also admitted that

Cash Order was received by Clerk, Valliappan and he

prepared the voucher for including the instrument in

the day's clearing. He was not examined without any

reason. Petitioner has been made a scapegoat for the

folly of others. There is no application of mind by

the Enquiry Officer in entering the finding. He

exceeded his brief and split up the charges on

presumption and assumption. Petitioner has rendered

22 years of unblemished service and he hails from a

very poor family. He is not gainfully employed. He

cannot be punished on an allegation not proved in

the enquiry. Enquiry held is violating principles of

natural justice. As per HO guideline any payment

above Rs. 20,000/- has to be made in Cash Order and

the recipient has to prove his identity. It is alleged by

the officials that the petitioner identified the customer

and only on that basis they have passed the

payment. Petitioner has not identified the beneficiary.

ID raised having failed the reference is occasioned.

Petitioner is imposed capital punishment to have the

higher-ups. Punishment is grossly disproportionate

to the charges. Tribunal is to interfere under

Section-11A of the ID Act. Petitioner is to be

reinstated with all benefits.

4. Counter Statement averments bereft of unnecessary

details are as follws:

Petitioner was charge sheeted for preparing on

07.03.2001 vouchers for three Fixed Deposits dated

14.11.1997 favouring Sri C. Thangaraj,

Ms. Annalakshmi and Vasudevi for Rs. 80,000/-,

Rs. 85,000/- and Rs. 85,000/- respectively for

48 months from 14.12.1998 without any letter of

request from the benficiary or authority. The FD

Accounts were renewed without receiving the

original FDRs despite the fact that there were

unauthenticated alterations is maturity value and due

date. Rate of interest and due date in the ledger sheets

needed authentication. Fresh FD Receipts were

issued at the time of renewal instead of noting the

details in the original FDRs, not produced. Instead

of the old ledger sheets he carried out all the details

of the FDRs to a new ledger sheet for making the

alternations in initials of the beneficiary of FDR

Account Number 34070 of Thangaraj from C to G

and also changing the address of the party. He had

also created record in the new ledger sheets as if

fresh AOF Form-15 H and photographs were

obtained and in fact neither AOF nor Form-15H and

photograph were obtained. The purpose of taking

fresh AOF and photograph were not recorded

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2341

without ensuring whether the originals of the same

are available or not. He prepared the vouchers for

renewal of FD Account of Sri Thangaraj knowing

well that the party was no more and reported expired.

On 17.12.2002 FDR Account 3470 was renewed as

ordinary FDR No. 464 for a period of 30 days for Rs.

1,33,363/- due on 13.01.2003 with maturity value of

Rs. 1,33,884/- in the name of G. Thangaraj. On

13.01.2003 the FDR Account was closed and the

proceeds of the same were paid by Cash Order dated

13.01.2003 in the name of G. Thangaraj to a person on

14.01.2003. He also verified the signature of G.

Thangaraj on the back of Cash Order without any

authority knowing fully well that the signature does

not belong to the original beneficiary. Similarly FDRs

favouring Ms. Annalakshmi and Vasudevi were

renewed as ordinary Fixed Deposit A/c No. 465 for Rs.

1,41,699/- and Account No. 466 for Rs. 1,41,699/- both

due on 13.01.2003 respectively. On 21.01.2003 FD

Accounts in the name of Ms. Annalakshmi and

Vasudevi were closed for maturity value of Rs.

1,42,252/- each keeping part of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/

- each which were placed in ordinary Fixed Deposit

for 91 days. Balance amount of Rs. 42,252/- as interest

was issued by Cash Order dated 21.01.2003 each in

the names of Ms. Annalakshmi and Vasudevi. The

Cash Orders were paid to some fictitious persons in

their names on 26.02.2003. On 26.02.2003 petitioner

visited Branch Office, Industrial Area, Trichy though

he was posted at WB Road, Trichy on the pretext of

collecting his Income Tax details and verified the

signatures of the beneficiary of the above Cash

Orders without authority knowing that the signatures

do not belong to the original beneficiary. On

17.01.2002 he posted the transactions of renewal of

all the above three FDRs in the ledger through

computer. He had requested the Cashier to make the

payments in 500 denominations. He was present on

the date of payment of the proceeds of all the FDRs

to some persons and was instrumental in getting the

payment fraudulently to some fictitious persons. On

26.02.2003 during visit to the Branch he had

unauthorizedly taken Cash Order dated 19.04.2002

for Rs. 10,700/- favouring Sri C. Velusamy from the

Loans Department and handed over at BO, WB Road

for placing the FD in the name of Sri Velusamy without

AOF or other documents. For the same FDR was

prepared on 28.02.2003. Sri Velusamy informed that

he neither received nor presented the Pay Order to

BO, WB Road. In the departmental enquiry held he

was given all opportunities and principles of natural

justice were observed which is demonstrable from

the proceedings itself. Preparation of renewal

vouchers by the CE is the starting point of the fraud.

Even if under the instructions of the Branch Manager

he should have noted so and marked caution in the

ledger vouchers, etc. It is proved that CE had

influenced the payment by personally bringing the

vouchers to the Manager telling that he knew the

depositor. That his confession statement was

obtained by coercion is not proved. In fact by letter

dated 12.04.2003 in his own handwriting he admitted

the charges, though later withdrawn. There is no

proof of any prejudice having been caused to the

petitioner in the enquiry. There is no hostile

discrimination. The orders of the authorities are

speaking manifesting application of mind. There is

nothing perverse in the orders. There is no proof of

Manager having given instructions for renewal of

the FDRs. The charges have been properly proved

in the enquiry. There is no violation of principles of

natural justice. Finding is not perverse. The

punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the

misconduct. Sectino-11A of the ID Act is not to be

applied. ID is to be dismissed.

5. Rejoinder averments in a nutshell are as follows:

In the absence of legal evidence the finding rendered

is perverse. The supervisory officials for their misconducts

should have been jointly enquired into with the petitioner.

6. Points for consideration are:

(I) Whether the dismissal without notice imposed

on Sri P. Sekaran is legal and justified?

(II) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

7. The evidence consists of oral evidence of WW1

and Ex.W1 to Ex.W73 with no evidence on the side of the

Respondent which is ex-parte.

Points (i) & (ii)

8. Heard the petitioner's counsel, perused the

records, documents and the evidence adduced on behalf

of the petitioner by way of Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief

Examination. The Respondent though appeared and filed

counter statement at the fag end of the enqiury, remained

absent and was set ex-parte. What is available on record

is the unchallenged testimony of the petitioner by way of

Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and the

documents exhibited as Ex.W1 to Ex.W73. Going by the

records especially the enquiry proceedings and the finding

it is brought home that there is no force in the contentions

on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry has been

conducted violating the principles of natural justice or

that the finding is perverse. It could well be seen that the

petitioner has had full opportunity to participate in the

enquiry, as pleaded and he died examine witnesses on his

side. Allegation that the finding is perverse could also be

found to be totally false. There is also the confession

statement of the petitioner, later alleged as having been

obtained on coercion, but without being substantiated.

While he alleges the enquiry as being not fair and that

2342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

the finding is perverse there is no proof of prejudice.

There is nothing wrong with the enquiry. There is no

pervesity in the finding. Though, the evidence adduced

on behalf of the petitioner is by way of Proof Affidavit in

lieu of Chief Examination not tested under the touch stone

of Cross-Examination because of the Second Party being

absent and set ex-parte, the evidence is still good

provided what is disclosed by way of swearing are not

versions inherently improbable or intrinsically infirm,

which is so. Any material logically probative to a prudent

mind and is credible may form basis of such conclusion.

It is not adequacy of evidence, but some legal evidence

which is required to arrive at the conclusion. The enquiry

proceedings coupled with the finding of the enquiry and

the order of the Appellate Authority provide sufficient

materials to come to the conclusion that there is nothing

wrong with the enquiry and that the finding is not

perverse.

9. Now coming to the punishment, the question is

whether the same is shockingly disproportionate to the

gravity of the misconduct. While from the proved facts

the petitioner could legitimately be found guilty of the

misconduct and has been so found what remains for

consideration is regarding his punishment. While an

employee like the petitioner with propensity to commit

misconduct as in the present case is not safe or

warranted to continue him in service, he must inevitably

be sent out. The said purpose could well be achieved by

imposing a punishment of Compulsory Retirement from

service. In that case he could get his superannuation

benefits. He could be saved from being put to an

economic death. He has already rendered 22 years of

service which he claims to be unblemished, whatever it

be. In having not taken into account the period of service

already rendered by him visiting him with the capital

punishment as herein imposed, sounds shockingly

disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

Though question as to punishment lies within the

privilege of the Management, if and when that is not

done with a sense of proportion, thereby shocking the

conscience of the Court, it is within the legitimate and

reasonable power of this Court to interfere and direct

the Management to modify the punishment to meet the

ends of individual justice. Therefore, it is ordered that

the punishment without notice be modified and reduced

to one of Compulsory Retirement entitling the petitioner

to his superannuation and other benefits. The petitioner

is entitled to relief as above.

10. Thus, the reference is answered accodingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 25th February, 2013)

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri P. Sekaran

For the 2nd Party/Respondent :

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

07.03.2001

Debit CA OD Transfer Voucher

Ex. W2

07.03.2001

Debit FD MBD 3470 G. Thangaraj

transfer voucher

Ex. W3

07.03.2001

Debit FD MBD 3471 S. Annalakshmi

transfer voucher

Ex. W4

07.03.2001

Debit FD MBD 3472 S. Vasudevi

transfer voucher

Ex. W5

07.03.2001

PD 5—FDMBD receipt A/c No. 3470

Ex. W6

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in the

name of G. Thangaraj A/c No. 3470

Ex. W7

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in the

name of S. Annalakshmi A/c No. 34571

Ex. W8

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in the

name of S. Vasudevi A/c No. 3472

Ex. W9

07.03.2001

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in the

name G. Thangaraj A/c No. 3470

Ex. W10

07.03.2001

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in the

name of S. Annalakshmi A/c No. 3471

Ex. W11

07.03.2001

Copy of FD MBD Ledger Sheet in the

name of S. Vasudevi A/c No. 3472

Ex. W12

12.04.2003

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex. W13

19.04.2002

Copy of Cash Order favouring

C. Veluchamy

Ex. W14

13.01.2003

Copy of Cash Order favouring

Thangaraj

Ex. W15

21.01.2003

Copy of Cash Order favouring

S. Vasudevi

Ex. W16

21.01.2003

Copy of Cash order favouring

S. Annalakshmi

Ex. W17

28.02.2003

Copy of Cleaning Credit Sundries

Voucher

Ex. W18

01.03.2003

Copy of Transfer Debit Sundries

voucher

Ex. W19

01.03.2003

Copy of Transfer Voucher for FD

Ordinary

Ex. W20

01.03.2003

Copy of FD Ordinary Receipt in the

name of Veluchamy

Ex. W21

01.03.2003

Copy of Ledger Sheet in the name of

Veluchamy

Ex. W22

27.10.1998

Copy

Death

Certificate

S. Thangarasan Munaiyathiriyar

Ex. W23

18.11.1998

Copy of Legal Heir Certificate of PD

20-Thangarasan Munaiyathiriyar

Ex. W24

29.03.2003

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex. W25

14.05.2005

Letter of the PO Furnishing list of

additional 4 documents

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2343

Ex. W26

19.11.2004

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex. W27

February 2003

Copy of the Attendance Register

Ex. W28

02.04.2003

Copy of letter of V. Veluchamy

Ex. W29

28.02.1997

Copy of demand/term loan sheet of

C. Veluchamy

Ex. W30

01.10.2001

Computer Print Out of Statement of

Account of Veluchamy

Ex. W31

01.10.2001

Computer Print Out of Statement of

Account of Veluchamy

Ex. W32

22.02.2001

Copy of FD due date reminder

Ex. W33

16.06.2005

Letter of the Senior Manager

Ex. W34

14.06.2005

Letter of the PO addressed to the

Senior Manager

Ex. W35

14.11.1997

Copies of three counter foils

Ex. W36

—

Copies of FB MBD Receipts of A/c

No. 3470

Ex. W37

06.01.2005

Letter of the Petitioner

Ex. W38

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Receipt issued to

Thangaraj

Ex. W39

—

Copy of FD MBD Receipt issued to

Thangaraj Copy of FD MBD Receipt

issued to S. Annalakshmi

Ex. W40

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD receipt issued to

Vasudevi

Ex. W41

07.03.2001

Counter Foil of FD MBD Receipt of

Thangaraj

Ex. W42

14.11.1997

Copy of FD MBD Receipt issued to

Vasudevi with backside of the receipt

Ex. W43

14.11.1997

Counter Foil of FD MBD receipt of

Thangaraj with backside of the receipt

Ex. W44

13.01.2003

Debit Transfer Voucher

Ex. W45

13.01.2003

Copy of the computer print out for

closing of FDO A/c

Ex. W46

07.03.2001

Copy of FD MDD receipt

Ex. W47

13.01.2003

Copy of Cash Order

Ex. W48

21.01.2003

Copy of the Computer Print Out for

closing of FDO A/c

Ex. W49

21.01.2003

Copy of Computer Print Out for

interest certificate

Ex. W50

21.01.2003

Copy of Interest Certificate

Ex. W51

21.01.2003

Copy of Credit for Cash Orders

EX. W52

21.01.2003

Copy of Cash Orders

Ex. W53

21.01.2003

Copy of Transfer Credit

Ex. W54

07.03.2001

Copy of Long Book

Ex. W55

—

Ledger Sheet

Ex. W56

—

Ledger Sheet

Ex. W57

17.12.2002

Ledger Sheet

Ex. W58

22.04.2003

Suspension Order

Ex. W59

23.09.2003

Charge Memo

Ex. W60

19.11.2003

Reply to Charge Memo

Ex. W61

04.11.2004

Charge Sheet

Ex. W62

19.11.2004

Reply to Charge Sheet

EX. W63

24.11.2004

Enquiry Notice

Ex. W64

20.12.2004

Enquiry Notice

Ex. W65

06.01.2005

Enquiry Proceeding

Ex. W66

—

Presenting Officer's report

EX. W67

10.12.2005

Reply to Presenting Officer's report

Ex. W68

13.01.2006

Enquiry Report

Ex. W69

07.02.2006

Reply to Enquiry Report

Ex. W70

18.03.2006

Second Show Cause Notice

Ex. W71

30.06.2006

Order of the Appellate Authority

EX. W72

31.03.2006

Dismissal Order

eX. W73

09.05.2006

Letter to Appellate Order

On the Management's Side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 6 ekpZ] 2013

d+kñ vkñ

d+kñ vkñ 801.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj nsuk c®d ds

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] 2

eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñthñvkbZñVh&2@13@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 05@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkA

[lañ,y&12011@118@2004&vkbZñvkjñ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2013

S.O. 801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/13 of

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court-2, MUMBAI now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employees in relation to the management of DENA

BANK, and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 05.03.2013.

[No. L-12011/118/2004-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE

Presiding Officer

2344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/13 of 2005

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF DENA BANK

The Assistant General Manager (P)

Dena Bank

Maker Towers 'E' Wing

Cuffe Parade

Mumbai 400 005.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

The General Secretary

Dena Bank Employees Union

17, Horniman Circle

Fort,

Mumbai 400023

Appearances:

For the Employer

Ms. Nandini Menon,

Advocate

For the Worman

Mr. M.B. Anchan,

Advocate.

Mumbai dated the 23rd January, 2013.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-12011/118/2004-IR (B-II),

dated 09.11.2004 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 Dena

Bank in terminating/discontinuing the services of

(1) Shri Nitin H. Solanki and (2) Shri Chalapati R.

Silveri w.e.f. 10.05.2003 and 6.4.2003 respectively is

legal and proper and justified? If not, what relief

including permanency/regularization and payment

of wages in terms of Bi-partite Settlement, these two

workmen are entitled to and from which date and

what other directions are necessary?"

(2) After receipt of the order of reference from

Ministry, notices were served on both the parties. In

response to the notice, second party Union filed their

statement of claim at Ex-4. First party management filed

their Written statement at Ex-12. Issues were framed at

Ex-20. The matter was fixed for cross examination of workman

witness. Meanwhile Advocate for the second party union

filed application dated 23/01/2013 (Ex-38) stating that the

union does not want to press the reference as workmen are

not interested in pursuing the matter further and therefore

requested to dispose of the reference. Thus the order:

ORDER

Reference is dismissed as withdrawn.

No order as to cost.

Date: 23rd January, 2013

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh 6 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 802.—vkS+|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; pUMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k vkbZñMhñ

1310@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

5-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkA

[lañ ,y&12012@105@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx] vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2013

S.O. 802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. ID No. 1310/2007) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-

I Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Central Bank of India, and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

05.03.2013

[No. L-12012/105/2006-IR(B-II)

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.P. SINGH, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUANL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. ID 1310/2007

V.K. Gulati C/O General Secretary, Central Bank of India

Employees' Union, (Pb.) 146, Golden Avenue, Phase-I,

Jalandhar (Punjab).

Workman

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Chandigarh Zone, Sector-17-B, Chandigarh

Management

Appearances:

For the workman

Shri Amit Mehta

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2345

For the management

Shri N.K. Zakhmi

AWARD

Passed on 20.02.2013

Central Govt. vide letter No. L-12012/105/2006-IR(BII)

dated 7.6.2007 has referred the following dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India, Jalandhar in not including the name of

workman Shri V.K. Gulati in pension optees is

unjustified and illegal? If so to what relief the workman

is entitled to and from which date?"

2. The workman in claim statement pleaded that the

management of Central Bank of India formulated the

pension scheme for the employees and circulated the same

vide circular letter dated 12.10.1995 for seeking the option

from the employees. In response to the above circular the

workman opted for pension. Subsequently management of

Central Bank of India on 2.1.1996 issued a fresh circular

whereby one more opportunity was given to the employees

to reconsider their option. Workman filed his option and

the managment acknowledge the same vide its letter dated

5.1.1996. It was further stated in the scheme that with the

joining of the pension scheme the balance and the Bank

contribution would be transfer to pension fund. The

management transferred the balance of Provident Fund of

the workman in the pension fund. Later on, it came to the

notice of the workman that management illegally changed

his option and it was informed to the workman that benefit

of pension has not been allowed to him. Aggrieved with

this, workman gave a legal notice to the management in

reply to which it was stated by the management that

acceptance letter dated 5.1.96 was issued due to the

technical error of the computer. The action of the

management is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the

principle of natural justice. The excuse of technical error is

not maintainable. The workman retired on 30.9.2006 from

the service of the bank and he is entittled for the inclusion

of his name in the list of pension optee. It is requested that

management may be directed to consider the name of the

workman in the name of pension optee.

3. Management filed the written statement in which

preliminary objection has been taken that the workman

opted for PF Scheme but the name of the petitioner was

included in the letter dated 5.12.1994 and due to technical

error in the computer he was shown as pension optee.

Later on when the bank found this mistake, it corected the

same, therefore, the workman is not entitled. In reply on

merit, it is pleaded by the management that letter dated

5.1.1996 was wrongly issued to the petitioner as the

petitioner has not opted for pension. It is further pleaded

that circular letter dated 29.12.1995/2.1.1996 was issued to

provide one more chance to opt/withdraw for pension/

Provident Fund Scheme and the workman has not given

any option for withdrawal of provident fund. It is again

stated that due to technical error in the computer, the letter

dated 5.1.1996 was issued wrongly and when this mistake

came to the notice of management, the same was corrected.

Therefore, the workman is not entitled for pensionery

benefits as he has already opted for provident fund.

4. Workman in evidence filed his affidavit in which

he has taken the same facts as enumerated in claim

statement. The management also in evidence filed affidavit

of one Anil Kumar Gupta Manager HRD.

5. Both the parties relied on documents only and

argued the case on the basis of documents only.

6. Learned counsel for the workman during arguments

specifically admitted that the workman is getting pension

from the bank in view of the scheme formulated from

November, 2009 as the management came up with scheme

that the employee who will deposit 156% of provident fund

with the bank he will get pension from 27th November,

2009. The workman opted the pension scheme and deposit

the 156% share of provident fund and he is getting pension

with effect from 27th November, 2009 onward as is revealed

from the letter dated 10.10.2012 of the Branch Manager

Mandi Gobindgarh taken on record on 13.02.2013. Thus,

the workman is getting pension with effect from November,

2009. Now the issue remains only for the pension with

effect from 01.10.2006 as the workman retired from service

on 30.09.2006. It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the

workman that the management acknowledged the option

of pension by the workman vide letter dated 05.01.1996 in

response to the circular dated 02.01.1996 and the workman

is entitled to get his option revised as provided in the

circular available on record in which is as under:

OPTION

(1) Those who have already exercised option for

pension and wish to continue to the members of

the pension scheme need not exercise fresh

option.

(2) Those who have not exercised option for pension

and now wish to become members of the pension

scheme may exercise option within the period

stipulated in Regulation 3.

(3) Those who have exercised option for pension on

or before 30.11.1994 and now wish to withdraw

the option exercised for reasons may be permitted

to withdraw the same. However, option exercised

after 29.9.95 in terms of Regulation 3 of bank

(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 shall be

final and cannot be revoked.

(4) All employees, who retired from the services of

the Bank on or after 1.1.1986 but before the

"Notified Date" and eligible for pension in terms

of pension regulations and the families of such

retired employees, who are since deceased, may

2346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

be permitted the facility of "netting" as advised

in our ciruclar letter No. FD/CIR/76/G(ii) /1846

dated 18.2.1995.

7. Therefore as the management also acknowledged

the option vide letter dated 05.01.1996, the workman is

entitled for pension with effect from 01.10.2006 and the

plea of the management regarding computer error is not

tenable. It is prayed that the management may be directed

to release the pension of the workman with effect from

01.10.2006.

8. The learned counsel for the management submitted

during argument that due to technical error in the computer,

the letter was issued and when the mistake came to the

notice of the bank, the same was rectified and the workman

never opted for pension and he was provident fund optee.

Therefore the workman is not entitled to the pension with

effect from 01.10.2006. The workman had opted for a

pension in reply to the scheme which came with effect from

27.11.2009 and he is getting pension regularly, Therefore,

the workman is not entitled for pension w.e.f. 1.10.2006.

9. I have heard the learned cousel for the parties at

length and also gone through the documents relied upon

by the parties carefully.

10. Management submitted the written statement and

the affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta Manager, Central

Bank of India wherein it is clearly mentioned that the name

of the workman finds place in M1 list of staff that have

opted provident fund. From the persual of the document

Ex. M1 workman V.K. Gulati name finds place at serial No.

15. Thereafter the management document Ex. M2

workaman's name find place at serial No. 14. In Ex. M1 and

M2 workman had opted provident fund scheme. In the

document Ex. M2 workman has signed at serial No. 14 in

the list of provident fund optee. Ex. M1 letter of the bank is

dated 5.12.1994. On the strength of these documents, the

management submitted that the workman opted provident

fund scheme and not opted the pension scheme.

11. Workman submitted that in annexure W1 circular

of Central Bank of India dated 29.12.1995/2.1.1996, it has

been formulated a scheme for option. In para 3, of this

circular is mentioned as below:

"Those who have exercised option for pension on or

before 30.11.1994 and now wish to withdraw the

option exercised for reasons may be permitted to

withdraw the same. However, option exercised after

29.9.95 in terms of Regulation 3 of bank (Employees)

Pension Regulations, 1995 shall be final and cannot

be revoked."

12. In view of this provision the workman was

permitted to revise his option. Besides this document,

annexure W2, a memo from Central Bank of India, Pension

Department, Central Office Bombay, which has been

addressed to the workman confirm the option of the

workman for the pension fund and the option of the

workman for pension has been accepted by the

management. Management's plea is that due to computer

mistake, this letter was sent to the workman. This plea of

the management is not tenable becuase vide bank's circular

dated 29.12.1995/2.1.1996, workman was permitted to

change the option. In 2003-II-LLI page 129 Allahabahad

Bank and others Vs. Surender Kumar Mishra, it has been

held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that a Bank

employee cannot be made to lose pension benefits for

bank's inability to trace option from. In the case in hand,

workman file a memo dated 10.10.2012 signed by senior

manager Branch Mandi Gobindgarh for Central Bank of

India. In this memo it is certfied that the workman is getting

the pension from 27.11.2009.

13. The workman retired from the serviced of the

bank on 30.9.2006. The intervening period is from 1.10.2006

to 26.11.2009. For this period the workman is entitled to

pension. After making adjustment/deduction as per pension

scheme of circular letter prevailing at that time, the workman

is thus entitled for pension.

14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that

action of the management of Central Bank of India,

Jalandhar in not including the name of the workman

Shri V.K. Gulati in pension optees is unjustified and illegal.

The workman is entitled to pension w.e.f. 1.10.2006. The

management is directed to release the pension w.e.f.

1.10.2006 to 26.11.2009 as per pension scheme prevailing at

the relevant time. The reference is answered accordingly

Central Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

S.P.Singh,

20.02.2012

Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 803.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj izlkj Hkkjrh

dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ bf.M;k] vkdk'kok.kh ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k /kuckn uañ 1

/kuckn uañ 1

/kuckn uañ 1 ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2008@149½

¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2008@149½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 04-03-2013

04-03-2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@58@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2013

S.O. 803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.

46/2008/149) of the Central Government Industrial

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2347

Tribunal Dhanbad No. 1 as shown in the Annexure. In the

Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

Prasar Bharti Corporation of India, Akashwani and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 04-03-2013.

[No. L-42012/58/2008-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference under section 10 (1) (d) (2A)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 46 of 2008

Parties:—Employers in relation to the management of

Prasar Bharti Corporation of India, Akashwani,

And

Their workman

Present:— Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran

Presiding Officer

Appearances:—

For the Management

: None

For the Union/workman

: None

State:- Jharkhand Industry :- Information & Broadcasting

Dated: 12-02-2013

AWARD

By order No. L-42012/58/2008 -IR (DU.) dated

06-10-2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Prasar

Bharti Corporation of India, Akashwani in terminating

the service of their workman Shri Sanjay Kumar and

Shri Basuki Prasad Sharma without complying

Section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act and not regularizing

them in service in the post of Announcer cum compure

is legal and justified?" To what relief the concerned

workman are entitled to?"

After having received the Order No. L-42012/581/

2008-IR (DU) dt. 06-10-2008, the aforesaid reference from

the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute as reference case No. 46 of

2008 was registered on 02-10-2008 but till 17.1.2013 no

Written Statement and document was filed on behalf of the

Union/workman. Ultimately two notices were issued to the

sponsoring Union for filling of Written Statement &

document by speed post/Registered post but till 17.1.2013

no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.

In view of such circumstance it seems that the

workman or the Union is not interested to contest their

case further. And as such, it is ordered:—

ORDER

That let a "NO DISPUTE" AWARD be passed. Send

the copies of the Award to the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour & Employment, New Delhi for information and

needful. Reference is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ 804

dkñ vkñ 804.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fMIVh lqifjuVsUMsUV

gkVhZdYpj] vkxjk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 88@99½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@225@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2013

S.O. 804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 88/99)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the Deputy

Superintendent Horticulturist, Agra and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

01.03.2013.

[No. L-42012/225/1998-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Sec.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS,

PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 83 of 99

Between:—

Sri Mahendra Singh,

Son of Sri Amar Singh,

2348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

Resident of house No. 13/201 Patkola,

Tajganj, Agra.

And

Deputy Superintending Horticulturist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Eastern Gate, Tajganj,

Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoI, New Delhi, vide

notification No. L-42012/225/98/IR(DU) dated 16/20.04.99

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this

tribunal.

2. Whether the action of the Deputy Superintending

Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Agra in

terminating the services of Sri Mahendra Singh is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

3. Brief fact of the case are—

4. The claimant was engaged by the opposite party

at the post of Mali on 01.12.80. He was also utilized to work

in weekly holidays. He was engaged like a daily wager like

others by the opposite party and by virtue of rendering

continuous services of more than 240 days in the year 1982

he attained the right and status of becoming a permanent

and regular employees of the opposite party. I is also alleged

by the complainant that he had worked at different places

under the opposite party but he was removed from his

services by the opposite party with effect from 31.01.96. It

is also alleged that in the name of some contract dated

01.02.96, 20 other workers were engaged as a casual Mali,

who were juniors to the applicant. In this way the opposite

party has breached the provisions of section 25 G and 25 H

of the Act.

5. It is also pleaded by the workman that after

termination of his services he served several registered

notices upon the opposite party but all in vain. After

disengagement of his services he is unemployed. Many

juniors were inducted in the service of the opposite party

like Vishnu, Sri Poup Singh etc., and they were also removed

from their services soon after the notice of the workman

was received by the opposite party. It is also stated that

after the workman the opposite party employed S/Sri Anil

son of Sri Ganga Ram etc., who are still in the employment

of the opposite party. Lastly it is stated that the removal of

the services of the workman is in violation of the provisions

of section 25 F of the Industrail Disputes Act, 1947, thereby

is entitled to be reinstated in the services of the opposite

party with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

6. Opposite party has filed an exhaustive reply

against the claim petition of the workmen refuting the

allegations. It is stated by the opposite party that this

tribunal has no authority to pass any award on the basis of

reference order. Claim filed by the claimant is highly belated

and is not maintainable. No date of termination has been

mentioned in the reference order, hence also on this ground

the reference order is without jurisdiction. Claimant is not a

workman within the provisions of section 2(s) of the Act,

Likewise there are various other grounds which I need not

think to discuss the same because as there is no date of

termination mentioned in the reference order. Therefore

going to deal other facts of the case would amount to futile

exercise on the part of this tribunal.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that no documentary

evidence has been filed by the workman regarding

continuous working with the opposite party. Though the

opposite party has admitted the working but no evidence

for continuous working of the workman has been led in the

case.

8. In view of above position it is a case of no evidence

and under these circumstances it is quite impossible for

the tribunal to grant any relief in favour of the workman for

want of evidence ad proof.

9. Accordingly it is held that the workman is not

entitled for any relief for want of evidence and proof.

Therefore, the reference is bound to be decided against

the workman and in favour of the opposite party.

10.Reference is answered accordingly against the

workman and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH,

Presiding Offices

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 805.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMLVªDV eSaustj]

Vsyhdke] gehjiqj ¼fgekpy izns'k½ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uñ 2] pMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 544@2005 ½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

01&03&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¼lañ ,y& 40012@64@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2013

S.O. 805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby

publishes the award (Ref. No. 544/2005) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. II

Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the Distt. Manager,

Telecom, Hamirpur (HP) and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 01.03-2013

[No. L-40012/64/2000-IR(DU)

JOHAN TOPNO Under Secy.)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2349

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, HANDIGARH,

Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 544/2005

Registered on 22.8.2005

Sh. Pawan Kumar, S/o Pandit Jaga Nath C/o Ramesh

Chopra, 1727, Chandigarh.

Petitioner

Versus

1. The Distt. Manager, Telecom Hamirpur.

2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom.

Respondents

Appearances

For the workman

Sh. Om Pal Sharma Advocate.

For the Management

Sh. K.K. Thakur Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on 1st February, 2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

64/2000/IR (DU) dated 31.5.2000, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal:—

''Whether the action of the management of Telecom

Distt. Manager, Hamirpur and Sub-Divisional Officer,

Telecom, Una in terminating the services of Sh. Pawan

Kumar S/o Pandit Jagan Nath w.e.f. 8.4.1999 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?''

As per claim statement workman had been engaged

on 10.8.1996 as Helper/daily rated mazdoor with the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Telecommunication Department, Una.

He had worked for more than 240 days in 1996, 1997 and

1998 and also for 240 days in the preceding year from

20.4.1999 when his service was terminated retrospectively

w.e.f. 8.4.1999. He has alleged the violation of provisions of

Section 25F, 25G, 25H and 25N of the Act and has alleged

his termination with retrospective effect from 8.4.1999 as

illegal. He has claimed his reinstatement with continuity in

service and back wages and also has requested for grant

of the status of PSM.

The management has contested the claim. The

engagement of the work as alleged by him was admitted

and it was further contended that in the year 1998 the

workman has only worked for 223 days and had not

completed 240 days in the year 1998 which was a pre-

condition laid down in CGMT HP Circle, Shimla Letter No.

Staff/1034/70 dated 8.4.1999 for giving temporary status to

DRMS and accordingly the service of the workman was

terminated vide letter No. DRM/KW/7 dated 8.4.1999.

According to the management during the period from

1.1.1999 to 8.4.1999 the workman worked only for 34 days.

The violation of provisions of the Act was denied by the

management and it was contended that the department is

not an industry and the claimant is not a workman.

According to the management the claim is liable to the

dismissed.

In support of his case workman examined himself

and filed photocopies of attendance-sheet from January

1997 to February 1999 which were collectively marked as

''A''. On behalf of the management Subhash Sahota was

examined.

Workman on 2.5.2012 and management on 22.1.2013

filed their respective written arguments.

I have gone through the written arguments filed by

the parties and also the evidence on record. So far as the

demand of the workman for grant of temporary status is

concerned, that is beyond the scope of the reference.

Reference is about the termination of the service only.

It is now well-settled that Telecom Department is an

industry. In General Manager Telecom vs. Srinivas Rao

and others 1998 1 LLJ 255 the Apex Court held that the

Telecom Department is engaged in commercial activity and

not discharging its sovereign functions hence, it is an

industry. The argument of the learned counsel for the

management that the department is not an industry is not

acceptable.

Similarly it cannot be accepted that the claimant is

not a workman. The engagement of the claimant is admitted

to the management.

The workman has alleged the violation of Section

25F and 25N of the Act but both the provisions cannot be

made applicable. Section 25N is applicable to those

industrial establishments which are covered under Chapter

VB. There is nothing in the claim statement to make

applicable Chapter VB in the present case.

The argument of the learned counsel for the workman

cannot be disputed that the termination of the service of

the workman amounts to retrenchment but the question is

whether the workman is entitled to the protetion of Section

25F of the Act. For the protection of Sction 25F of the Act

it is necessary that the workman should have completed at

least 240 days service during 12 calendar months preceding

the date of his termination. As per reference order his

servcices were terminated on 8.4.1999. In claim statement it

has been alleged that the services were terminated on

22.4.1999 with retrospective effect from 8.4.1999. But there

2350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

is nothing on record to support the allegation of the

workman that his services were terminated on 22.4.1999.

Therefore for the protection of Section 25F of the Act the

period from 9.4.1998 to 8.4.1999 becomes material.

The workman has filed attendance-sheet from

January 1997 to February 1999. Management witness has

admitted these sheets to be correct. These sheets show

that the workman did not work in January and February

1999. The working days from 9.4.1998 to 31st December,

1998 comes to 173 days as per this statement. Management

witness in his affidavit has stated that during the period

from 1.1.1999 to 8.4.1999 the workman worked only for 34

days. This statement of the management witness was not

challenged during cross-examination. Hence, it must be

accepted. Thus it comes that the workman during 12

calendar months preceding the date of his termination

worked only for 173+34 = 207 days. Obviously he is not

entitled to the protection of Section 25F.

There is no evidence to show that at the time of

terminating the services of the workman juniors of his

category had been retained by the management.

Similarly there is no evidence that any DRM i.e. any

workman of claimant's category was taken in employment

by the management subsequent to the retrenchment of the

claimant. Hence, violation of Section 25H also is not

established.

From the above going discussion it is thus clear that

the workman is not entitled to the protetion of Section 25F

of the Act and the termination of his service does not suffer

from any illegality and is therefor legal and justified.

Reference is accordingly answered against the workman.

A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 806

806

806 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ,ñ 872½ vkWQ@2004 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@91@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2013

S.O. 806 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby

publishes the Award [Ref. No. CGITA /872 of /2004)] of the

Central Government Industrial tribunal/Labour Court,

Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Central Bank Of India and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

06.03.2013.

[No. L-12012/91/98-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, C.G.I.T. -CUM-

LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD

Present - Binay Kumar Sinha

Presiding Officer

Dated - Ahmedabad-30th January, 2013

Reference (CGITA) No. 872 of 2004

Reference (ITC) No.: 01 of 1999 (old)

Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Main Bazar, Botad

Bhavnagar - 364001 ....First Party

And

Their workman, Shri Deepak Kumar M Desai C/o Shri

Manibhai G. Gandhi,

113, City Centre Complex.

Kalanala, Bhavnagar, 364001.... Second Party

For the first Party : Shri Jatinbhai R. Oza, Advocate for the

Second Party : Shri Manibhai G. Gandhi Advocate

AWARD

The Appropriate Government/Government of India/

Ministry of Labour New Delhi, Considering that an

industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation

to the management of Central Bank of India and their

workman, by its order No. 21L012/91/98/IR (B-II)

dated 05/02/1999, referred the dispute for adjudication to

Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar under the Schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in terminating the services of

Shri Deepak Kumar M. Desai w.e.f. 22.7.95 is legal

and justified ? If not, to what relief the laid workmen

is entitled?"

2. Both the management of Central Bank of India

(First Party) and the workmen (the 2nd Party) appeared in

response to Notice and filed respective pleadings and

documents.

3. The Case of workman (2nd Party) as per statement

of claim (Ecl.-3) is that he was working as peon from January

1992 to August, 1993 in Botad branch of Central Bank of

India in continuous way. In the year 1995 he porformed

works in instalments for 43 days. Then he was terminated

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2351

by oral order dated 22.7.1995 without giving retrenchment

notice or notice pay under the provision of section 25F of

I.D. Act, 1947. That has caused immence loss and injury to

him. He made prayer to the management of the 1st party by

letters dated 7.2.96, 7.12.96 and 21.2.97 but head was paid

by the employer (1st party) for taking him in job. The first

Party thereafter engaged for work, of peon to the person

junior to him, but he was, not called for work. The first

Party as such. Violated the provision of section 25 G & H of

I.D. Act and that amounts to unfair labour practice on part

of the 1st Party. Futher case is that he was performing work

of peon against the vacaney in the Botad branch of the

Bank but he was illegally re-moved/terminated and the

works to which he was performing remained continue and

in his place other person was engaged as regular sub-staff

and as such his regular appointment was ignored. On these

grounds prayer is made for his reinstatement with all

consequential benefits with continuity in service and also

for any other relief to which he is found entitled and also

for declaring his removal order illegal and proper.

4. On the otherhand, the case of the 1st party as per

written statement vide exit-is that the reference is not

maintainable and the claim of the workman for his

reinstatement is illegal and devoid of merit and the reference

is fit to be dismissed. It is the case of the 1st party that the

workman was employed as casual and temporary worker

as substaff at Botad branch and he was performing the

works of casual nature arising in the branch and the Bank

was paying him on daily wages basis. He was never given

any appointment letter. His name was not entered on the

muster Roll of employee kept the branch since he was not

regular employee. Bank has well defined policy for recruiting

the sub-staff for filling up vacancy in permanent post by

calling for the names of eligible candidates from the

employment exchange office and then written test and oral

interview is held to find out their suitability. But concerned

wirkman had not undergone the said selection process.

Concerned workman (2nd party) served as temporary and

casual worker in the branch for some period intermittently

in the span of three and half years. He worked only for 270

days from 2.1.92 to 22.7.95 and during this period he did

not work for 240 days in any callender year. So no violation

of section 25F, 25G or 25H has been caused. As per chart of

works, the 2nd party worker had worked for 141 days in the

year 1992, 103 days in 1993, Nil work in 1994 and 26 days in

1995 and Nil work in 1996—total 270 days. His services

was utilised as per requirement in the Botad branch. Finally

Bank got the regular candidate recruited/appointed and

these after the concerned worker (2nd party) was not given

any further engagement. The Bank has not violated the

provision of I.O. Act and so the action of the Bank is

1st and proper The 2nd party is not a workman as his

casual services were utilised for certain period as and when

required as a time gaps arrangement. The first party has

denied para 1 of the S/C that 2nd party worked continuously

during the period Jaunary, 1992 to August, 1993 and that

he worked only for 26 days against his claim of work for

43 days in 1995. The first party has also denied para 2 to

para 9 of the statement of claim. On these grounds prayer

is made to reject the reference with cost.

5. In view of the pleadings of the parties the following

issues are taken up for determination in this case:—

—: ISSUES :—

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Has the 2nd party got valid cause of action to

raise dispute?

(iii) Whether the 2nd party Deepak Kumar Desai has

cooperated 240 days of works in callander year

preceding his alleged termination 22.7.95?

(iv) Whether 2nd party is entitled for his reinstatment

with continuity of service and consequential

benefits as alleged? If not whether he is entitled

to get any lumpsum compansation from the 1st

party?

(v) Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in terminating the services of

Shri Deepak Kumar M. Desai is legal and justified?

(vi) What orders are to be passed?

FINDINGS

6. Issue No. III:—2nd party Deepak submitted his

affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief (Ext. 32) and was

sub-examined by the lawyer of 1st party. First party has

not adduced oral evidence, but has adduced documentary

evidence marked ext. 23 to 23/24 which are verified zerox

copies of vouchers through which 2nd party was paid daily

wages for the days of works during period of his works as

daily rated worker in the Boted branch of Bank. 2nd party

has also adduced documentary evidence marked ext. 24 to

34.

7. Admitted facts in this case are as follows Deepak

had been engaged at Boted branch of Bank as daily rated

worker. His father was working as regular Sub-Staff in Boted

branch. Deepak (Second Party) was not given appointment

letter by the Bank authority. No. I.D. Card was issued to

him as that of regular/permanent employee of Bank. He

was not making Signature regarding attendance as that of

regular employee in the muster Roll. Wage slip was not

issued to him. He was engaged as casual/temporary worker

2.1.92 to 22.7.95.

8. First party has produced 25 vouchers under a list

ext.-13 and its production was allowed by the court on

6.3.03 and those vouchers were marked pucca exhibits-23

to 23/24. Ext. 23 is voucher regarding payment of wages for

seven days upto 27.1.92. Ext. 23/1 is as to payment of wages

for 24 days in March 1992. Ext. 23/2 is for payment from

2352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

1.4.92 to 30.4.92 on daily wages. Ext. 24/4 is for payment for

12 days from 1.8.92 to 18.8.92 except holidays. Ext. 23/5 and

23/6 are for payment of daily wages for 16 days in October,

1992. Ext. 24/7 is for payment for 12 days in November

1992. Ext. 23/8 is as to payment of wages for 5 days in

December 1992. As per Ext. 23/9 is also payment of wages

for 5 days in December 1992. As per Ext. 23/10 Deepak was

paid daily wages for 5 days in January, 1993 Ext. 23/11 is for

payment for 13 days in February, 1993. Ext. 23/12 is as to

payment of wages for 14 days in March, 1993. Ext. 23/13 is

as to payment for 12 days in April, 1993. Ext. 23/14 is as to

wages for 14 days in May, 1993, ext. 23/15 is for 14 days in

June, 93, ext. 23/16 is for 15 days in July, 93, ext. 23/17 is for

2 days in August, 93 around Rs. 374/- Thereafter Deepak

(2nd Party) was paid wages for 26 days in 1995 as per ext.

23/18 to 23/24. From calculating the days of works year-

wise, it is evident that Deepak (2nd party) worked for

141 days in 1992, 103 days in 1993, Nil days in 1994 and 26

days in 1995. That go to prove that in any calender year

(twelve months) he never worked for 240 days. More so in

the year of alleged termination in 1995 as on 22.7.95

preceeding termination he did not complete 240 days of

work as his work in 1994 is nil.

9. Now coming to documents proceeded by the 2nd

party, Ext. 24 is letter of Central Bank of India. Boted branch

dated 22.9.95 that addressed to the personnal Deptt.

Regional Office, Rajkot regarding engagement of casual

karamchari at Boted branch. That goes to show that Deepak

worked for 161 days in 1992, 103 days in 1993 and 43 days

in 1995. This also go to connect 1st Party's documents ext.

23 to 23/24 that Deepak did not complete 240 days of work

in any callender year and he did not work in 1994. Ext. 25 in

application of Deepak regarding vacancy of sub-staff in

Bhavnagar District branch. Ext. 26 is letter of Branch

Manager Boted informing to regional office that Deepak

worked beyond 60 days in each year 1992 and 1993 as

temporary peon (Partly wages basis) Ext. 27 go to show

that Branch Manager, Boted intimated to Regional office

that Deepak is son of Shri M.P. Desai also is regular Peon

working at Branch for the last 15 years. Ext. 28 is certificate

of Branch Manager, Boted that Deepak M. Desai worked in

the Branch as Peon only daily wages for a period of two

months during 1992-93. Ext. 29 is copy of application of

Deepak dated 7.2.1996 to A.G.M. personnel department

Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Laldarwaja,

Ahmedabad, Ext 30 is application of Deepak dated 7.12.96

addressed to A.G.M. Zonal Office, Ahmedabad. Ext. 31 is

copy of pleader's notice to A.G.M., Zonal Office, Ahmedabad

and Branch Manager, Boted dated 21.2.97. Ext. 32 is letter

of Branch Manager, Boted dated 15.4.96 on the request

application of Deepak for Permanent appointment as Sub-

staff in the Bank, sent to personnel Department, Regional

Office, Rajkot. From perusal of above documents it does

not go to prove the status of Deepak M. Desai as regular

sub-staff engaged against any vacant Post, rather go to

show status of Deepak as casual worker.

10. Ext. 33 is Central office circular of Central Bank of

India dated 20.9.1993 received in Botad Branch on

11.10.1993 on the subject of absorption of temporary

employees who have worked for 90 days or more from

1.1.1982 to 24.12.1990 as per para (3.1), temporary employees

who have worked for 90 days or more from 1.1.82 to 31.12.86

as per para (3.2) and 80 days 1.1.87 to 24.12.90. That clearly

go to show that last cut off date is 24.12.90 as to eligibility

of temporary employees to be absorved considering

employees period of work either 90 days or 60 days as per

stipulated period under cl. (3.1) and (3.2). This circular in

no way proved helpful to the 2nd party Deepak M. Desai,

because he was engaged much after cut of date 24.12.1990,

i.e. he was engaged on 2.1.1992. Likewise ext. 34 which is

minutes of joint discussions held between Management of

Central Bank of India and All India Central Bank's

Employees Congress dated 17.4.1997. This do not also

proved to be helpful to the 2nd party (Deepak).

11. At Ext. 41 (list of document) the 2nd party further

produced four documents (1) complaint made by Deepak

before A.L.C. (central) (2) reply made by Bank (present 1st

party) before A.L.C. (central) in concilliation proceeding.

These documents do not carry importance for adjudication

of the dispute in this case. These concilliation documents

do not go to prove the case of 2nd party.

12. 2nd party (Deepak) in his evidence (Ext. 32) could

not be able to improve his case that he was appointed on

vacant post of peon at Botad Branch. Rather his evidence

go to prove that he was working temporarily as casual

worker as daily roted Sub-staff and had not completed 90

days or 60 days before cut off date on 24.12.90 as per

Ext. 33. On the other hand Ext. 23 series which are vouchers

also go to show that on several occassions when his father

who was a regular peon (sub-staff) at Botad Branch

remained on leave. Deepak was engaged for that certain

period not more than a week as daily roted worker and was

paid through vouchers for that period.

13. Learned Advocate Shri Manibhai G. Gandhi for

the 2nd party has relied upon the following case lawys—

(i) 2009 (4) LLN 509 Bombay

(ii) 2010 (2) LLN 14 S.C.

(iii) 2011 (3) LLN 597 (D.B.) Gujarat H.C.

(iv) 2008 (5) LLN 167 Gujarat H.C.

(v) 2002 (3) LLN 10 SC

(vi) 2010 (4) LLN 812 Gujarat H.C.

(vii) 2009 (3) LLN 603 S.C.

(viii) 2008 (4) LLN 612 S.C.

(ix) 2004 (2) LLN 928 Bombay, and

(x) 2011 (3) LLN 682 Madras.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2353

But non of these case laws are helpful for the 2nd

party, because it could not be moved that Deepak M. Desai

completed 240 days of works in any callender year and

particularly in the callender year preceding his oral

termination on 27.7.1995 more so, Act 33 is also not helpful

to the second party.

14. As per discussion made above, I am of the

considered view that the 2nd party has not worked for

240 days in any callender year rather he worked in the year

1992, 1993 and 1995 in split up way and not continuously.

Even it is accepted that he (Deepak) worked for 307 days

as against the case of the 1st party as to 270 days of work

that do not go to make any difference. So, I find and hold

that the 2nd party worker namely Deepak M. Desai has not

completed 240 days of work in 12 months, preceeding his

alleged termination on 27.7.1995. This issue is therefor,

decided against the 2nd party.

15. Issue No. IV:—As per discussions and findings

in the foregoing of issue No. (iii), I further find and hold

that 1st party has not violated the provision of section

25 F, 25G, or 25 H of the I.D. Act 1947. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case law of Senior Suptd. Telegraph (Traffic),

Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal & others reported in 2010(iii)

CLR 17 have held that in cases of termination of workman's

services being found illegal, relief of said statement with

back wages is not to be automatically granted. Grant of

reasonable monetary compensation would Subserve

interest of justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court has

distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a

post and a permanent employee. In the instant case Deepak

(Second Party) was working as daily wager, was not holding

a post as that of permanent substaff. Since Deepak has not

even completed 240 days of work in callender year, so he is

not found entitle for any compensation. Since these was

no violation of the provision of section 25F of the I.D. Act.

The provision of either sec. 25G or 25 H are also not

applicable since 2nd party failed to establish that any junior

daily wager was retained whereas he was removed.

Accordingly issue No. (iv) is totally decided against the

2nd party. As such 2nd party is not entitled for reinstatement

nor he is entited for any compensation.

16. Issue No. V.:—In view of the findings given to

issue No. (iii) and (iv) in the foregoing paras, I, therefore

find and hold that the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Deepak

Kumar M. Desai w.e.f. 22.7.1995 is legal and justified. This

issue is answered in affirmative in favour of the 1st party.

17. Issue No. I, II & VI:—As per findings arrived at

in the foregoings to issue No. (iii), (iv) and (v), I further find

and hold that the reference is not maintanable and the 2nd

party has no valid cause of action to raise dispute.

It is, therefore.

ORDERD

This reference is dismissial on contest. No order as

to any cost.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 807

dkñvkñ 807.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ

chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 66@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&@2012@168@2003&vkbZñvkjñ ¼ch&I½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delh, the 7th March, 2013

S.O. 807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 66/2011) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of State Bank of Bikaner

& Jaipur and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07/03/2013

[No.-L-12012/168/2003-IR(B-I)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 66/2011

The Vice President,

State Bank of Bikaner &

Jaipur Karamchari Sangh,

898, Nai Sarak,

Delhi-110006

Workman..........

Versus

The General Manager

State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

Head Office, Tilak Marg,

Jaipur-302006.

Management........

AWARD

Shri Dayanand Singh serving State Bank of Bikaner

and Jaipur (in short the bank) as Cashier cum Godown

Keeper died in harness on 09.09.1997. He was survived by

his wife and three sons. In February 1998, Smt. Premlata,

2354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

widow of Shri Dayanand Singh, moved an application for

appointment of her eldest son in the service of the bank on

compassionate grounds. The bank wrote on 05.04.1998

informing that her eldest son is overage for recruitment. In

November 1998, she requested the bank that her son Shri

Amit Kumar may be offered job on compassionate grounds,

on attaining age of majority. When Amit Kumar attained

age of majority, Smt. Premlata wrote to the bank for his

appointment on compassionate grounds. Her request was

rejected by the bank projecting that her family had sufficient

means of livelihood. She approached Akhil Bhartiya Bank

Karamachari Sangh (in short the union) for redressal of her

grievance. A demand was raised by the union, which was

not conceded to. An industrial dispute was raised by the

union before the Conciliation Officer. Since the bank

contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into

failure. On consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No. 2, New Delhi, for adjudication vide order No. L-12012/

168/2003-IR(B-I), New Delhi, dated 10.08.2005, with

following terms:

‘Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of Bikaner and Jaipur in not giving compassionate

appointment after the death of late Shri Dayanand

Singh, ex-Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper to Shri Amit

Kumar, the son of the deceased employee, is just,

fair and legal? If not, what relief Shri Amit Kumar is

entitled to and from which date?’

2. Claim statement was filed by the union pleading

therein that Shri Dayanand Singh was a permanent

employee of the bank. He joined services of the bank on

05.03.1977. At the time of his death, he was serving Chandni

Chowk branch of the bank. While returning home, he met

with an accident on 09.09.1977, which proved fatal. He was

survived by his wife, Ms. Premlata, sons Satish Kumar,

Amit Kumar and Joginder Kumar respectively. Family of

the deceased did not have any income since Shri Dayanand

Singh was the only earning member to support it. Smt.

Premlata moved an application for appointment of her eldest

son, Satish Kumar, in the bank in February 1998. The bank

responded, stating that Shri Satish Kumar has crossed the

age of recruitment. In November 1998, she submitted a

request for appointment of her son Amit Kumar on attaining

age of majority. Amit Kumar was born on 01.05.1982 and

below age of recruitment at that time. At the instance of the

Chief Manager, she submitted a prescribed application for

appointment of Shri Amit Kumar on compassionate

grounds. Her request was rejected by the bank projecting

that the family had sufficient means of livelihood. She

submitted a representation for re-consideration, but no

reply was received.

3. The union projects that vide letter dated 13.08.2001,

demand for appointment of Shri Anil Kumar on

compassionate grounds was made. The bank opted not to

offer any reply. Consequently, a dispute was raised before

the Conciliation Officer. The union claims that originally

family pension of Rs. 2164.00 was sanctioned, which was

reduced to Rs. 1082.00 with effect from 09.09.2004. At the

time of his death, Shri Dayanand Singh was getting

Rs. 9057.00 per month as his wages. A sum of Rs. 98,839.00

was paid as gratuity, besides a sum of Rs. 52528.68 paid to

Smt. Premlata towards provident fund. Money, so paid,

has been spent in meeting liabilities left by late Shri

Dayanand Singh.

4. The union unfolds that in past, the bank had

granted compassionate appointment to heirs of deceased

Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor, Shri Arun Kumar Takian, Shri

Gurbax Singh and Shri C.P. Chhawar. Scheme for

appointment of dependents of deceased employees on

compassionate grounds (in short the scheme) was notified

by the bank in April 79, which was modified in March 1987

and further modified in March 1997. Request for

appointment of Shri Amit Kumar on compassionate grounds

was justified. Rejection of request by the bank was unfair

and illegal. While denying compassionate appointment,

the bank did not mention standards of adjudging "sufficient

means" of the family. The union declares that none from

the family of Shri Dayanand Singh was employed. On the

other hand, discriminatory steps were taken by the bank

when appointment of Shri Amit Kumar was rejected. It has

been claimed that the bank may be ordered to provide

appointment to Shri Anil Kumar on compassionate grounds.

5. Claim was demurred by the bank pleading that

dispute raised by the union is not covered by section 2 (K)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). The

union presents that neither dispute regarding terms of

employment nor conditions of labour has been raised. In

any of Award or Bipartite Settlements service conditions,

laying down right to appointment on compassionate ground,

have not been provided. Since dispute raised is not an

industrial dispute, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

entertain it. The bank agitates that the scheme for

compassionate appointment is not an ordinary mode of

recruitment. Compassionate appointment is provided to tide

over immediate family crisis and for that purpose, the bank

had to see financial conditions of the family of the deceased.

6. Admitting factum of Shri Dayanand Singh dying

in harness, the bank details that an amount of Rs. 98,839.00

was paid as gratuity, besides a sum of Rs. 52528.68 paid

towards provident fund to the family of the deceased. A

sum of Rs. 20,000.00 was also paid out of Bank's Welfare

Fund. Total amount paid to the family of the deceased was

Rs. 243820.00 Family pension of Rs. 3428.00 per month was

paid to the widow. Besides that, the family was having

their own residential accommodation on a plot of 200 Sq.yds

at premises No. 311/28, West Ram Nagar, Sonepat. The

bank claims that the eldest son of the deceased was

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2355

gainfully employed at the time of death of his father.

Considering financial conditions of the family, it was not

justifiable to offer compassionate appointment to Shri Amit

Kumar. Factum of moving an application for compassionate

appointment in February 1998 and November 1998 are not

disputed. After lapse of seven years, family pension was

halved under the rules. Since the family was not in penury,

compassionate apointment was not granted to Shri Amit

Kumar.

7. The bank projects that family of Shri Ushan Kumar

was getting family pension of Rs. 1856 per month from

Defence. Pension from the bank was not opted by the

widow of Shri Ushan Kumar. Family of Shri Ushan Kumar

received an amount of Rs. 147206.00 towards retiral

benefits. When this amount is invested at 11.25% per

annum, it would yield a sum of Rs. 1173.00 per month.

Thus, total income of the family of Shri Ushan Kumar

would come to Rs. 3029.00 (Rs. 1856.00 + Rs. 1173.00),

which was less than 50% of his last drawn salary. In the

case of Arun Takiyar, total income of his family was

Rs. 3220.00, which was less than 50% of his last drawn

gross salary. Family of Shri Gurbax Singh received retiral

benefit of Rs. 165768.00. Total monthly income of that

family was Rs. 1320.00, which was also less than 50% of

salary of late Shri Gurbax Singh. Case of Shri Chhawar

relates to January 1996. Circular No. PER/115/96-97 was

issued by the bank on 11.03.1997 in pursuance of judgment

of the Apex Court. Facts of Shri Chhawar were based on

distinct and different proposition. The bank asserts that

families of Shri Ushan Kumar and Shri Gurbax Singh were

not on same pedestal on which family of deceased

Dayanand Singh stood. There was no parity in their case.

Claim projected by the union is not maintainable. It may

be dismissed, being devoid of merits, pleads the bank.

8. In rejoinder, facts pleaded in the claim statement

are reiterated.

9. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR (C-II), New Delhi,

dated 31.03.2011, the case was transferred to this Tribunal

for adjudication by the appropriate Government.

10. Shri Amit Kumar and Shri B.K. Aggarwal entered

the witness box to testify facts in support of the claimant.

Shri Hemant Kumar Vijayvargia detailed facts on behalf of

the bank. No other witness was examined by either of the

parties.

11. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri V.K.

Aggarwal, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the union. Shri Rajat Arora, 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 issues involved in the controversy are as

follows.

12. At the outset, it was argued on behalf of the bank

that the dispute is not an industrial dispute. Shri Arora

presents that the dispute referred for adjudication is neither

a dispute relating to terms of employment nor conditions

of labour. He contends that neither in Awards nor in Bipartite

Settlements, no service conditions are laid down to the

effect that compassionate appointment is to be given to

dependents of deceased employees of the bank. He claims

that the dispute, under reference, does not answer

ingredients of definition of the term "industrial dispute" as

enacted by section 2(K) of the Act. Submissions made by

Shri Arora are dispelled by Shri Aggarwal. For an answer to

the propositon raised by the bank, it is expedient to ascertain

whether the dispute falls within the pale of the definition of

the term industrial dispute. For sake of convenience,

definition of industrial dispute, enacted in the aforesaid

section, is extracted thus:

"industrial dispute menas any dispute or difference

between employers and employers or between

employers and workmen, or between workmen and

workmen, which is connected with the employment

or non-employment or the terms of employment or

with the conditions of labour, of any person".

13. The difinition of "indistrial dispute" referred

above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of

dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz. (a) employers and

employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen and

workmen, (3) subject matter of the dispute, which should

be connected with-(i) employment or non employment, or

(ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition of labour of any

person, and (4) it should relate to an "industry".

14. The difinition of "industrial dispute" is worded

in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word "workman" it would seems to

include all "employers", all "employments" and all

"workmen", whatever the nature or scope of the

employment may be. Therefore, except in the case where

there can be a dispute between the employers and

employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties

to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of

employees. The first point, therefore, to be noted, perhaps

self evident, is that the phrase "employer and workmen",

the plural may include singular on either side or any

permutation of singular or plural, the masculine including

the feminine. In order, therefore, to determine as to whether

a controversy or difference or a dispute is an "an industrial

dispute” or not, it must first be determined whether the

workman concerned or workmen sponsoring his cause

satisfy the conditions of clause (s) of section 2 of the

Act.

15. The object of the Act is to protect workman

against victimization by the employer and ensure

termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The

Act, however, does not provide for any set of social and

2356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests.

Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial

adjudication, keeping in view the social and economic

conditions, the needs of the workmen, the requirement of

the industry, social justice, relative interests of the parties

and common good. These norms have given rights to the

industrial employees what may be called industrial rights,

as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes

as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by

resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining.

This tool is resorted to between an employer or group of

employers and a bonafide labour union. Policy behind this

is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour

practices. What imparts to the dispute of a workman the

character of an "industrial dispute" is that is affects the

right of the workman as a class.

16. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of

"industrial dispute" in Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1958 (1) LLJ

500) and ruled that the expression "any person" in clause (k)

of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such limitation

and qualification as arise from the context, the two crucial

limitations are (i) the dispute must be a real dispute between

the parties to the dispute (as indicated in the first two parts

of the definition clause) so as to be capable of settlement or

adjudication by one party to the dispute giving necessary

relief to other, and (2) the person regarding whom the dispute

is raised must be one for whose employment, non

employment terms of employment or conditions of labour,

as case may be, the parties dispute for a direct or substantial

interest. Where workman raised a dispute as against their

employment, the person regarding whose employment, non

employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour,

the dispute is raised need not be strictly speaking "workman"

within the meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose

employment, non employment, terms of employment, or

conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct or

substantial interest. The observations made by the Apex

Court are to be extracted thus:

"We also agree with the expression "any person" is

not co extensive with any workman, particular or

otherwise, equal with other, that the crucial test is

one of community of interest and the person

regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in

whose employment, non employment, terms of

employment, conditions of labour (as the case may

be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or

substantial interest. Whether such direct or

substantial interest has been established in a

particular case will depend on its facts and

circumstances."

17. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (1958)

(2) LLJ 660) Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute

need not be a dispute between the employer and his

workmen and that the definition of the expression

"industrial dispute" is wide enough to cater a dispute

raised by the employer's workmen with regard to non

employment of others, who may not be employed as

workmen at the relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay

Union of Journalist (1961 (II) LLJ 436) has observed that

in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute

has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the

test is whether at the date of reference, the dispute was

taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the

employer against whom, the dispute is raised by an

individual workman or by an appreciable number of

workmen. In order, therefore, to convert an individual

dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established

that it has been taken up by the union of employees of

the establishment or by an appreciable number of the

employees of the establishment. As far as union of the

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty,

since such workmen who are members of such unions

generally have a continuity of interest with an individual

employee who is one of their fellow workman. But difficulty

arise when the cause of a workman, in a particular

establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of

the workmen of that establishment but is one of which

membership is open to workmen of their establishment as

well as in that industry. In such a case a union which has

only microscopic number of the workmen as its member,

cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen

and the management. A representative character of the

union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual

number of co workers sponsoring the dispute. The mere

fact that a substantial number of workmen of the

establishment in which the concerned workman was an

employee were also members of the union would not

constitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were

connected together and arrived at an understanding by a

resolution or by other means and collectively submitted

the dispute.

18. The expression "industrial disputes" has been

construed by the Apex Court to include individual disputes,

because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu Nath Gopal

Patvardhan (1957(1)LLJ27) the Apex Court ruled as to what

dispute can be called as an industrial dispute. It was laid

therein that (1) a dispute between the employer and a single

workman cannot be an industrial dispute, (2) it cannot be

per-se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is taken

up by a trade union or a number of workmen. In Dharampal

Prem Chand (1965 (1) LLJ 668) it was commanded by the

Apex Court that a dispute raised by a single workman cannot

become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either

by his union or in the absence of a union by substantial

number of workmen. Same law was laid in the case of Indian

Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Limited (1970 (I) LLJ 132).

However in Western India Match Company (1970 (II) LLJ

256), the Apex Court referred the precedent in Dimakuchi

Tea Estate's case (supra) and ruled that a dispute relating

to "any person becomes a dispute where the person in

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2357

respect of whom it is raised in one in whose employment,

non employment, terms of employment or conditions of

labour, the parties, dispute for a direct or substantial

interest".

19. What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular

facts of the case. The fact that an "industrial dispute", is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the Union of which

workman may be member of the workmen themselves who

support the dispute or in any other manner. From the

mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

"industrial dispute" concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the

workmen of the establishment as its members, it cannot

be inferred that the individual dispute has been converted

into an "industrial dispute". The Tribunal has therefore,

to consider the question as to how many of the fellow

workman actually espoused the cause of the concerned

workman by participating in the particular resolution of

the union. In the absence of a such a determination by

the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the individual dispute

acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the

Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute. Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an

industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should

always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable

number of workmen. What is necessary is that there

should be some express or collective will of a substantial

or an appreciable member of the workmen treating the

cause of the individual workman as their own cause. Law

to this effect was laid in P. Somasundrameran (1970 (1)

LLJ 558).

20. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is

a registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once

it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman's cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works (1970 (1) LLJ

507) complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the Consiliation Officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not "industrial

dispute".

21. It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

"industrial dispute", while the workman may be

represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section

36 of the Act by a member of executive or office bearer of

altogether another union. The crux of the matter is that

the dispute should be a dispute between the employer

and his workmen. It is not necessary that the dispute

must be espoused or conducted only by a registered trade

union. Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade

union during the continuance of the adjudication

proceedings that would not affect the maintainability of

the order of reference. Law to this effect was laid by the

High Court of Orissa in Gammon India Limited (1974 (II)

LLJ 34). For ascertaining as to whether an individual

dispute has acquired character of an individual dispute,

the test is whether on the date of the reference the dispute

was taken up as supported by the union of the workmen

of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by the

individual workman or by an appreciable number of the

workman. In other words, the validity of the reference of

industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they

stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on

the date when the cause occurs. Reference can be made

to a precedent in Western India Match Co.Ltd. (1970 (II)

LLJ 256).

22. A Long line of dicisions, handed down by the

Apex Court, had established that an individual dispute

could not per se be an industrial dispute, but could become

one if it was taken up by a trade union or a considerable

number of workmen of the establishment. This position of

law created hardship for individual workmen, who were

discharged, dismissed, retrenched or whose services were

otherwise terminated when they could not find support by

a union or any appreciable number of workman to espouse

their cause. Section 2A was engrafted in the Act by the

Amendment Act of 1965 and it has to be read as an

extension of the definition of industrial dispute contained

in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act. Thus by way of

extension of definition of industrial dispute, by insertion

of section 2A of the Act, the dispute of an individual

workman connected with or arising out of his discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his

service by his employer has been brought within the ambit

of the Act.

23. As conceded by the bank in its written

statement, there is a scheme for compassionate

appointment for dependents of deceased employees.

Claim of dependents of the deceased employee for

compassionate appointment in the service of the bank

is to be judged in accordance with contents of the

scheme. No discretion is available with the bank to

dispose of such an application on whims and fancies.

Even otherwise, a dispute relating to nonemployment of

a dependent of a deceased employee would answer the

2358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

ambit of the definition of the term "industrial dispute, if

it has been espoused by a union or considerable number

of the workmen in the establishment of the management.

The bank does not dispute has been espoused by the

union. In view of all these facts, it does not lie in the

mount of the bank to claim that the dispute referred for

adjudication no where answers parameters of industrial

dispute, defined by seciton 2 (K) of the Act. Therefore,

objection raised by the bank is brushed aside.

24. Next count of attack has been made by the bank

claiming that the dispute was not espoused by the union.

However, on that proposition, Shri B.K. Aggarwal unfolds

that the union raised a demand before the bank for

appointment of Amit Kumar on compassionate grounds

vide its letter dated 13.08.2001, copy of which has been

proved as Ex.WW1/7. The bank made no response to

Ex.WW1/7, hence union raised the industrial dispute before

the Conciliation Officer. Shri Aggarwal could highlight that

collective will was shown by the union, when a demand for

appointment of Amit Kumar was made before the bank.

Express will of appreciable number of workmen in the

establishment of the bank was therein favour of

appointment of Shri Amit Kumar on compassionate

grounds. The bank could not dispel these fact. Thus it is

apparent that the union espoused the issue relating to

employment of Shri Amit Kumar on compassionate

grounds. The attack made by the bank is found to be futile,

on this aspect too.

25. Facts pleaded and testified by an on behalf of

the parties unfold that first of all Smt. Premlata made an

application for appointment of her eldest son, namely,

Shri Satish Kumar. The bank informed her that Shri Satish

Kumar was ineligible for appointment. On 10.11.1998, she

submitted an application for appointment of her son Amit

Kumar on compassionate grounds. The application was

declined by the bank, since the bank was of the view that

the family was having sufficient means of livelihood. It is

an admitted fact that the bank was having a scheme for

compassionate appointment, which has been proved as

Ex.WW1/9. When contents of Ex.WW1/9 and its

annexure are scanned, it emerged over the record that the

scheme contains eligibility criteria, mode of appointment,

qualification etc. for dependents of deceased employee

for their appointment on compassionate grounds in

service of the bank. It would be in the fitness of things to

ascertain as to what that scheme is and to whom it is

applicable.

26. Scheme of compassionate appointment, proved

as Ex.WW1/9, applies to dependent family members of

deceased employee. Dependent means a widow, a son,

including adopted son, a daughter and husband of a female

employee who is fully dependant on his wife and is

incapable of maintaining himself either for the reason of

accident or sickness or otherwise and brother or sister in

the case of an unmarried employee who dies in harness or

any other relative nominated by the widow or the widower

on whom he/she will be wholly dependent. Only such

brothers or sisters who are dependent on an unmarried

employee who die in harness will be eligible for being

considered for appointment.

27. The bank may at its discretion appoint in its

service the widow or a son or daughter of a deceased

employee of the bank or a near relative nominated by the

widow and on whom she will be wholly dependant and

who would give in writing that he or she would look after

the family of the deceased employee, if the widow or a

son or daughter of a deceased employee of the bank or a

near relative as the case may be, fulfils the criteria for

appointment under scheme. Such nominations of a near

relative by the widow shall be permitted only when the

deceased employee has left behind no children of his

own eligible for appointment. Appointment under the

scheme shall be made in the subordinate or clerical cadre

depending upon the qualification and other

circumstances of the person seeking compassionate

appointment.

28. Request for appointment under the scheme should

be received by the bank within one year from the date of

death of the employee. In case the dependant is a minor or

does not possess suitable minimum qualification his/her

case can be considered within four years of the death of

the employee, to enable him/her to so qualify as in terms of

age and/or qualification, provided that the dependant has

made a request to the bank within a year of the death of the

employee.

29. In case a widow, son or daughter is already in

employment, whether in the bank or elsewhere, the bank

may at its discretion consider giving employment to another

son or daughter after taking into account the individual

circumstances of each case, i.e. income of the member of

the family already employed, the size of the family, the

assets and liabilities of the family and other relevant

considerations.

30.The Apex Court in G. Anantha Rajeshwara Rao

(1994(1) SCC 192) had considered the scheme of

compassionate appointments formulated by the

Government of India and ruled that appointment on

grounds of descent clearly violates Article 16(2) of the

Constitution, but if the appointment is confined to the

son or daughter or widow of the Government servant

who die in harness, who need immediate appointment

on the gorund of immediate need of assistance in the

event of there being no other earning member in the

family to supplement the loss of economies from the

bread winner to relieve distress of the members of the

family, it is unexceptionable. Again in Umesh Kumar

Nagpal (JT 1994 (3) SC 5325) the Apex Court considered

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2359

the scheme and laid down following principles in that

regards:

(1) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness,

leaving his family in penury and without any

source of livelihood can be appointed on

compassionate grounds.

(2) The posts in group "C" and "D" are the lowest

posts in non-managerial and managerial

categories and hence those posts alone can be

offered on compassionate grounds.

(3) The whole object of granting compassionate

appointments is to enable the family to tide over

the crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased

from destitution and to help it get over the

emergency.

(4) Offering compassionate appointments as a

matter of course, irrespetive of financial

condition of the family of the deceased or

medically retired government servant, is legally

impermissible.

(5) Neither the qualification of the applicant

(dependent family member) nor the post held by

the deceased or medically retired government

servant is relevant. If the applicant finds it below

his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free

not to accept it. The post is not to be offered to

cater his status but to see family through the

economic calamity.

(6) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted

after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a

vested right which can be exercised at any time in

the future, and

(7) Compassionate appointment cannot be offered

by an individual functionary or an ad hoc basis.

31. In Asha Ram Chander Ambedker and others [JT

1994 (2) SC 183] the Apex Court ruled that the High Courts

and Administrative Tribunals cannot give directions for

appointment of a person on compassionate ground but

can merely direct consideration of the claim for such

appointment. In Dinesh Kumar (JT 1996 (5) SC 319) and

Smt. A. Radhika Therumalai (JT 1996 (9) SC 197) it was

announced that appointment on compassionate ground

can be made only, if a vacancy is available for that purpose.

In Rami Devi and others (JT 1996 (6) SC 646) it was ruled

that if the scheme relating to appointment on compassionate

ground is made applicable to all sort of casual, ad hoc

employees, including those who are working as apprentice,

then the scheme cannot be justified on constitutional

grounds.

32. Now, factual matrix of the controversy is to be

addressed. As admitted by the parties, Shri Dayanand Singh

expired on 09.09.1997, leaving behind his widow, Ms.

Premlata and Son, namely, Satish Kumar, Shri Amit Kumar

and Shri Joginder Kumar. In February 1998, Ms. Premlata

moved an application for appointment of Shri Satish Kumar

on compassionate grounds, which application could not

be considered as he was above the maximum age,

prescribed for appointment in service of the bank. Since,

Shri Amit Kumar was under age at that time, Smt. Premlata

moved an application on 10.11.1998 seeking his

appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, these

facts bring it over the record that initially Smt. Premlata

moved an application for appointment of her eldest son on

compassionate grounds. When he was found ineligible for

appointment, she moved an application in November 98

for appointment of Shri Amit Kumar in the service of the

bank.

33. Application for appointment on compassionate

grounds is to be made within a period of one year from

the date of death of an employee. Since, Smt. Premlata

has moved the application for appointment of Shri Satish

Kumar in February 98, it is evident that the application

was moved before the bank within the prescribed time

limit of one year. Subsequent application was moved by

her for appointment of Shri Amit Kumar in services of the

bank on compassionate grounds in November 98. Though

her husband expired in September 97, her application

would be considered within time since her earlier

application was disposed of by the bank, projecting that

Shri Satish Kumar was over-age. In the scheme, provision

was there to relax upper age limit upto a maximum period

of five years. Instead of relaxing upper age limit in favour

of Shri Satish Kumar, the bank declined that application

and made Smt. Premlata to move subsequent application

seeking appointment in favour of Shri Amit Kumar, her

second son. Therefore it is emerging over the record that

the application for compassionate appointment of Shri

Amit Kumar was moved by Smt. Premlata within the

prescribed time limit.

34. In Ex. WW1/6, Smt. Premlata mentions that at the

time of death of her husband, there was 14 years service

left which the deceased had to render with the bank. From

these facts, it is evident that at the time of death, Shri

Dayanand Singh was aged about 46 years. Under the

scheme Ex.WW1/9, eligibility criteria for extending benefit

on compassionate grounds have been detailed. It emerged

over the record that Shri Dayanand Singh died at a very

young age and his widow moved aplication for

compassionate appointment of Shri Amit Kumar. Eligibility

of Shri Amit Kumar for appointment on compassionate

grounds was never disputed by the bank. As pointed by

Shri Hemant Kumar Vijayvargia, application for appointment

on compassionate grounds was rejected since the bank

was of the opinion that the family had sufficient means to

sustain. These factors make it apparent that except for

financial position of the family of the deceased

2360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

Shri Dayanand Singh, the bank found application for

appointment of Shri Amit Kumar on compassionate grounds

in order.

35. Scheme was floated by the bank and Circular No.

PER/115/96-97 was issued on 11.03.1997, which has been

proved as Ex.WW1/10. Ex.WW1/10 lays down criteria for

determination of financial conditions of the family of a

deceased employee. It has been detailed therein that

compassionate appointment is to be made in favour of

dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving

his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.

Financial conditions of the family, therefore, is an important

consideration. Criteria for determination of financial

conditions and eligibility for appointment on compassionate

grounds is to be decided taking following factors into

consideration:

(a) Family pension

(b) Gratuity amount received

Fund

(d) Any compensation paid by the bank or its welfare

fund

(e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of

the deceased employee

(f) Income of family from other sources

(g) Income of other family members from employment

or otherwise,

(h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any

36. Shri Hemant Kumar Vijayvarghia details in his

affidavit Ex.MW1/A that family pension of Rs. 3428.00

per month was granted in favour of Ms. Premlata.

Besides family pension, she had received a sum of Rs.

98,839.00 as gratuity, 53522.00 as provident fund, Rs.

72459.00 as leave encashment and a sum of Rs. 20000.00

from welfare fund. He unfolds that total amount received

by the family of Shri Dayanand Singh was 243820.00

This amount was reduced to Rs. 216199.00 after

deducting liability of Rs. 27621.00 from Rs. 243820.00.

After allowing 15% of that amount towards

contingencies, amount of Rs. 183771.00 if invested at

11.25% per annum, would yield an income of Rs. 1723.00

per month. Thus total amount available to the family

was about 5151.00 (i.e. Rs. 3428+Rs. 1723), which was

more than 50% of gross salary last drawn by the

deceased. These factors made the bank to form an

opinion that the family had sufficient means to sustain.

37. To establish facts to the effect that family of

deceased Shri Dayanand Singh was having no sufficient

means to sustain, Shri Amit Kumar unfolds in his affidavit

Ex.WW1/A that gross salary of his father was 9057.41 at

the time of his death. He used to receive Rs. 6534.00 as his

net salary in 1997. These facts were not dispelled by the

bank when Shri Amit Kumar was cross examined. However,

facts projected by Shri Vijayvargia, relating to amount

disbursed to the family of the deceased, were also not

doubted. Therefore, it is to be ascertained as to what

notional income family of the deceased Shri Dayanand

Singh could earn on deposits. In 1998, bank interest for

yearly deposits was 11.25% for the employees or their

dependents, in case of death in harness. Multiplying the

amount of Rs. 183771 with rate of interest referred above,

notional income would come to Rs. 1723.00 in the year

1998. Family was getting a pension of Rs. 3428.00. Thus

income of the family of the deceased comes to Rs. 5151.00

per month. As detailed above, family of the deceased

Shri Dayanand Singh was having income of Rs. 5151.00

per month. It was above 50% of gross salary last drawn by

the deceased. Thus, it is evident that the family was having

sufficient means to maintain itself. Decision taken by the

bank in not offering compassionate appointment to

Shri Amit Kumar, son of deceased Dayanand Singh cannot

be faulted.

38. Amit Kumar questions action of the bank on the

count of treating him in a discriminate manner. He projects

in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A that the bank had offered

appointment on compassionate grounds to Smt. Sangeeta

Takiar, Smt. Manjeet Kaur, Shri Kamal Chhawar and

Shri P.K. Kapoor, wives of Shri Ashok Kumar Takiar, Shri

Gurbax Singh and sons of Shri C.P. Chhabra and Shri

Ushan Kumar Kapoor. He presents that at the time of his

death, Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor was working as Armed

Guard, whose gross salary was Rs. 6878.00 per month. He

was drawing net salary of Rs. 6532.00 on 26.03.1999, the

date of his death. The widow was getting a family pension

of Rs. 1856.00 from Defence. A sum of Rs. 147206 was

received by the family of the deceased at the time of his

death. If the amount received by the family of Shri Kapoor

is invested @ 11.25% it would yield Rs. 1173.00 per month

as income. She was drawing a family pension of Rs. 3060.00

from the bank. Thus total income of the family of Shri

Ushan Kumar comes to 6089.00 (Rs. 1856+3060+1173).

According to Shri Amit Kumar, gross income of the family

of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor would come to 88.53% of

gross salary received by Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor at the

time of his death.

39. Facts unfolded by Shri Amit Kumar, relating to

income of family of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor, are in

contrast to facts deposed by Shri Vijayvargia. He

presents that family of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor was

getting a family pension of Rs. 1856.00 per month from

defence. A sum of Rs. 147206.00 was received by the

family of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor after his death. After

leaving 5% of the said amount for contingencies, a sum

of Rs. 125126 (Rs. 147706.00 minus 22080.00) if invested

@ 11.25% would yield an income of Rs. 1173.00 per

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2361

month. Thus total notional income available to the family

of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor would be Rs. 3029.00

(Rs. 1173.00+Rs. 1856.00), which was less than 50% of

his last drawn salary. During course of cross

examination, he presents that Smt. Soma Rani, widow of

Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor, was getting pension of Rs.

3185.29 from the bank, which family pension was

stopped. When Ex.MW1/1 was perused, it came to light

that besides gratuity and provident fund amount, a sum of

Rs. 31919.16 was also received by family of Ushan Kumar

Kapoor towards leave encashment. On appreciation of these

facts, unfolded by Shri Vijayvargia, it came to light that total

amount received by the family of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor

from the bank comes to Rs. 147206.16. (Rs. 54539.00+

60748.00+31919.16). If 15% of the amount is spread for

contingency, a sum of Rs. 125125.10 comes in hands of the

family, which is available for investment.

40. Family pension sanctioned in favour of

Ms. Soma Rani was subsequently withdrawn. The bank

projects that as per regulation No. 24 of State Bank of

Bikaner and Jaipur Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995

(in short the Regulation), an employee who has rendeded

military service before his appointment in the bank shall

continue to draw military pension, if any, and military

service rendered him shall not count for his qualifying

service. Circular No. Per/23/2000-2001 was issued by the

bank on 30.05.2000 specifying therein that family of a

pensioner can either draw family pension under the

Regulation or under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,

1972 (in short the Rules). The bank places reliance on

provisions of sub-rule 13(b) of rule 54 of Rules and argues

that since one family pension could be availed by

Smt. Soma Devi, family pension granted in her favour by

the bank was withdrawn.

41. Sub-rule 13(b) of rule 54 of the Rules constrains a

person not to get family pension from two sources. For

sake of convenience, those provisions are extracted thus:

"13.(b) Family pension admissible under this rule shall

not be granted to a person who is already in receipt

of Family Pension or is eligible therefore under any

other rules of the Central Government or a State

Government and/or Public Sector Undertaking/

Autonomous Body/Local Fund under the Central or

a State Government :

Provided that a person who is otherwise eligible for

family pension under this Rule may opt to receive

family pension under this rule if he forgoes family

pension admissible from any other source."

42. When family pension from defence was being

received by Ms. Soma Rani, bank could not grant her

family pension for services rendered by Shri Ushan

Kumar Kapoor. Therefore, her family pension was

withdrawn. When family pension, sanctioned in favour

of Ms. Soma Rani was withdrawn, total notional income

of the family comes to Rs. 3029.00, which is less than

50% of gross salary last drawn by Shri Ushan Kumar

Kapoor. Therefore, it is emerging that financial condition

of family of deceased Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor was

not at par with financial condition of family of Shri

Dayanand Singh.

43. Question would be whether Shri Amit Kumar

was discriminated from Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor S/o

deceased Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor, who was given

compassionate appointment in the bank. For an answer,

it would be expedient to note legal provisions in that

regard. Equality before law and equal protection of laws

are fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article

14 of the Constitution. The guiding principles laid in

Article 14 are that persons, who are smiliarly situated,

shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and

liability imposed, which means that amongst equals the

law should be equal and should be equally administered

and that like should be treated alike. Article 16 of the

Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities for

all citizens in matters relating to employment or

appointment to any office under the State. What is

guaranteed is the equality of opportunity. Like all other

employers, government is also entitled to pick and

choose from amongst a large number of candidates

offering themselves for employment. But the selection

process must not be arbitrary. The guarantee given by

clause (a) of Article 16 of the Constitution will cover (a)

initial appointments (b) promotions (c) termination of

employment (d) and matters relating to salary, periodical

increments, leaves, gratuity, pension, age of

superannuation etc. Matters relating to employment or

appointments include all mattes in relations to

employment both prior and subsequent to the

employment which are incidental to the employment and

form part of the terms and conditions of such

employment.

44. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14

forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification

or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of

discretion. Classification is the recognition of the relations,

and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide

latitude of discretion and judgment. In a way, the

consequences of such classification would undoubtedly

be to differentiate person belonging to that class from

others. The classification must be founded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are

grouped together from others left out of the group and the

differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought

to be achieved. Classification may be made according to

the nature of persons, nature of business, and may be

based with reference to time.

45. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 of

the Constitution is something more than formal equality

2362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share

by having more than equal chance and enables the State to

give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real

equality with reference to social needs. 'Protection

discrimination' enabled the State to adopt new strategy to

bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society, by

providing all possible opportunities and incentives to them.

Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential

treatment in the matter relating to employment or

appointment. There cannot be rule of equality between

members of separate and independent group of persons.

Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in

terms of nature of persons, nature of business and with

reference to time.

46. As projected above, family of deceased

Shri Dayanand Singh was having income of Rs. 5251.00

per month. Besides that income, his family was having a

house on plot of 200 sq.yds. Thus, it is evident that his

family was not constrained to spend money on

accommodation. On the other hand family of Shri Ushan

Kumar Kapoor was not having their own house. In

comparison to the family of Shri Dayanand Singh, family

of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor was not having sufficient

means. Consequently, it is emerging over the record that

family of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor was not similarly

placed as family of Shri Dayanand Singh was placed.

When these two families were not placed at par, since

there was disparity in their financial status, it cannot be

said that the two families were to be treated equally. No

right accrued in favour of Shri Amit Kumar to claim himself

on same pedestal on which Shri Pradeep Kumar Kapoor,

son of Shri Ushan Kumar Kapoor, was placed. Therefore,

no case of discrimination has been projected.

47. In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, Shri Amit Kumar

details that Smt. Sangeeta Takiar, Ms. Manjeet Kuar and

Kamal Chhawar were also given compassionate

appointments. However, he does not detail facts relating

to their income. During course of his testimony, Shri Amit

Kumar opted not to give details of financial status of

families of the deceased, Shri Arun Kumar Takiar,

Shri Gurbax Singh and Shri C.P. Chhawar. Under these

circumstances, it is evident that claim made by Shri Amit

Kumar to seek parity with the families of Shri Arun Kumar

Takiar, Shri Gurbax Singh and Shri C.P. Chhawar is

unfounded. To rebut facts in that regard, the bank projects

that income of families of Shri Arun Kumar Takiar,

Shri Gurbax Singh and Shri C.P. Chhawar were less than

50% of last drawn salaries of the deceased bread winners.

Since no congent evidence has been projected by the

claimant relating to financial status of the famlies of Shri

Arun Kumar Takiar, Shri Gurbax Singh and Shri C.P.

Chhawar, I find it difficult to project that the case of Amit

Kumar was at par with the case of Ms. Sangeeta Takiar,

Ms. Manjit Kaur and Kamal Chhawar.

48.There is other facet of the coin. Circular No. PER/

79/2005-06 was issued by the bank on 20.01.2006. Policy

decision was taken by the bank to grant ex-gratia lumpsum

to families of its deceased employees. An opinion was

formed that on account of introduction of modern state of

art technology and online banking, new technology based

on projects and services, incumbents at various levels will

have to acquire highly qualified skills, which would be a

pre-requisite in the job. Since compassionate appointees

do not have such qualifications, which fact results in

supernumerary manpower. The bank decided that

compassionate appointment will not be done under any

circumstances. On the other hand, ex-gratia lumpsum amount

would be paid, in pursuance of circular referred above.

49. Question for consideration would be as to

whether this policy decision made by the bank should

be looked down upon by the Trinunal. Such proposition

was raised before the Apex Court in Transfer Case (Civil)

No. 79/2005, wherein judgment was handed down on

28.02.2008. In that case, Apex Court had considered the

economic viability of the tiny deposit scheme

discontinued by the State Bank of India. The bank had

taken policy decision not to continue with the scheme.

On these facts, the Apex Court had opined that an

authority introducing a scheme as policy decision, the

said authority can discontinue or abandon the scheme

in accordance with the other policy decision. For the

sake of convenience, observations made by the Apex

Court are extracted thus:

"A perusal of the Circular as referred above would

clearly show that the Scheme is not economically

viable. The Scheme has also contributed a number

of frauds. In our view, having regard to the facts

mentioned in the order we do not see any arbitrary

exercise of power by the authority concerned in

discontinuing with the Scheme, as contended by

the learned counsel of the pettioners. Similarly,

when the concerned authority introduced the

Scheme as a policy decision the same authority can

discontinue or abandon the Scheme in accordance

with a policy decision of the concerned authority.

It is now well settled principle of law that the Court

does not interfere with the policy decision of the

authority concerned unless such decision is tainted

with malafide or arbitrary. As already pointed out,

on reading of policy decision in a Circular dated

4.6.2001, we do not see any arbitrariness or taint of

malafied."

50. As pointed out above, the bank, by way of its

policy decision, started a scheme to grant

compassionate appointment to families of its employees

who die in harness. When viability of that scheme came

in question, the bank decided not to grant

compassionate appointment. On the other hand, the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2363

bank started scheme of granting ex-gratia lump sum

amount. The scheme is also based on policy decision.

Relying reasoning given by the Apex Court in the

aforesaid precedent, I am of the view that this Tribunal

cannot find fault with the scheme of ex-gratia lump

sum amount started by the bank, since no allegation of

arbitrariness or taint of mala fide is made. This scheme

stops appointment on compassionate grounds.

Therefore, in the light of these facts, case of Amit Kumar

cannot be considered for appointment on

compassionate grounds.

51. However, family of deceased Shri Dayanand

Singh was having an income of Rs. 5151.00 at the time of

his death. This amount is slightly less than 57% of his

Gross/net salary, which he was drawing at that time.

Considering the fact that during pendancy of the present

adjudication, the scheme for grant of ex-gratia lump sum

had come into force, I am of the view that this case is also

to be considered in the light of parameters of the said

scheme. The scheme applies to employees who die in

harness. For ex-gratia lump sum, financial condition of

the family is to be taken into account. For the purpose,

income of the family from the following sources are to be

considered:

(i) Pension, including family pension, if any.

(ii) Terminal benefits like gratuity, encashment of

leave, employees and employers contribution to

provident fund etc.

(iii) Compensation/amount paid by the bank or bank's

mutual fund.

(iv) Proceeds of LIC/any other company's life or other

(with accident) insurance policies.

(v) Investments/deposits in State Bank of Bikaner

and Jaipur or other organizations like public sector

banks/other banks/post offices/mutual funds etc.

and income therefrom.

(vi) Income of dependents from rent, employment,

profession or vocation or any other source.

(vii) Movable assets and immovable property

(including agricultural land, groves etc.) and

income therefrom.

(viii) Loans taken from the bank, other dues payable to

the bank and/or other financial institutions with

the prior approval of the bank.

(ix) Any other income of the family.

52. In case total income of the family happens to be

less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary of the

deceased employee, the family has eligibility for grant of

ex-gratia lump sum amount. As pointed out above, income

of family of deceased Shri Dayanand Singh was less than

60% of his last drawn gross salary. Therefore, family is

entitled for grant of ex-gratia lump sum amount. In case

of employee in the category of Shri Dayanand Singh, this

amount cannot be more than Rs. 7 lakh. Therefore, it is

announced that family of deceased Dayanand Singh is

entitled for ex-gratia amount of Rs. 7 lakh. An award is

passed in favour of the family of deceased Dayanand

Singh and against the bank. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 808

dkñvkñ 808.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,pñ ,lñ

,pñ ,lñ

chñ lhñ

chñ lhñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 9@2008½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07-03-2013 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&2012@183@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 7th March, 2013

S.O. 808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 9/2008)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of The

Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corportion, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

07.03.2013

[No. L-12012/183/2007-IR (B-I)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1

MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/9 OF 2008

Parties: Employers in relation to the Management of

Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation

And

Their workman (Shreenivas R. Kamtam)

2364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

Appearances:

For the first party

Ms. Jayeeta Das, Adv.

For the workman

Mr. Koyande, Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 7th day of February, 2013

AWARD

This is 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:

“Whether the action of the management of HSBC,

Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Shreenivas

R. Kamtam w.e.f. 01.6.2007 and not considering him

for further employment under Section 25-H read with

Section 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947, is legal, proper and

justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman

is entitled to and what other instructions are

necessary in the matter?”

2. The workman has filed statement of claim and

the Bank has filed written statement. The workman has

also filed a rejoinder. However, it is not necessary to

state the facts and pleadings in details as the parties

have filed an application today together with an

agreement with the prayer that award be passed in terms

of the agreement.

3. In view of the agreement arrived at between the

parties, Award is passed as under:

(a) The Bank shall pay to the workman Shreenivas B.

Kamatam a lump sum amount of Rs. 9.00 lakhs

which will be subject to deduction of tax at

source as per statutory requirements. The

aforementioned Rs. of 9.00 lakhs shall be payable

by the bank within 10 days after the award is

passed by this Tribunal and the workman shall

sign a receipt of full and final payment.

(b) After receipt of the aforementioned amount of

Rs. 9.00 lakhs neither the workman, nor his legal

heirs, successors, representatives and/or assigns

will make any claim of any nature whatsoever

financial or otherwise relating to the terms of

employment or disengagement of the workman

from the services of the Bank.

nature shall be initiated or pursued against the

Bank, its employees, officers, directors,

successors and/or assigns by the workman or

by anyone claiming through him or on his

behalf.

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 809.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bf.M;k xouZesUV

feUV izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaè us fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k uañ&1 eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@13 vkWQ 2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05- 03- 2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&16011@04@2003&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-

1/13 of 2004) 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 India Government Mint

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 05.03.2013.

[No. L-16011/04/2003-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1

MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/13 OF 2004

Patries: Employers in relation to the management of India

Patries: Government Mint

And

Patries: Their workan (J.Y. Rao)

Appearances:

For the first party

Shri Kantharia, Adv.

For the Bombay Mint Industrial

Staff Union

Shri Umesh Nabar, Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 6th day of February, 2013

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government

in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2365

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947. The terms of reference given in the

schedule are as follows:

Whether the demand of the Bombay Mint Industrial

Staff Union for not granting promotion to Sh. J.Y.

Rao under Assured Career Progression Scheme is

justified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled?

According to the statement of claim filed by the

Bombay Mint Industrial Staff Union (hereinafter referred

to as the Union) the workman J.Y. Rao was appointed by

the first party as Assistant Bullion Keeper on and from

4.2.1971. The workman was issued a memo dt. 21.4.1980

and thereafter he was suspended vide order dt. 25.4.1980.

A chargesheet dt.29.4.1980 was issued against the

workman on 15.5.1980. The workman was ultimately

dismissed by order dt. 8.9.1981. The workman preferred

an appeal which was also dismissed. The workman filed

second appeal which was allowed in the month of May,

1982 and the workman was reinstated with a fresh enquiry

against him. After the inquiry the workman was dismissed

from service. The workman preferred an appeal which

was partly allowed by reducing the punishment of

dismissal to punishment of removal. The workman then

filed a Writ Petition No. 1533 of 1984 in the Bombay

High Court which came to be dismissed on 1.8.1984. The

workman preferred an appeal No. 823 of 1984 which was

dismissed on 12.9.1984. The workman filed a Review

Petition wherein the High Court passed orders that if

the workman tendered apology the same would be

considered by the first party and the workman was

allowed to withdraw the Review Petition. The workman

submitted unconditional apology on 28.1.1985. However,

the first party did not consider the apology on the

ground that the apology was belated. The workman was

constrained to file another Writ Petition challenging the

refusal on the part of the first party to accept the

unconditional apology tendered by the workman being

Writ Petition No. 1372 of 1985. The said Writ Petition

was rejected by order dt. 29.7.1985. The workman

preferred an appeal before the Division Bench being

Appeal No. 706 of 1985 which was also rejected on

13.8.1985. The workman then preferred Special Leave

Petition before the Supreme Court being Writ Petiton

No. 12822 of 1985 and by order dt. 26.8.1986 Special

Leave Petition was disposed of directing the first party

to take back the workman in the service with effect from

the date on which the workman reported for duty and

that the workman would not be entitled for back wages.

The workman was reinstated vide order dt. 29.9.1986. By

letter dt. 4.10.1986 the workman approached the first

party for restoring his seniority and fixing his pay. He

also submitted that the period of absence be treated as

special leave. The first party passed an order dt. 2.1.1987

whereby the workman was informed that the seniority

would be fixed as per rules next below M.B. Desai.

Though the order specifically stated that the intervening

period would be treated as spent on duty for the purpose

of continuity of service and pension but the workman

was not informed about fixation of his pay. The workman

by letter dt. 15.1.1987 approached the first party for pay

fixation and pointed out that his seniority was not

properly fixed. The workman also pointed out that as

per the order of the Supreme Court he was entitled to

notional increments and promotion to the higher grade.

However, by order dt. 19.2.1987 the workman was

informed that the intervening period would be treated

as spent on duty only for the purpose of pension

indicating that the said period would not be considered

as continuity of service for other purposes. The workman

preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which

was dismissed. He then raised an industrial dispute. The

Reference CGIT-2/33 of 1993 was also partly dismissed

by order dt. 7.6.1995 holding that the demand of the

workman for seniority over M.B. Desai was not justified

and that the order of the Supreme Court disentitled the

workman to receive monetary benefit for the intervening

period. According to the statement of claim the

Government of India issued Assured Career Progression

Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) on

9.8.1999. The benefits of the Scheme were given to all

the employees except the workman and three others.

The Union raised an industrial dispute and during

reconciliation proceeding the first party granted benefits

of the Scheme on 15.5.2002 to the workman w.e.f. 9.7.2001

insted of 9.8.1999 from which date the workman was

entitled to the benefits of the Scheme. According to the

statement of claim the order passed by General Manager

on 2.1.1987 is not disputed by the first party and as

such treating the workman junior to the employees who

were appointed on later date than the workman is wholly

illegal, unjustified and unreasonable. It has, therefore,

been prayed that it be held that upgradation/promotion

of the workman under the Scheme w.e.f. 9.8.1999 fixing

his pay at Rs. 5,250/- as on 9.8.1999 is legal, valid, proper

and justified.

According to the written statement the matter

regarding back wages was decided by the Apex Court

and regarding consequential benefits the action of the

first party was upheld by CGIT No. 2, Mumbai. As the

grant of upgradation under the Scheme is a sort of

promotion the matter stands settled by the judgement

of the Supreme Court and the award passed by CGIT

No. 2, Mumbai. The period of suspension was treated

as period spent on duty only for the purpose of pension

and the workman was granted benefit of the Scheme

w.e.f. 9.7.2001 after completing twenty four years of

service discounting the suspension period and the

period during which he remained out of job. In paragraph

1 of the memo dt. 2.1.1987 there was a typographical

error and there instead of words :"for the purpose of

continuity of service for pension" the words "for the

2366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR

purpose of continuity of service and pension" were

written. According to the written statement the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

Following Issues have been framed:

(1) Whether the second party workman proves

that he is entitled to benefits of Assured

Career Progression Scheme with effect from

9th August 1999?

(2) Whether the second party workman proves that

he is entitled to upgradation under Assured Career

Progression Scheme with fixation of pay at

Rs. 5,250/- as on 9th August 1999?

(3) Whether the first party proves that for granting

benefits under Assured Career Progression

Scheme the period between termination of service

and reinstatement of the second party workman

is required to be omitted as per order dated 2nd

January 1987 passed by the Competent

Authority?

(4) Whether the second party workman is entitled to

arrears for the period between 9th August 1999 to

9th July 2001 on the basis of fixation of his pay at

Rs. 5,250/- as on 9th August 1999?

(5) What relief the workman is entitled to?

(6) What Order?

The Union has filed affidavit of the workman J.Y. Rao

and he has been cross examined by learned counsel for the

first party. The Union has also examined Vinay Paranjpe.

The first party has filed affidavits of S.T. Bing and Mahesh

Kumar who have been cross examined by learned counsel

for the Union. The first party also filed affidavit of Naveen

Kumar which was withdrawn by the first party as per the

ordersheet dt. 16.1.2012.

Heard Shri Umesh Nabar on behalf of the Union and

Shri Kantharia on behalf of the first party.

Issues Nos. 1 to 4:

All these four Issues can be decided together.

The workam was given benefit of the Scheme w.e.f.

9.7.2001 whereas the Scheme is dt. 9.8.1999 and the

workman claims the benefit from the date. As per the

Scheme an employee will be qualified for upgradation on

completion of twenty four years of regular service. The

case of the workman is that be joined in 1971 and he

completed twenty four years of service in 1995 and,

therefore, he should be given the benefit of upgradation

under the Scheme w.e.f. 9.8.1999. On the other hand,

according to the first party the workman was suspended

w.e.f. 25.4.1980 and thereafter he was dismissed on

27.10.1983 and then he was reinstated only on 30.9.1986

and, therefore, this period from 25.4.1980 to 29.9.86 cannot

be computed as part of regular service.

The workam has placed reliance on a memo dated

2.1.1987 which has been marked as Ex.W-9 (Ex.M-22)

issued by Chief Accounts and Administrative Officer

wherein it has been stated that the entire period

intervening the date of removal of the workman

including the period of suspension and the date he

reported for duty be treated as period spent on duty

only for the purpose of continuity of service and

pension. According to the workman if the period from

date of suspension to the date of reinstatement is treated

as duty period for the purpose of community of service

as per the above memo then he is entitled to

upgradation w.e.f. 9.8.1999.

On the other hand, the first party says that the period

from suspension to reinstatement cannot be considered as

part of regular service for the purpose of upgradation under

the scheme.

The memo dt. 2.1.1987 Ex.W-9 (M-22) speaks about

continuity of service whereas the Scheme Ex.W-26

speaks of regular service. Regular service has been

defined in clause 3.2 of the Scheme according to which

the regular service shall be interpreted to mean eligibility

service counted for regular promotion in terms of relevant

recruitment/service rules. In the Award dt. 7.6.1995

(Ex.W-23) passed in Reference No. CGIT-2/33 of 1993 it

has been held:

........But the lordship of the Supreme Court had

granted reinstatement and no back wages. In other words

the other reliefs were not granted by the Supreme Court.

As this is so, he is not entitled to seniority over Desai, not

entitled to notional increments as Claimed and other

benefits."

CGIT No. 2 Mumbai thus rejected the claim of the

workman regarding seniority and consequential benefits

like promotion and annual increments. In view of the said

Award of CGIT No. 2, Mumbai the period spent by the

workman from his suspension to the date of his

reinstatement cannot be computed as part of regular service

for the purpose of giving benfit of upgradation under the

Scheme. It is thus clear that the workman is not entitled to

the benefit of the Scheme w.e.f. 9.8.1999.

Issues Nos. 1 to 4 are decided against the workman.

Issues Nos. 5: The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Issues Nos. 6: The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

Sd/-

Justice G.S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2367

ubZ fnYYkh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 810.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947]¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k e— dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ flfoy

,fo;s'ku Vªsfuax dkyst cejkSyh ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dkuiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ

la[;k 1@02 izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4@3@2013 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y & 11012@19@2001 & vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tsñ rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/02) of

the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court

Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute. between the employees in relation to the

management of M/s Civil Aviation Training College

(Bamrauli) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 4/3/2013

[No. L 11012/19/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, SRI RAM

PARKASH, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 1/02

Between:

Sanjai Kumar, S/o Sri Matroo,

House Number 374, Meera Patti, Transport Nagar,

Allahabad.

And

Principal,

Civil Aviation Training College Bamrauli,

Allahabad.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide is

notification No. L-11012/19/2001/IRM dated 06.08.01, has

referred to this tribunal the following issue for

adjudication—

2. Whether the action of the management of Civil

Aviation Training College, Bamrauli Allahabad in

terminating the services of Sri Sanjai Kumar w. e. f. 01.11.99

is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for?

3. Brief facts of the case are—

4. At the outset it may be mentioned that there is no

co relationship between the reference and the statement of

claim field by the claimant. Whereas the present claim

statement appears to be under section 2-A of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, but from the statement of claim filed by

the workman it is absolutely clear that he is alleging against

the management that that he along with 9 others filed

CMWP No 29565 of 99 on 13.07.99 for absorption by

opposite party and demanaded payment of minimum wages

fixed by Central Government on the basis of Supreme Court

ruling as mentioned in the petition. The said petition was

decided by order dated 22.07.99 directing the petitioner to

give representation to the respondent.

5. It may also be pointed out here that from the above

pleadings of the Petitioner claimant before this tribunal it is

not at all clear that he alone wants to challenge the action

of the management or along with others in respect of the

above petition. Therefore, the petition itself appears to be

not clear and specific.

6. It is also pleaded by the claimant that from the

reference order it was clear that he claimant was appointed

by the opposite party to work in their maintenance

department as electrician helper with effect from 01.09.94

and continued to be in an interrupted services of

maintenance department of opposite party up to 31.10.99.

and his services were illegally retrenched with effect from

01.11.99. It is also alleged that before terminating the

services of the workman opposite party had never issued

any charge sheet. The work and conduct of the workman

was exemplary. It is also alleged that the services of the

workman were illegally terminated orally with effect from

01.11.99, through verbal orders. No compensation was paid

to him at the time of his retrenchment. The management

has violated the provisos of section 25F and 25N of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No notice, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation has been paid to the claimant

at the time of terminating his services therefore, the action

of the opposite party is against the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Apart from the above allegations there

are several other allegations against the opposite party

but the tribunal is not concerned at all on the points which

are against the provisions of Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947.

Since it is a case of retrenchment.

7. The claimant on the basis of above has claimed

that he should be reinstated in the services of the opposite

paty with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

8. The claim of the claimant has been refuted by the

opposite party on numbers of grounds. The gist of the

same that the statement of claim filed by the claimant lacks

merit mainly for the reasons; that there never existed direct

relationship of master and employee between the opposite

party and the claimant, opposite party never issued any

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

appointment letter in favour of the claimant, nor he ever

terminated his services, therefore, question of violating

the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, does not

arise; in fact he was the employee of a contractor with whom

the opposite party has not concern; it was the duty of

contractor to execute the assigned work for which he wages

being paid regularly, the claimant was never required to sign

the muster roll, the claimant had never worked under the

direct supervision and control of the opposite party.

Therefore, on the basis of above it has been prayed that the

claim of the claimant be dismissed being devoid of merit.

9. Claimant has also filed rejoinder but nothing new

has been pleaded therein.

10. Along with rejoinder affidvadit the claimant has

filed certain photocopies of the documents.

11. Some more photocopies of documents have also

been filled by the claimant vide apllication dated 02.09.04.

12. Workman has also filed a self prepared diary where

in certain entries are appearing but by a bare perusal of the

same it appears that it has not been authenticated by some

responsible officer.

13. Workman has also filed certain originals of the

orders of the High Court vide application dated 26.3....

14. Sri Sanjai Kumar as examined himself as W.W.1,

and Maikoo Lal as W.W.2, whereas management has

examined Sri V.K. Gupta, on 06.12.05. M.W.1.

15. W.W.1 has been cross examined at length but

nothing has come from his evidence which may make his

case believable. Moreover there is no cross examination

has been done by the the workman from this witness MWI,

therefore, there appears no reason to disbelieve the

statement of the witness given in his examination in chief.

16. Thereafter the file come for argument and as none

was appeared to cross examine the witnesses of either sides

on the date of evidence of respective parties.

17. I have carefully examined the rocords of the file

and find that as none appeared for advancing any

arguments from either side on the date fixed, therefore, the

case was reserved for award.

18. By a bare persual of the entire file and evidence

of the parties I have come to a conclusion that from the

evidence of the parties examined in the case it is very difficult

to believe the case of the claimant, therefore, it is held that

the claim deserves to be rejected.

19. As already held in the opening paragraph of the

award that there is no consonance in between the reference

order and the claim petition, from this point of view also

the claimant is not entitled for any relief. The evidence

adduced by the claimant is not believable and it was his

burden to prove his case.

20. Therefore, since the claimant has palpably failed

to provide his case therefore, he is not entitled to claim any

relief against the management.

21. The reference is therefore, decided against the

claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PAKASH, Presideing Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk-dk-vk-dk-vk-dk-vk-dk-vk-

811.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dk /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

bUMLVªh;y izkstDV izkñ fyfeVsM lqUnjxM+ mfM+lk ds izca/kr= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53@2012½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 4@3@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y & 43011@5@2011& vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgau rksiuks]

tksgau rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 53/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court

Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bharat Industrial Project (P) Ltd.

(Sundargarh Orissa) and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 4/3/2013

[No. L-43011/5/2011 - IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 53/2012

Date of Passing Order-11th February, 2013

Between:

M/s. Bharat Industrial Project (P) Ltd.,

Sub-Contractor of M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Co.

Shanti Memorial Hospital Line,

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2369

Uditnagar, Rourkela-12, Dist. Sundargarh,

Orissa.

... 1st Party-Management.

And

The General Secretary,

Sundargarh District Industrial Shramik Sabha,

Mahul Pali, Bastia Sarani, Bisra Road,

Rourkela-769 001.

... 2nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None

....

For the 1st Party-Management.

None

....

For the 2nd Party-Union.

ORDER

Case taken up today. None of the parties is present.

The 2nd Party-Union has not filed any statement of claim

despite taking time nearly two and half months before.

Therefore it seems that the 2nd Party-Union is either not

interested in pursuing the case or has settled the dispute

amicably with the 1st Party-Management. Hence it is no

use to keep the case pending for long. As such no-dispute

award is to tbe passed in the present circumstance.

Accordingly no dispute award is passed.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 812

dkñvkñ 812.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM eqEcbZ ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uñ 2 eqEcbZ ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@02½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

4@3@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30011@121@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, The 11th March, 2013

S.O. 812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby published the award (Ref No 47/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court

No.-2 Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

(Mumbai) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 4/3/2013

[No. L30011/121/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2,

MUMBAI

Present

K.B. KATAKE

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/47 OF 2002

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED

The General Manager (P & A)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Bharat Bhavan

4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road

Ballard Estate

Mumbai 400 038.

And

THEIR WORKMEN.

The General Secretary

Petroleum Employees Union

Tel Rasayan Bhavan

Tilak Road

Dadar,

Mumbai 400 014.

Appearances:

For the Employer

Mr. R.S. Pai, Advocate.

For the Workmen

Mr. M.B. Anchan,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 2nd January 2013.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-30011/121/2001-IR (M),

dated 03.05.2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the

following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BPCL

Ltd., in imposing the punishment of reduction to

lower grade from Operator I (Field) Grade 6 to

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Operator II (Field) Grade 4 on Shri B.A. Hande

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both the parties were

served with notices. In response to the notice, the second

party union filed its statement of claim vide Ex-6. According

to the union the second party workman was working as an

Operator (Field) at Sewree Installation. On 4/12/1996 he

was asked to work as a tally man in the absence of regular

Tally Man. While discharging his duties as a Tally Man,

Shri Shailendra Pratap Singh Officer Trainee implicated the

workman in a false and fabricated incident of accepting

bribe of Rs.20/- from Shri Amar Singh PCVO Tank Lorry

Driver of Parasnath Transporters. For that a memo

dated 9/12/1996 was issued to him. The workman replied

the memo and denied the allegations. However chargesheet

dt. 23/12/1996 was served upon him for the said misconduct.

He replied the charge sheet and denied the charge.

Subsequently inquiry was initiated against the workman.

In the inquiry he was found guilty. After considering the

inquiry proceeding and report and representation of the

workman, penalty of demotion from Operator I (Field)

Grade-6 to Operator-Ii (Field) Grade-4 reducing his basic

salary from Rs.3,895 to Rs.2,451/-. The workman preferred

appeal. The same was turned down by the appellate

authority by its order dated 16/8/2001.

3. According to the union, the charge was false and

baseless. The trainee officer submitted false report in order

to show his efficiency. The workman was not given

sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and

to defend himself in the inquiry proceeding. The inquiry

officer violated the principles of natural justice. The inquiry

was not fair and proper. The findings of the inquiry officer

were perverse. Therefore workman has raised the industrial

dispute. As conciliation failed, as per the report of ALC (C),

the Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal.

The workman therefore prays that the inquiry be declared

not fair and proper. The findings of the inquiry officer be

declared perverse and penalty of his demotion reducing

his basic salary from Rs.3,895/- to Rs.2,451/- be declared

illegal and unjustified and the same be set aside and first

party be directed to pay him the arrears from the date of his

demotion and reinstate him to the post of Operator-I (Field).

4. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide

its written statement Ex-8. According to them the workman

while working as Operator-I (Field) Grade-6 at Sewree

Installation was found demanding and receiving bribe of

Rs.20/- from PCVO Tank Lorry Driver. The Corporation

therefore issued chargesheet to him under clause 28.9 for

taking bribe for illegal gratification. He was also charged

for misusing official position and demanding and receiving

bribe/gratification. Departmental inquiry was initiated

against the workman. He was given full opportunity to

participate in the inquiry. He was defended by his defence

representative Shri Prasad Samant. The inquiry officer

Shri S.S. Juneja held the workman guilty of the charges

levelled against him. The General manager after considering

the report of the IO and representation of the workman,

imposed the punishment of demotion of the workman to

lower grade. They denied that Mr. Shailendra Prasad Singh,

Trainee Officer had made false allegations of corruption

against the workman. They denied that opportunity was

not given to the workman to defend himself and to cross

examine the witnesses. They denied that inquiry officer

has violated the principles of natural justice. According to

them, the inquiry officer has given fair and full opportunity

to the workman to defend himself through his legal

representative. The IO held him guilty for accepting bribe

from a lorry driver. Therefore the competent authority has

imposed penalty of demotion of the workman. The said

order is quite just and proper. Therefore they pray that the

reference be rejected with cost.

5. Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

FINDINGS

Sr.

Issues

Whether the workman was given fair

opportunity to defend himself in

accordance with the principles of

natural justice and the Standing

orders applicable to him?

Yes.

Whether findings recorded by in the

inquiry report is perverse?

No.

What relief if any the workman is

entitled to?

No.

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

6. The second party workman herein has contended

that he was not given fair and proper opportunity to defend

himself. According to him, the inquiry officer violated the

principles of natural justice. Therefore it is contended that

the inquiry is not fair and proper. In this repsect the Id.

Adv. for the first party pointed out that, in the cross

examination at Ex-13 the second party has admitted that

he was served with the charge sheet dt. 23/12/1996. He

also admitted that the inquiry was conducted and he

appeared in it through his representative Mr. Sawant. He

admitted that copy of each proceeding was served to him.

He also admitted in his cross that he signed on the copy.

of the day to day inquiry proceeding. He also admitted

that as per his request after 08/07/1997, the inquiry was

recorded in Hindi. He also admitted that copy of the inquiry

report was served on him and he gave his reply thereto.

The said reply is at Ex-14. He further says in his cross that

thereafter order of demotion was passed against him. A

specific question was put to the workman as to why he

complained about the inquiry and findings thereof? He

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2371

replied that, witness Amar Singh was not examined to

prove the alleged incident of taking money from him. In

this respect Id. adv. for the second party submitted that

Amar Singh was main witness from whom it is alleged

that the workman took bribe of Rs. 20/- However this

wintness, who was an important witness, was not

examined. In this repect I would like to point out that non-

examination of a witness at the most would affect findings

of the inquiry officer. It does not affect the procedural part

of the inquiry.

7. In this respect the Id. adv. for the first party

submitted that the inquiry is fair and proper if inquiry officer

has complied with the five points laid down by Hon'ble

Apex Court in Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. V/s.

The workman AIR 1963 SC 1914 wherein at para 4 of the

judgement the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down five points

essential for proper inquiry. They are: (i) The employee

proceed against has been informed clearly of the charges

levelled agianst him, (ii) The witnesses are examined-

ordinarily in the presence of the exmployee in respect of

the charges, (iii) The employee is given a fair opportunity

to cross examine witnesses, (iv) He is given a fair

opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his

defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter and

(v) The inquiry officer records his findings with reasons

for the same in his report.

8. In the case in hand all these points were fully

complied with. The workman was served with the charge

sheet. The inquiry had given full opportunity to the

workman to defend himself. He appreared and took part

in the proceeding through his representative. The

witnesses were examined in his presence and they were

cross examined by the legal representative of the

workman. Opportunity was given to the workman to

examine himself and his witnesses. He examined himself

and has not examined any witness. After conclusion of

the inquiry copy of the report was served on the workman.

Workman also submitted his reply thereto. Thereafter order

of demotion has passed. It is the case of the workman that

witness Amar Singh was not examined. Therefore he did

not get opportunity to cross examine him. Witness who is

not examined in the inquiry proceeding by the first party

could have been examined by the second party. However

second party has not examined him. As Amar Singh was

not examined, question of making this witness available

for cross examination does not arise. In the circumstances

it cannot be said that inquiry officer has violated the

principles of natural justice. In the light of the facts and

circumstances on record and the guide lines given by

Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that fair and proper

opportunity was given to the workman in the inquiry

proceeding. Thus I hold that the inquiry was fair and

proper.

Accordingly

decide

this

issue

No. 1 in the affirmative.

Issue No. 2:

9. It is the case of the workman that main witness

Amar Singh from whom workman alleged to have accepted

the bribe amount of Rs. 20/- was not examined. Therefore

according to the Id. advocate of the second party, the

inquiry officer ought not have relied on the sole evidence

of Shri Shailendra Pratap Singh who was then trainee

officer. He further submitted that Driver Mr. Amar Singh

has not mentioned name of the workman in his complaint,

therefore Inquiry Officer has made mistake by relying

upon the sole evidence of Mr. Shailendra Pratap Singh.

The Id. adv. pointed out the contradiction in the statement

of Mr. Shailendra Singh in his cross. He says before the

inquiry officer that no other person was there when the

workman accepted bribe of Rs. 20/- from the driver. In his

earlier statement Shailendra Singh has stated that two

other people were there. It was further submitted that

those two people were not examined in the inquiry

proceeding and there is no corroboration to the testimony

of Shaildendra Singh in the inquiry proceeding. In this

respect the Id. Adv. for the first party rightly pointed out

that in the departmental inquiry the charge need not be

proved beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal

proceeding . In departmental inquiry preponderance of

probability suffice the purpose. He further submitted that

there is no reason to discard the sole testimony of Shri

Shaildendra Pratap Singh who was a trainee offcer and

who had personally seen the workman accepting the bribe

of Rs. 20/-. He had no reason to implicate the workman

falsely. Therefor his testimony can safely be relied upon.

10. It was further pointed out that Mr. Shailendra

Singh has not given the complaint Ex-7 immediately on

the very day. It was given two days thereafter. It was further

contended that challan prepared by Mr. Singh Ex-8 does

not contain date and the numbers of the two ten rupee

notes. It is further contended that no panchnama was

made and there is not independent evidence to

corroborate the statement of Shri Shailendra Singh. In

this respect at the cost of repetition I would like to point

out that it is not a criminal trial to follow all the procedural

aspect. It is a departmental inquiry and delay in lodging

the report or not preparing panchnama or not mentioning

number of the two notes in the challan does not vitiate

the inquiry. The inquiry officer has relied on the sole

testmony of Shri Shailendra Pratap Singh and held the

second party workman guilty of misconduct. In

departmental inquiry such a finding even based on mere

preponderance of probability can be upheld. The Id. adv.

for the first party submitted that findings recorded at

domestic inquiry based on some evidence cannot be

declared perverse unless it is shown that the findings is

no supported by any evidence or is entirely against the

whole body of evidence before it. In support of his argument

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Id. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in M/s. Banaras

Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. v/s. the Labour Court II,

Lucknow & Ors. 1972 II L.L.J. 328 wherein on the point

Hon'ble Court observed that;

"........an Industrial Tribunal would not be justifed in

charactrising the findings recorded at the domestic

inqury as perverse unless it can be shown that such

finding is not supported by any evidence or is

entirely opposed to the whole body of evidence

adduced before it. In a domestic inquiry once a

conclusion is deduced from the evidence, it is not

possible for some other authority to assail that

conclusion even though it is possible for some other

authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the

same evidence."

11. In this respect the Id. adv. further submitted that

the workman herein was neither dismissed nor discharged

from service. On the other hand he was awarded punishment

of demotion. Therefore he submitted that under Section

11-A the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this

reference and cannot give any reflief to the workman. In

support of his argument the Id. adv. for the first party

resorted to Apex Court ruling in South Indian Cashew

Factories Workers Union V/s. Kerala State Cashew

Development Corporation & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 201 wherein

on the point in para 16 of the judgement Hon'ble Apex

Court held that;

"Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

gives ample power to the Labour Court to reappraise

the evidence adduced in the inquiry and also sit in

appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing

punishment. But that section is applicable only in

the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman.

Since Section 11-A was not applicable, the Labour

Court had no power to reappraise the evidence to

find out whether the findings of the inquiry officer

were correct or not or whether the punishment

imposed was adequate or not."

12. In the light of above ruling and discussion I hold

that the inquiry officer has relied upon the testimony of

Shailendra Pratap Singh and recoreded the findings. The

said findings thus cannot be said without evidence or

against the evidence on record. Thus the findings of the

inquiry officer cannot be called perverse. Furthermore the

reference is not tenable as it is beyond the scope of Section

11-A of Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly I decide this

issue No. 2 in the negative.

Issue No. 3:

13. In the light of above discussion it is clear that the

workman was neither dismissed nor discharged from

service. Therefore Section 11-A of I.D. Act is not applicable

which gives the jurisdiction to this Tribunal to adjudicate

the issue of fairness of inquiry and point of punishment.

In the case at hand the second party was awarded

punishment of demotion. Therefore the reference is not

tenable. Consequently I hold that the workan is not entitled

to any relief. Accordingly I decide this issue No. 3 in the

negative and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference is dismissed with no order as to cost.

Date: 02-01-2013

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dk-vk-

813.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj

¼fMfjfyax½ ft;ksyksftdy losZ vkQ bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 7@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 04@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@47@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tsñ rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 14 of 1947, the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between The Director (Drilling), Geological

Survey of India and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 04.03.2013.

[No. L-42012/47/2011-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Presiding Officer

SH. N.K. PUROHIT

I.D. 7/2012

Reference No. L-42012/47/2010 [IR(DU)] dated: 23.11.2011

Shri Bhartu

S/o Shri Mangilal

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2373

R/o Village Kashirampura

Post-Gudla, Distt. Karoli (Raj.)

V/s

The Director (Drilling)

Geological Survey of India,

Western Region, Jhalana Doongri,

Jaipur.

Present:

For the applicant Union: Sh. Kailash Chandra Kumbhakar.

For the Non-applicant : Ex-Party.

AWARD

31.1.2013

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:—

"Whether the action of the management of Geological

Survey of India, Jaipur in terminating the services of

Shri Bhartu, w.e.f. 16.9.2001 is legal & justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded

that he was employed as worker in the month of January,

2001 at the Geological Survey of India under the Director

(drilling), Western Region, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur. He has

further pleaded that his services were terminated by verbal

order on 16.09.01. Despite, he had continuously worked

for more than 240 days, his services were terminated

without any notice pay in lieu of notice or compensation.

He has also pleaded that at the time of his termination

junior to him were retained by the non applicant and after

his termination new hands were given recruitment. Thus,

the non applicant has violated the provisions of sections

25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. He has prayed to declare

his termination as illegal and unjust and has also prayed

for his reinstatement with back wages & consequential

benefits.

3. None appeared on behalf of the non applicant

despite service of registered notice. Therefore, order to

proceed Ex-Parte against the non applicant was passed on

14.08.12.

4. The workman in support of his claim has submitted

his affidavit and documents Ex-W 1 to W 6.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned representative

on behalf of the workman and perused the relevant record.

6. Initial burden was on the workman to prove that

he had in fact worked for 240 days during preceding

12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e.

16.09.01 and his termination was in violation of Sec 25-F

of the I.D. Act.

7. The workman in his affidavit has stated that he

had worked for more than 240 days during the period of

1 year. In support of his statement he has produced

photocopies of attendance register for the period 16.04.01

to 15.09.01 Attendance register Ex-W 5 reveals that his

actual working days during said period were as under:—

16.04.01 to 15.05.01

—

10 Days

16.05.01 to 15.06.01

—

31 Days

16.06.01 to 15.07.01

—

30 Days

16.07.01 to 15.08.01

—

31 Days

16.08.01 to 15.09.01

—

11 Days

Total:

113 Days

8. It is evident from the above working days shown

in the attendance register Ex-W5 that the actual working

days of the workman during preceding 12 months from the

date of termination 16.09.01 were 113 days only & he had

not worked for more than 240 days. Since, the workman

has failed to establish that he had worked for requisite

period during preceding 12 months from the date of his

termination, the non applicant was under no obligation to

comply with the provisions under Section 25-F of the I.D.

Act.

9. The learned representative on behalf of the

workman has submitted that Section 25-G and 25-H are

independent of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and even if the

workman could not be able to establish his case under

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, it is still open him to make out

his case under Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. He

has also submitted that the non applicant has not appeared

to contest the claim of the workman and Ex-parte

proceedings have been drawn against the non applicant.

In absence of any evidence in rebuttal there is no reason to

disbelieve the evidence of the workman. He has further

submitted that on the basis of the evidence of the workman

it has been established that action of the non applicant

was in violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. In

support of his contention the learned representative has

relied on JT 1996(7) SC 181, 1981(42) FLR 381(Delhi),

1987(55) FLR 527(Guj.), 1997(76) FLR 393 (Allahabad).

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

above submissions.

11. In JT 1996 (7) SC 181 Hon'ble Apex court has held

that Chapter V-A providing for retrenchment is not enacted

only for the benefit of the workman to whom section 25-F

applies but for all cases of retrenchment.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

12. Thus, it is not necessary that retrenchment must

be covered by secion 25-F so as to attract the applicability

of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent & distinct

sections & provisions of above sections do not require

that the workman should have been in continuous

employment within the meaning of section 25-B.

13. Therefore, even if, the workman has failed to

establish that his termination was in violation of provisions

of section 25-F of the I.D. Act, the question survives for

consideration is whether the non-applicant has violated

the provisions of section 25-G & H of the I.D. Act as alleged

by the workman.

14. The name of the persons who were juniors to him

& allegedly retained by the non-applicant have not been

mentioned in the statement of claim. Similarly, the names of

the persons who were allegedly given employment after

termination of the services of the workman have also not

been mentioned.

15. In 1981 (42) FLR 381 referred to by the learned

representative for the workman Hon'ble Delhi H.C. has

observed:—

"It is now well established that the pleadings have

to be specific. The plea, in the present case, that the

juniors had been retained and the services of the

senior workmen had been terminated was raised by

the workmen. It was, therefore, for the workmen to

lead evidence and prove the violation of provisions

of Section 25-G."

16. In the present case, the workman has stated in

his affidavit that junior persons to him were retained after

termination of his services & new persons have been

engaged. He has further stated as below:

esjs ls twfu;j ,oa u;s O;fDr mWdkj] psrjke] iwj.k] jkeksrkj

ehuk esjh eqfDr ds ckn Hkh dke dj jgs Fks vkSj dke ij fy;k FkkA

17. The workman has stated that the above persons

were junior to him & it has also been stated that they were

employed after his termination, therefore, the statement is

very vague & contradictory. It is not clear amongst above

named persons who were junior to him & who were given

recruitment after his termination. Further, the names of

above persons were not disclosed in the statement of claim

& pleadings are not specific. The workman has not adduced

any documentary evidence in support of his statement

that junior persons were retained & new persons were given

recruitment after his termination. Therefore, evidence

adduced by the workman in this regard cannot be relied

on.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the workman has failed

to prove that junior persons to him were retained in the

establishment in violation of provisions of section 25-G &

new persons were given employment after termination of

his services without any offer of re-employment in violation

of section 25-H of the I.D. Act.

19. In view of above discussions, the workman has

failed to prove that the action of the management in

terminating his services was in violation of section 25-F &

25-G of the I.D. Act. He has also failed to prove any violation

of provisions of 25-H of the I.D. Act. Therefore, it is held

that the action of the non-applicant was not illegal &

unjustified. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any

relief. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

20. Award as above.

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYYkh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 814.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj

¼fMªfyax½ T;ksyksftdy losZ vkQ bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj ds iapkV lanHkZ

la[;k 4@2012 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

04@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@46@2011& vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Jaipur as shown in the annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the The Director (Drilling), Geological

Survey of India and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 04.03.2013.

[No. L-42012/46/2011-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Presiding Officer

Sh. N.K. Purohit

I.D.4/2012

Reference No. L-42012/46/2010 [IR (DU)]

dated: 23.11.2011

Shri Sooger Singh Jatav

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2375

S/o Shri Ramkhiladi

R/o Village Kashirampura

Post-Gudla, Distt: Karoli (Raj.)

V/s

The Director (Drilling)

Geological Survey of India,

Western Region, Jhalana Doongri,

Jaipur.

Present:

For the applicant Union : Sh. Kailash Chandra Kumbhakar.

For the Non-applicant : Ex-Party.

AWARD

31.1.2013

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferrd 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:—

''Whether the action of the management of

Geological Survey of India, Jaipur in terminating

the services of Shr Sooger Singh Jatav, w.e.f.

16.9.2001 is legal & justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?''

2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded

that he was employed as worker in the month of January,

2001 at the Geological Survey of India under the Director

(drilling), Western Region, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur. He has

further pleaded that his services were terminated by verbal

order on 16.09.01. Despite, he had continuously worked

for more than 240 days, his services were terminated

without any notice pay in lieu of notice or compensation.

He has also pleaded that at the time of his termination

junior to him were retained by the non applicant and after

his termination new hands were given recruitment. Thus,

the non applicant has violated the provisions of sections

25-F, 25-G and 25- H of the I.D.Act. He has prayed to declare

his termination as illegal and unjust and has also prayed

for his reinstatement with back wages & consequential

benefits.

3. None appeared on behalf of the non applicant

despite service of registered notice. Therefore, order to

proceed Ex-parte against the non applicant was passed on

14.08.12.

4. The workman in support of his claim has

submitted his affidavit and documents Ex-W 1 to W 6.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned representative

on behelf of the workman and perused the relevant record.

6. Initial burden was on the workman to prove that

he had in fact worked for 240 days during preceding

12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e.16.09.01

and his termination was in violation of Sec. 25-F of the

I.D.Act.

7. The workman in his affidavit has stated that he

had worked for more than 240 days during the period of

1 year. In support of his statement he has produced

photocopies of attendance register for the period 16.04.01

to 15.09.01. Attendance register Ex-W5 reveals that his

actual working days during said period were as under:—

16.04.01 to 15.05.01

—

17 Days

16.05.01 to 15.06.01

—

31 Days

16.06.01 to 15.07.01

—

30 Days

16.07.01 to 15.08.01

—

31 Days

16.08.01 to 15.09.01

—

12 Days

Total :

121 Days

8. It is evident from the above working days shown

in the attendance register Ex-W5 that the actual working

days of the workman during preceding 12 months from the

date of termination 16.09.01 were 121 days only & he had

not worked for more than 240 days. Since, the workman

has failed to establish that he had worked for requisite

period during preceding 12 months from the date of his

termination, the non applicant was under no obligation to

comply with the provisions under Section 25-F of the

I.D.Act.

9. The learned representative on behalf of the

workman has submitted that Section 25-G and 25-H are

independent of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act and even if the

workman could not be able to establish his case under

Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, it is still open him to make out

his case under Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D.Act. He

has also submitted that the non applicant has not appeared

to contest the claim of the workman and Ex-parte

proceedings have been drawn against the non applicant.

In absence of any evidence in rebuttal there is no reason to

disbelieve the evidence of the workman. He has further

submitted that on the basis of the evidence of the workman

it has been established that action of the non applicant

was in violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D.Act. In

support of his contention the learned representative has

relied on JT 1996(7) SC 181, 1981(42) FLR 381 (Delhi), 1987

(55) FLR 527 (Guj.) 1997 (76) FLR 393 (Allahabad).

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

above submissions.

11. In JT 1996 (7) SC 181 Hon'ble Apex court has held

that Chapter V-A providing for retrenchment is not enacted

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

only for the benfit of the workman to whom section 25-F

applied but for all cases of retrenchment.

12.Thus, it is not necessary that retrenchment must

be covered by section 25-F so as to attract the applicability

of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent & distinct

sections & provisions of above sections do not require

that the workman should have been in continuous

employment within the meaning of section 25-B.

13.Therefore, even if, the workman has failed to

establish that his termination was in violation of provisions

section 25-F of the I.D. Act, the question survives for

consideration is whether the non-applicant has violated

the provisions of section 25-G & H of the I.D. Act as alleged

by the workman.

14.The name of the persons who were juniors to him

& allegedly retained by the non-applicant have not been

mentioned in the statement of claim. Similarly, the names of

the persons who were allegedly given employment after

termination of the services of the workman have also not

been mentioned.

15.In 1981 (42) FLR 381 referred to by the learned

representative for the workman Hon'ble Delhi H.C. has

observed:—

''It is now well established that the pleadings have to

be specific. The plea, in the present case, that the

juniors had been retained and the services of the

senior workmen had been terminated was raised by

the workmen. It was, therefore, for the workmen to

lead evidence and prove the violation of provisions

of Section 25-G."

16.In the present case, the workman has stated in his

affidavit that junior persons to him were retained after

termination of his services & new persons have been

engaged. He has further stated as below:

esjs ls twfu;j ,oa u;s O;fDr mWdkj] fojsUnz] psrjke] iwj.k

ehuk] ijHkkrh] j?kqohj esjh lsok eqfDr ds ckn Hkh dke dj jgs Fks vkSj

dke ij fy;k FkkA

17.The workman has stated that the above persons

were junior to him & it has also been stated that they were

employed after his termination, therefore, the statement is

very vague & contradictory. It is not clear amongst above

named persons who were junior to him & who were given

recruitment after his termination. Further, the names of

above persons were not disclosed in the statement of claim

& pleadings are not specific. The workman has not adduced

any documentary evidence in support of his statement

that junior persons were retained & new persons were given

recruitment after his termination. Therefore, evidence

adduced by the workman in this regard cannot be relief on.

18.For the foregoing reasons, the workman has failed

to prove that junior persons to him were retained in the

establishment in violation of provisions of section 25-G &

new persons were given employment after termination of

his services without any offer of re-employment in violation

of section 25-H of the I.D. Act.

19.In view of above discussions, the workman has

failed to prove that the action of the management in

terminating his services was in violation of section 25-F &

25-G of the I.D. Act. He has also failed to prove any violation

of provisions of 25-H of the I.D.Act. Therefore, it is held

that the action of the non-applicant was not illegal &

unjustified. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any

relief. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

20.Award as above.

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 815.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj xSjksflu bUthfu;j]

,eñbZñ,lñ chdkusj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k t;iqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 41@2012 dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&13011@10@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the The Garrison Engineers, MES, Bikaner

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.03.2013.

[No. L-13011/10/2011-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Presiding Officer

Sh. N.K. Purohit

I.D. 41/2012

Reference No. L-13011/10/2011 [(IR(DU)]

dated : 24.2.2012

Sh. Gauri Shankar

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2377

S/o Shri Heeralal Dhobi

R/o Rani Bazar

Near Pardesion Ki Bagichi

Bikaner.

V/s

Garrison Engineers

GE(P), MES, Bikaner,

Bikaner-334001

AWARD

8.2.2013

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:—

"Whether the action of the management of GE(P),

MES, Bikaner in fixation of pay of the workman Shri

Gauri Shankar on grant of benefit of 1st ACP w.e.f

2002 is legal & justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?"

2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order,

registered notices were issued to both the parties.

Shri Jitender Yadav, representative on behalf of the non-

applicant appeared on 29.06.2012 but none appeared on

behalf of the applicant therefor, again registered notices

were issued. On next date i.e. 11.9.12 the representative on

behalf of the non-applicant was present. The

acknowledgement receipt of the registered notice sent to

the applicant was returned with endorsement "Talash".

Thus, registered notice was again issued to the applicant.

Upon perusal of the acknowledgement receipt of the

registered notice issued to the applicant for filing his claim

statement on 3.1.2013, it appears that the same has been

served upon the applicant but despite service of the

registered notice he did not appear to file his statement of

claim.

3. Upon perusal of the proceedings, it reveals that

on 3.1.13 none appeared on behalf of both the parties. On

that date presiding officer was on the leave. Again on next

date 7.2.13 none appeared on behalf of both the parties.

Under these circumstances, case was reserved for passing

the award.

4. In above factual backdrop, no material could be

brought on record for adjudication of the reference order

under consideration on merits. It appears that the applicant

is not willing to contest the case further, therefore, "No

Claim Award" is passed in this matter. The reference under

adjudication is answered accordingly.

5. Award as above.

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 816.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqjxkao iÙku

U;kl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/

kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ&I ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh th vkbZ

Vh&1@10@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&36011@04@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-1/10 of 2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, MUMBAI now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of MORMUGAO PORT TRUST, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 11.03.2013

[No. L-36011/04/2006-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

CAMP : GOA

Present

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/10 OF 2007

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Mormugao Port Trust

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party

: Shri Vilas A. Biliye, Representative.

For the Union

: Shri C.B. Cautilho, Representative

State

: Maharashtra

Dated the 20th day of February, 2013

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government

in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

and sub-section (2A) 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 Mormugao

Port Trust, Goa in deducting electricity charges from

the salareies of occupants of Bachelor

accommodation is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workmen are entitled to?

2. According to the statement of claim filed by

Mormugao Port and Railway Workers Union no individual

meter was provided for the bachelor quarter units as

administration was bearing the electricity charges as welfare

measure. The bachelor accommodation was accepted by

the employees with the implicit understanding that no

electricity and water charges would be borne by them. The

Port administration has granted concession to class III

and IV employees occupying in divided Port quarters and

has been bearing 100 units of electricity consumption in

every bill of each quarter. This has been approved by Board

Resolution No. 7 w.e.f 1996. However, this benefit has

been withdrawn and denied to the residents of the bachelor

quarters which is unfair and unwarranted. The Port

administration arbitrarily deducted amount from all such

occupants of bachelor accommodation from the year 1982

onwards which is against all norms and in violation of

Payment of Wages Act. It has, therefor, been prayed that

all the employees should be refunded the money recovered

from their salary.

3. An application has been filed by General Secretary,

Mormugao Port Trust and Railway Workers Union that he

does not want to lead any evidence and pursue the matter

and, therefore, the reference be disposed of accordingly.

4. In view of the above application the workmen are

not entitled to any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ 817

dkñ vkñ 817.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqjxkao iÙku

U;kl ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&I eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh th vkbZ

Vh 1@19@ 2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@03@2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&36011@07@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-1/19 of 2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, MUMBAI now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of MORMUGAO PORT TRUST and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 11.03.2013

[No. L-36011/07/2010-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

CAMP: GOA

Present

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/19 OF 2011

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Mormugao Port Trust

And

Their workmen

Appearances:

For the first party

: Shri Vilas A. Biliye, Representative.

For the Union

: Not present.

State

: Maharashtra

Dated the 20th day of February, 2013

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:

Whether the action of the management of Mormugao

Port Trust, Goa in denying Second Financial

Upgradation under ACP Scheme to 09 (Nine)

employees (as per Annexure-I) is legal and justified?

What relief the workmen are entitled

for?

2. No one has appeared on behalf of Goa Port and

Dock Employees Union inspite of service of notice.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2379

3. In absence of any pleading and proof the nine

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ-

dkñvkñ- 818.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MªkbZjsdVj

¼fMªfyax½ ft;ksyksftdy losZ vkQ bf.M;k ds izcaèra= ds lac) esa

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 5@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

04&03&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@50@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute 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, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the The Director (Drilling), Geological

Survey of India and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 04.03.2013

[No. L-42012/50/2011-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Sec.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

SH. N. K. PUROHIT

Presiding Officer

I.D. 5/2012

Reference No. L-42012/50/2010 [IR(DU)] dated

23.11.2011

Shri Halke

S/o Shri Ramsahai

R/o Village Kashirampura

Post-Gudla, Distt: Karoli (Raj.)

V/s

The Director (Drilling)

Geological Survey of India

Western Region, Jhalana Doongri,

Jaipur.

Present:

For the applicant Union : Sh. Kailash Chandra

Kumbhakar.

For the Non-applicant

: Ex-Party.

AWARD

31.1.2013

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:—

"Whether the action of the management of Geological

Survey of India, Jaipur in terminating the Services of

Shri Halke, w.e.f. 16.9.2001 is legal and justified? What

relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded

that he was employed as worker in the month of January,

2001 at the Zoological Survey of India under the Director

(Drilling). Western Region, Jhalana Dngri, Jaipur. He has

further pleaded that his services were terminated by verbal

order on 16.09.2001. Despite, he had continuously worked

for more than 240 days, his services were terminated

without any notice pay in lieu of notice or compensation.

He has also pleaded that at the time of his termination

junior to him were retained by the non-applicant and after

his termination new hands were given recruitment. Thus,

the non-applicant has violated the provisions of sections

25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. He has prayed to declare

his termination as illegal and unjust and has also prayed

for his reinstatement with back wages and consequential

benefits.

3. None appeared on behalf of the non-applicant

despite service of registered notice. Therefore, order to

proceed Ex-Part against the non-applicant was passed on

14.08.2012.

4. The workman in support of his claim has submitted

his affidavit and documents Ex-W1 to W6.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned representative

on behalf of the workman and perused the relevant record.

6. Initial burden was on the workman to prove that

he had in fact worked for 240 days during preceding

12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e.

16.09.2001 and his termiantion was in violation of Sec. 25-F

of the I.D. Act.

7. The workman in his affidavit has stated that he

had worked for more than 240 days during the period of

1 year. In support of his statement he has produced

photocopies of attendance register for the period 16.04.2001

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

to 15.09.2001. Attendance register Ex-W5 reveals that his

actual working days during said period were as under:—

16.04.2001 to 15.05.2001

—

10 days

16.05.2001 to 15.06.2001

—

31 days

16.06.2001 to 15.07.2001

—

30 days

16.07.2001 to 15.08.2001

—

31 days

16.08.2001 to 15.09.2001

—

11 days

Total:

113 Days

8. It is evident from the above working days shown

in the attendance register Ex-W5 that the actual working

days of the workmen during preceding 12 months from the

date of termination 16.09.2001 were 113 days only and he

had not worked for more than 240 days. Since, the workman

has failed to establish that he had worked for requisite

period during preceding 12 months from the date of his

termianation, the non-applicant was under no obligation

to comply with the provisions under Section 25-F of the

I.D. Act.

9. The learned representative on behalf of the

workman has submitted that Section 25-G and 25-H are

independent of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and even if the

workman could not be able to establish his case under

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, it is still open him to make out

his case under Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. He

has also submitted that the non-applicant has not appeared

to contest the claim of the workman and Ex-parte

proceedings have been drawn against the non-applicant.

In absence of any evidence in rebuttal there is no reason to

disbelieve the evidence of the workman. He has further

submitted that on the basis of the evidence of the workman

it has been established that action of the non-applicant

was in violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. In

support of his contention the learned representative has

relied on JT 1996 (7) SC 181, 1981 (42) FLR 381(Delhi), 1987

(55) FLR 527 (Guj.), 1997 (76) FLR 393 (Allahabad).

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

above submissions.

11. In JT 1996 (7) SC 181 Hon'ble Apex Court has held

that Chapter V-A providing for retrenehment is not enacted

only for the benefit of the workman to whom section 25-F

applies but for all cases of retrenchment.

12. Thus, it is not necessary that retrenchment must

be covered by section 25-F so as to attract the applicability

of section 25-G and 25-H which are independent and

distinct sections and provisions of above sections do not

require that the workman should have been in continuous

employment within the meaning of section 25-B.

13. Therefore, even if, the workman has failed to

establish that his termination was in violation of provisions

of section 25-F of the I.D. Act, the question survives for

consideration is whether the non-applicant has violated

the provisions of section 25-G and H of the I.D. Act as

alleged by the workman.

14. The name of the persons who were juniors to him

and allegedly retained by the non-applicant have not been

mentioned in the statement of claim. Similarly, the names of

the persons who were allegedly given employment after

termination of the services of the workman have also not

been mentioned.

15. In 1981 (42) FLR 381 referred to by the learned

reepresentative for the workman Hon'ble Delhi H.C. has

observed.

"It is now well established that the pleadings have

to be specific. The plea, in the present case, that the

juniors had been retained and the services of the

senior workmen had been terminated was raised by

the workmen. It was, therefore, for the workmen to

lead evidence and prove the violation of provisions

of Section 25-G."

16. In the present case, the workman has stated in

his affidavit that junior persons to him were retained after

termination of his services and new persons have been

engaged. He has further stated as below.

esjs ls twfu;j ,oa u;s O;fDr mWdkj] jkeds'k] psrjke] iwj.k

ehuk] esjh lsok eqfDr ds ckn Hkh dke dj jgs Fks vkSj vkSj dke ij

yxk;k FkkA

17. The workman has stated that the above persons

were junior to him and it has also been stated that they

were employed after his termination, therefore, the

statement is very vague and contradictory. It is not clear

amongst above named persons who were junior to him and

who were given recruitment after his termination. Further,

the names of above persons were not disclosed in the

statement of claim and pleadings are not specific. The

workman has not adduced any documentary evidence in

support of his statement that junior persons were retained

and new persons were given recruitment after his

termiantion. Therefore, evidence adduced by the workman

in this regard cannot be relied on.

18. For the foregoing reassons, the workman has

failed to prove that junior persons to him were retained in

the establishment in violation of provisions of section 25-

G and new persons were given employment after termination

of his services without any offer of re-employment in

violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act.

19. In view of above discussions, the workman has

failed to prove that the action of the management in

terminating his services was in violation of Section 25-F &

25-G of the I.D. Act. He has also failed to prove any violation

of provisions of 25-H of the I.D. Act. Therefore, it is held

that the action of the non-applicant was not illegal and

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2381

unjustified. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any

relief. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

20. Award as above.

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 819.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MªkbjsdVj

¼fMªfyafjx½ T;ksyksftdy losZ vkWQ bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 6@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

04-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@49@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court,. Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the The Director (Drilling), Geological

Survey of India and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 04.03.2013.

[No. L-42012/49/2011-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR.

Sh. N.K. Purohit

Presiding Officer

I.D. 6/2012

Reference No. L-42012/49/2010 [IR (DU)]

dated 23.11.2011

Shri Nihal Singh

S/o Shri Latura Ram

R/o Village Kashirampura

Post-Gudla, Distt: Karoli (Raj.)

V/s

The Director (Drilling)

Geological Survey of India

Western Region, Jhalana Doongri,

Jaipur.

Present:

For the Applicant Union : Shri Kailash Chandra Kumbhakar.

For the Non-applicant : Ex-Party.

AWARD

31.1.2013

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:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Geological Survey of India, Jaipur in terminating

the services of Shri Nihal Singh, w.e.f. 16.9.2001 is

legal and justified? What relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded

that he was employed as worker in the month of January,

2001 at the Zoological Survey of India under the Director

(Drilling), Western Region, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. He has

further pleaded that his services were terminated by verbal

order on 16.09.2001. Despite, he had continuously worked

for more than 240 days, his services were terminated

without any notice pay in lieu of notice or compensation.

He has also pleaded that at the time of his termination

junior to him were retained by the non-applicant and after

his termination new hands were given recruitment. Thus,

the non-applicant has violated the provisions of Sections

25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. He has prayed to declare

his termination as illegal and unjust and has also prayed

for his reinstatement with back wages and consequential

benefits.

3. None appeared on behalf of the non-applicant

despite service of registered notice. Therefore, order to

proceed Ex-Parte against the non-applicant was passed on

14.08.2012.

4. The workman in support of his claim has submitted

his affidavit and documents Ex-W1 to W6.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned representative

on behalf of the workman and perused the relevant record.

6. Initial burden was on the workman to prove that

he had in fact worked for 240 days during preceding

12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e.

16.09.2001 and his termination was in violation of Sec. 25-F

of the I.D. Act.

7. The workman in his affidavit has stated that he

had worked for more than 240 days during the period of

1 year. In support of his statement he has produced

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

photocopies of attendance register for the period 16.04.2001

to 15.09.2001. Attendance register Ex-W5 reveals that his

actual working days during said period were as under:—

16.04.2001 to 15.05.2001

4 Days

16.05.2001 to 15.06.2001

31 Days

16.06.2001 to 15.07.2001

30 Days

16.07.2001 to 15.08.2001

31 Days

16.08.2001 to 15.09.2001

12 Days

Total:

108 Days

8. It is evident from the above working days shown

in the attendance register Ex-W5 that the actual working

days of the workman during preceding 12 months from the

date of termination 16.09.2001 were 108 days only and he

had not worked for more than 240 days. Since, the workman

has failed to establish that he had worked for requisite

period during preceding 12 months from the date of his

termination, the non-applicant was under no obligation to

comply with the provisions under Section 25-F of the I.D.

Act.

9. The learned representative on behalf of the

workman has submitted that Section 25-G and 25-H are

independent of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and even if the

workman could not be able to establish his case under

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, it is still open him to make out

his case under Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. He

has also submitted that the non-applicant has not appeared

to contest the claim of the workman and Ex-parte

proceedings have been drawn against the non-applicant

in absence of any evidence in rebuttal there is no reason to

disbelieve the evidence of the workman. He has further

submitted that on the basis of the evidence of the workman

it has been established that action of the non-applicant

was in violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. In

support of his contention the learned representative has

relied on JT 1996 (7) SC 181, 1981 (42) FLR 381 (Delhi), 1987

(55) FLR 527 (Guj.), 1997 (76) FLR 393 (Allahabad).

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

above submissions.

11. In JT 1996 (7) SC 181 Hon'ble Apex Court has held

that Chapter V-A providing for retrenchment is not enacted

only for the benefit of the workman to whom section 25-F

applies but for all cases of retrenchment.

12. Thus, it is not necessary that retrenchment must

be covered by section 25-F so as to attract the applicability

of Section 25-G & 25-H which are independent and

distinct sections and provisions of above sections do not

require that the workman should have been in continuous

employment within the meaning of Section 25-B.

13. Therefore, even if, the workman has failed to

establish that his termination was in violation of provisions

of section 25-F of the I.D. Act, the question survives for

consideration is whether the non-applicant has violated

the provisions of Section 25-G & H of the I.D. Act as alleged

by the workman.

14. The name of the persons who were juniors to him

and allegedly retained by the non-applicant have not been

mentioned in the statement of claim. Similarly, the names of

the persons who were allegedly given employment after

termination of the services of the workman have also not

been mentioned.

15. In 1981 (42) FLR 381 referred to by the learned

representative for the workman Hon'ble Delhi H.C. has

observed:—

"It is now well established that the pleadings have

to be specific. The plea, in the present case, that the

juniors had been retained and the services of the

senior workmen had been terminated was raised by

the workmen. It was, therefore, for the workmen to

lead evidence and prove the violation of provisions

of Section 25-G."

16. In the present case, the workman has stated in

his affidavit that junior persons to him were retained after

termination of his services & new persons have been

engaged. He has further stated as below:

esjs ls twfu;j ,oa u;s O;fDr mWdkj] psrjke] iwj.k ehuk] fotsUnz]

esjh lsok eqfDr ds ckn Hkh dke dj jgs Fks vkSj dke ij yxk;k FkkA

17. The workman has stated that the above persons

were junior to him & it has also been stated that they were

employed after his termination, therefore, the statement is

very vague & contradictory. It is not clear amongst above

named persons who were junior to him & who were given

recruitment after his termination. Further, the names of

above persons were not disclosed in the statement of claim

& pleadings are not specific. The workman has not adduced

any documentary evidence in support of his statement

that junior persons were retained & new persons were given

recruitment after his termination. Therefore, evidence

adduced by the workman in this regard cannot be relied

on.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the workman has failed

to prove that junior persons to him were retained in the

establishment in violation of provisions of section 25-G &

new persons were given employment after termination of

his services without any offer of re-employment in violation

of section 25-H of the I.D. Act.

19. In view of above discussions, the workman has

failed to prove that the action of the management in

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2383

terminating his services was in violation of section 25-F &

25-G of the I.D. Act. He has also failed to prove any violation

of provisions of 25-H of the I.D. Act. Therefore, it is held

that the action of the non-applicant was not illegal &

unjustified. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any

relief. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

20. Award as above.

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 820.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MkbZjsdVj ¼fMªfyax½

T;ksyksftdy losZ vkWQ bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 3@2012½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04-03-2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@48@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus-

trial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute

between the The Director (Drilling), Geological Survey of

India and their workman, which was received by the Cen-

tral Government on 04.03.2013.

[No. L-42012/48/2011-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR.

Sh. N.K. Purohit

Presiding Officer

I.D. 3/2012

Reference No. L-42012/48/2010 [IR (DU)]

dated 23.11.2011

Shri Harkesh

S/o Shri Hirans/Hairsh

R/o Village Kashirampura

Post-Gudla, Distt: Karoli (Raj.)

V/s

The Director (Drilling)

Geological Survey of India

Western Region, Jhalana Doongri,

Jaipur.

Present:

For the Applicant Union : Shri Kailash Chandra Kumbhakar.

For the Non-applicant : Ex-Party.

AWARD

31.1.2013

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of Sec-

tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the

following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudica-

tion:—

"Whether the action of the management of

Geological Survey of India, Jaipur in terminating the

services of Shri Harkesh, w.e.f. 16.9.2001 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded

that he was employed as worker in the month of January,

2001 at the Zoological Survey of India under the Director

(Drilling), Western Region, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. He has

further pleaded that his services were terminated by verbal

order on 16.09.2001. Despite, he had continuously worked

for more than 240 days, his services were terminated with-

out any notice pay in lieu of notice or compensation. He

has also pleaded that at the time of his termination junior to

him were retained by the non-applicant and after his termi-

nation new hands were given recruitment. Thus, the non-

applicant has violated the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-

G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. He has prayed to declare his

termination as illegal and unjust and has also prayed for

his reinstatement with back wages and consequential ben-

efits.

3. None appeared on behalf of the non-applicant

despite service of registered notice. Therefore, order to

proceed Ex-Parte against the non-applicant was passed on

14.08.2012.

4. The workman in support of his claim has submit-

ted his affidavit and documents Ex-W1 to W6.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned representative

on behalf of the workman and perused the relevant record.

6. Initial burden was on the workman to prove that

he had in fact worked for 240 days during preceding

12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e.

16.09.2001 and his terrmination was in violation of

Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act.

7. The workman in his affidavit has stated that he

had worked for more than 240 days during the period of 1

year. In support of his statement he has produced photo-

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

copies of attendance register for the period 16.04.2001 to

15.09.2001. Attendance register Ex-W4 reveals that his

actual working days during said period were as under:—

16.04.2001 to 15.05.2001

4 Days

16.05.2001 to 15.06.2001

31 Days

16.06.2001 to 15.07.2001

30 Days

16.07.2001 to 15.08.2001

31 Days

16.08.2001 to 15.09.2001

12 Days

Total:

108 Days

8. It is evident from the above working days shown

in the attendance register Ex-W4 that the actual working

days of the workman during preceding 12 months from the

date of termination 16.09.2001 were 108 days only and he

had not worked for more than 240 days. Since, the

workman has failed to establish that he had worked for

requisite period during preceding 12 months from the date

of his termination, the non applicant was under no

obligation to comply with the provisions under Section 25-

F of the I.D. Act.

9. The learned representative on behalf of the

workman has submitted that Section 25-G and 25-H are

independent of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and even if the

workman could not be able to establish his case under

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, it is still open him to make out

his case under Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. He

has also submitted that the non applicant has not appeared

to contest the claim of the workman and Ex-parte

proceedings have been drawn against the non applicant in

absence of any evidence in rebuttal there is no reason to

disbelieve the evidence of the workman. He has further

submitted that on the basis of the evidence of the work-

man it has been established that action of the non-appli-

cant was in violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the I.D.

Act. In support of his contention the learned representa-

tive has relied on JT 1996(7) SC 181, 1981(42) FLR 381(Delhi),

1987(55) FLR 527(Guj.), 1997(76) FLR 393(Allahabad).

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

above submissions.

11. In JT 1996(7) SC 181 Hon'ble Apex court has held

that Chapter V-A providing for retrenchment is not en-

acted only for the benefit of the workman to whom section

25-F applies but for all cases of retrenchment.

12. Thus, it is not necessary that retrenchment must

be covered by section 25-F so as to attract the applicability

of Section 25-G & 25-H which are independent and distinct

sections and provisions of above sections do not require

that the workman should have been in continuous em-

ployment within the meaning of Section 25-B.

13. Therefore, even if, the workman has failed to es-

tablish that his termination was in violation of provisions

of section 25-F of the I.D. Act, the question survives for

consideration is whether the non-applicant has violated

the provisions of Section 25-G & H of the I.D. Act as

alleged by the workman.

14. The name of the persons who were juniors to him

and allegedly retained by the non-applicant have not been

mentioned in the statement of claim. Similarly, the names of

the persons who were allegedly given employment after

termination of the services of the workman have also not

been mentioned.

15. In 1981(42) FLR 381 referred to by the learned

representative for the workman Hon'ble Delhi H.C. has

observed:—

"It is now well established that the pleadings have

to be specific. The plea, in the present case, that the

juniors had been retained and the services of the

senior workmen had been terminated was raised by

the workmen. It was, therefore, for the workmen to

lead evidence and prove the violation of provisions

of Section 25-G."

16. In the present case, the workman has stated in

his affidavit that junior persons to him were retained after

termination of his services & new persons have been

engaged. He has further stated as below:

esjs ls twfu;j ,oa u;s O;fDr mWdkj] psrjke] iwj.k ehuk] jkeds'k

esjh lsok eqfDr ds ckn Hkh dke dj jgs Fks vkSj dke ij fy;k FkkA

17. The workman has stated that the above persons

were junior to him & It has also been stated that they were

employed after his termination, therefore, the statement is

very vague & contradictory. It is not clear amongst above

named persons who were junior to him & who were given

recruitment after his termination. Further, the names of

above persons were not disclosed in the statement of claim

& pleadings are not specific. The workman has not

adduced any documentary evidence in support of his state-

ment that junior persons were retained & new persons

were given recruitment after his termination. Therefore,

evidence adduced by the workman in this regard cannot

be relied on.

18. For the foregoing reasons, the workman has failed

to prove that junior persons to him were retained in the

establishment in violation of provisions of section 25-G &

new persons were given employment after termination of

his services without any offer of re-employment in

violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act.

19. In view of above discussions, the workman has

failed to prove that the action of the management in termi-

nating his services was in violation of section 25-F & 25-G

of the I.D. Act. He has also failed to prove any violation of

provisions of 25-H of the I.D. Act. Therefore, it is held that

the action of the non-applicant was not illegal & unjusti-

fied. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2385

20. Award as above.

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 821.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ ,d~;wfVo

vkQhlj] Hkkjrh ,vjVsy lfoZlsl fyñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k us fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k --------------------------

t;iqj ----------ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ------------------23@2012½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@12@2011-vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½

]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the The Executive officer, Bharti Airtel

Services Ltd. New Delhi and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 08.03.2013.

[No. L-40012/102/2011-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Sec.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Presiding Officer

SH. N.K. Purohit

I.D. 23/2012

Reference No. L-40012/102/2011 [IR(DU)]

dated: 13.1.2012

Sh. Mukesh Sharma

S/o Shri C.M. Sharma

House No. 2770, Bagru Ka Rasta,

Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

& 9 others (S/Shri Ganshyam, Ajay, Satyanarayan,

Krishna Kumar, Ashok Sharma, Shyam/Singh, Amit

Kumawat, Devendra Singh & Manoj Khandelwal).

Vs.

Chief Executive Officer

Bharti Airtel Services Ltd.

Corporate Centra,

Neelgagan Mandi, Sultanpur,

New Delhi : 110 030.

Present:

For the Applicants

Sh. Ashok Verma

For the Non-applicant

Ex-party.

AWARD

8.2.2013

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:—

"Whether the action of management of M/s Bharti

Airtel Services Ltd. New Delhi to terminate the

services of Shri Mukesh Sharma & 9 others (S/Shri

Ganshyam, Ajay, Satyanarayan, Krishna Kumar,

Ashok Sharma, Shyam/Singh, Amit Kumawat,

Devendra Singh & Manoj Khandelwal) without

following the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D.

Act, 1947, is fair, legal and justified? What relief they

are entitled to?"

2. The applicants in their claim statement have

pleaded that Non-applicant M/s Bharti Airtel Services Ltd.,

New Delhi is a registered company & is an industry within

the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. with reference

to their applications & subsequnt interview the applicants

were duly appointed on permanent post of Sales Officer. It

has been pleaded that initially the applicants were

appointed on probation for a period of 6 months & after

completion of probation period all of them were confirmed

& posted on permanent post. As per terms & conditions

given in the letter of appointment, their age of retirement

was 58 years & their services were transferable all over the

India. It has further been pleaded that the applicants were

required to perform the work as per instruction of their

superiors at Jaipur. It has also been pleaded that the

workmen had worked for more than 240 days but their

services have been terminated in violation of section 25-F

of the I.D. Act without any notice pay in lieu of notice or

compensation.

3. As regards, applicant No. (1) & (8), it has been

pleaded that by adopting unfair labour practices they were

compelled to sign their resigation letter on 20.4.11. The

resignation was effected w.e.f. 29.4.11 but prior to that the

resignation were withdrawn by them on 25.4.11. It has been

alleged that their services have been terminated illegally

w.e.f. 29.4.11 & services of the applicant No. 2 to 7 & 9 were

also terminated on 2.5.11 without paying any retrenchment

compensation or notice. Thus, the termination of the

applicants were in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

It has further been pleaded that no seniority list was

prepared & at the time of their termination junior persons

to them were retained in the job in violation of Section

25-G & fresh hands were employed in violation of Section

25-H of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the termination be declared

illegal & the applicants be reinstated with back wages &

other consequential benefits.

4. It is pertinent to mention that none appeared on

behalf of the non-applicant despite services of registered

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

notice, therefore, Ex-party proceedings were drawn against

the non-applicant.

5. In evidence, all the applicants have filed their

respective affidavits & documents in support of their claims.

6. Heard the learned representative on behalf of the

applicants & perused the relevant record.

7. The initial burden was on the applicants to show

that they had worked for more than 240 days during

preceding 12 months from the respective date of their

termination & their termination was in violation of the

provisions of the Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

8. Learned representative on behalf of the applicants

submits that the averments made in the statement of claim

have been duly proved by the applicants by documentary

evidence as well as affidavits of each individual applicant.

The non applicant company is an 'industry' within the

purview of I.D. Act. The applicants were duly appointed

for discharging the duties of sale at Jaipur under the

supervision and control of the Manager of the local unit.

The applicants were initially appointed on probation.

Thereafter, on completion of probation period they were

given posting against the permanent post and subsequently

their services were confirmed. He further submits that

despite the applicants had worked for more than 240 days

Name of

Before Confirmation

After Confirmation

Last drawn

Date of

No.

Petitioner

Date of

Designation

Date of

Designation

Salary

termination

Initial

Confirmation

after

Appointment

Confirmation

Mukesh

12.10.07

Sales

12.04.08

Sr. Officer/

4933/- pm

29.04.11

Sharma

Officer

S-2

Ghanshyam

1.03.07

Officer

1.09.07

Officer

7033/- pm

2.5.11

Mahendvarya

Sales (S-1

(S-1)

Level)

Ajay Kr. Jha

1.03.07

Sales

12.04.08

Officer

5033/- pm

2.5.11

Officer

Satya Narayan

22.01.08

Sales

20.07.08

Officer (S-

4533/- pm

2.5.11

Sain

Officer

1 Level)

Krishan Kumar

22.01.08

Sales

22.07.08

Sales

4367/- pm

2.5.11

Officer

Ashok Kr.

17.07.07

Sr. Officer

17.07.08

Sr. Officer

5367/- pm

2.5.11

Sharma

Sales/S-2

Shyam Singh

30.06.08

Officer

30.12.08

Officer

4433/- pm

2.5.11

Sales (S-1

Level)

Amit Kumawat

4.07.08

Officer

3.01.09

Officer

4433/- pm

29.4.11

Sales (S-1

Level)

Devendra

12.09.08

Sr. Officer

12.03.09

Sr. Officer

6667/- pm

2.5.11

Singh

Sales/S-2

Shekhawat

during preceding 12 months from the date of their

termination, their services have been terminated in violation

of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. He also submits that applicant

No. 1 and 8 were compelled to submit their resignation on

24.04.11. Their resignations were effective w.e.f. 29.04.11

but the same had been withdrawn by them prior to said

date. Therefore, their termination was also in violation of

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. In support of his contention

the ID. representative on behalf of the applicants has relied

on 1998 I LLJ 1084.

9. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the

above submissions.

10. The applicants have submitted their affidavit in

support of their claim. Except facts regarding resignation

& withdrawal of resignation by the applicants No. 1 & 8,

remaining facts mentioned in their affidavits are almost

identical. The applicants have submitted the copies of their

appointment letter, confirmation letter, pay slips in support

of their statement. Applicant No. 1 and 8 have also produced

copies of letters regarding withdrawal of their resignation.

As per respective statements of the applicant in their

affidavits and documentary evidence on record their date

of initial appointment, designation, date of confirmation,

last drawn salary and alleged date of termination are as

below:—

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2387

11. Upon perusal of the documents brought on record

by the applicants it reveals that on the basis of interview,

they were given appointment by the non applicant as Sales

Officers. The terms and conditions of the appointment have

been mentioned in their respective appointment letters.

Initially they were on probation for a period of 6 months. It

further reveals that their services were confirmed after

completion of probation period. As per clause 5 of

appointment letter initial place of posting was to be given

at any location within Jaipur. However, they were liable to

be transferred or deputed from one place to another

anywhere in India or abroad and/or from one department

to another or from one establishment to another. As per

Clause 4.5 in the event of absence from work prior written

intimation of such absence was to be given to their

supervisor, & according to Clause 6 operational

instructions/procedures as contained in the company's

guidelines or other administrative instructions issued by

the management from time to time were to be abided &

carried out. As per Clause 6.3 the work product was to be

generated by them while performing the services during

the term of their employment, including all electronic data,

papers, worksheets, logs, records, reports, documents,

training material etc.

12. It is evident that the applicants were appointed

as Sales Officers. It is implied that their job was to bring the

products of the company within the consumers reach. They

were not performing any supervisory work of managerial

work. Therefore, the applicants were 'workman' as defined

in Section 2-(s) of the I.D. Act.

13. It is also evident from the appointment letters,

confirmation letters and salary slips of the applicants that

they were duly appointed employees of the non applicant

and employer employee relation existed between the non

applicant and the applicant.

14. From the respective appointment letters and pay

slips it reveals that during preceding 12 months from the

respective date of their termination as mentioned in the

chart, the applicants had worked for more than 240 days.

The copies of the letters of the applicants No. 1 Mukesh &

No. 8 Anil also reveal that they had withdrawn their

resignation before the effective date of their resignation.

Therefore, the statements of the applicants find support

from the above documents. The applicants have alleged

that prior to their termination no notice or pay in lieu of

notice or compensation was given to them, therefore, their

termination was In violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

15. The non applicant has not appeared to contest

the case & ex-party proceedings have been drawn against

the non applicant as such there is no cross examination on

the affidavit submitted by the applicants. In absence of

any reply to the claim statement & evidence in rebuttal,

there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the

applicants supported by documentary evidence.

16. From the affidavit and documentary evidence

brought on record it is established that the applicants were

employees of the non applicant and they were workmen

within the definition of 'Workman' under Section 2-s of the

I.D. Act. It is also established that the workmen had worked

for more than 240 days during preceding 12 months from

the date of their termination and their services were

terminated without any notice pay in lieu of notice or

compensation. Thus, their termination was in violation of

Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

17. Now, the questions survive for consideration are

whether junior persons to the applicants were in the job at

the time of termination of the services of the applicants in

violation of section 25-G of the I.D. Act & fresh hands were

given employment after termination of the services of the

applicants in violation of section 25-H of the I.D.Act.

18. In statement of claim neither the names of the

persons allegedly junior to the applicants have been

mentioned nor the names of the persons allegedly given

employment after termination of the services of the

applicants have been disclosed. The applicants in their

affidavits have disclosed certain names in this regard but

there is no documentary evidence in support of their

statements. The applicant Sh. Ghanshyam has stated that

Sh. Manoj Khandelwal was junior to him & he has also

stated that Sh. Manoj Khandelwal was employed after

termination of his services. Applicant Ajay Kumar has

stated that after terminating his services Sh. Vikram Sharma

& Sh. Ratandeep were employed whereas other applicants

have stated that after termination of their services

Sh. Kuldeep & Sh. Vikram Sharma were given employment,

therefore, there are contradictions in repect of the persons

allegedly given employment after termination of the services

of the applicants. Further, the applicants in their affidavits

have not stated when the persons junior to them were

appointed & when new persons were given employment.

For the foregoing reasons the evidences of the applicants

in this regard are not reliable. Thus, the applicants have

failed to establish that the action of the management was

in violation of section 25-G&25-H of the I.D.Act.

19. But it has already been concluded that the services

of the applicants were terminated without complying with

the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the I.D.Act,

theefore, the said action of the non-applicant in terminating

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the services of the applicants being in violation of the

provisions of section 25-F of the I.D.Act is illegal &

unjustified.

20. Having regards to the nature of job, period of

service & facts that after completing probation period the

services of the applicants were confirmed, the applicants

are entitled for their reinstatement in service. In view of the

entire facts & circumstances of the instant case, the interest

of justice would be sub served by reinstatement of the

applicants with 25% back wages.

21. In the result, the reference under adjudicaiton is

answered in favour of the applicants & it is held that the

action of the Non-applicants in terminating the services of

the applicants without complying with the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the I.D.Act is illegal &

unjustified. Resultantly, the applicants are entitled to be

reinstated with 25% back wages. The reference is answered

accordingly.

22. Award as above.

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding offcer

ubZ fnYyh 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 822

dkñvkñ 822.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 d vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ tjuy

eSustj] dks;EcVwj lfifux ,.M ohfoax fey ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k us fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vks|kSfxd vf/kdj.k pSUubZ ds iapkV lanHkZ

psUubZ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 41@2012 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks]

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@05@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½[

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the General

Manager, Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Mills and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.03.2013.

[No. L-42011/05/2012-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 13th February, 2013

Present:

A.N. JANARDANAN

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 41/2012

(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), between

the Management of NTC Mill and their Workmen)

BETWEEN

1. The General Secretary

: 1st Party Petitioner Union

Coimbatore District Mill

Labours Union (CITU)

Anupparpalayam, Kattoor,

Coimbatore

2. The General Secretary

: 2nd Party Petitioner Union

Kovai Mandala

Panchalai Thozhilalar

Sangam (NDLF),

32 Perumal Kovil Veedhi

Vilakurichi, Coimbatore

3. The Asstt. General

: 3rd Party Petitioner Union

Secretary

Desiya Panchalai

Thozhilalar Sangam

(INTUC), 1848 Trichy Road

Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore

4. The General Secretary

: 4th Party Petitioner Union

Kovai Periyar Mavatta

Dravida Panchalai

Thozhilalar Munnetra

Sangam (LPF)

162, Pankaja Mills

Quarters Pankaja

Mill Road, Coimbatore.

Vs.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2389

The Chief

2nd Party/Respondent

General Manager

Coimbatore Spinning and

Weaving Mills

Krishnaswamy Mudaliar Road

Post Box No. 24, Coimbatore.

Appearances:

For the 1st Party

: M/s S. Senthil Nathan,

Petitioner Union

Advocates

For the 1st Party

: Petitioners Default to

Petitioner Union 2 to 4

Appear

For the 2nd Party/

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

Management

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-42011/05/2012-IR(DU)

dated 06.07.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of NTC

Mill Management, Southern Region, Coimbatore not

resuming 3 shifts in Coimbatore Spinning and

Weaving Mills on par with their union of NTC Mills

is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 41/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Respondent appeared through advocate and of 4

petitioners, First Petitioner, constituting First Party

Petitioners, 4 in number only appeared through Advocate

who filed Vakalat. Petitioners 2 to 4 constituting the first

Party with 1st Petitioner did not appear at all dispute having

been served with notice. In spite of several adjournments

numbering as good as 14 they did not appear except by

way of debut of the First Petitioner-First Party on 24.09.2012.

Thereafter the First Petitioner-First Party also remained

consecutively and consistently absent. Petitioners 2 to 4,

therefore had been called absent and set ex-parte.

Thereafter First Petitioner has also been called absent and

set ex-parte. Respondent has been present or representing

the case consistently throughout. When the matter stood

posted from time to time for further steps and lately on

today i.e. 13.02.2013 for further proceeding, also petitioners

were absent nor represented.

3. In spite of several adjournments the petitioners in

the dispute did not turn up or let in any evidence in support

of their case for answering the reference. Needless to say it

is upon the petitioners to substantiate their case that not

considering the demands of the Petitioner Unions in respect

of not resuming three shifts in Coimbatore Spinning and

Weaving Mills on par with their unit of NTC Mills is not

justifiable. When they wish the Court to be satisfied and

made believe that it is so it is for them to discharge that

burden which has not been done. The inevitable conclusion

in the absence of any evidence to the contra is that there is

resuming of three shifts in Coimbatore Spinning and

Weaving Mills on par with their unit of NTC Mills and if

not resumed the same is only justified. Therefore the

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

4. 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 13th January, 2013)

A.N. JANARADANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party Petitioner Union

None

For the 1st Party Petitioner Union 2 to 4

None

For the 2nd Party/1st Management

None

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

N/A

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 823

dkñvkñ 823.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñ lhñ ,yñ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@1998½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@181@1997&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/1998)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of ECL their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-22011/181/1997-IR(C-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

Present

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 25 OF 1998

Parties

The management of Mohanpur Colliery,

M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)

Vs.

The Vice President, CMSI (CITU),

Raniganj (W.B.)

Representatives:

For the management

None

For the union (Workman) :

None

INDUSTRY COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated-13.02.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

181/97-I.R.(C-II) dated 16.07.98 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Mohanpur

Colliery of M/s. ECL awarding punishment to Sh.

Nirmal Ch. Gorai, Dumper Operator, by way of

demotion to Drill helper Category 'E' after domestic

enquiry when the criminal case is also pending for

the same charges, and also of non payment of

suspension allowance, is justifield? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No.L-22012/181/

97-I, I.R.(C-II) dated 16.07.98 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 25 of 1998

was registered on 10.08.1998 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 of

witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the

parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found that

the Union is neither appearing nor taking any step since

2006 despite registered notices. Several opportunities were

given but of no effect. It seems that the workman is now no

more interested to proceed with the case further. The case

is also too old-1998. Since the Union does not want to

proceed with the case further, the case is closed and

accordingly an order of "No Dispute Award" 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

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ 824

dkñ vkñ 824.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñ lhñ ,yñ

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k

ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼vkbZMh la[;k 106@2003½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@114@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II)]

chñ,eñiVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 106/2003 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Wani North Area of

Western Coalfields Limited, Rajur Sub Area (Wani North

Area) of W.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-22012/114/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2391

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/106/2003 Date: 21.02.2013.

Party No. 1

The General Manager,

Wani North Area of Western Coalfields

Limited, Post. Ukni, Tah. Wani,

Distt. Yavatmal (MS)

The Sub Area Manager,

Rajur Sub Area (Wani North Area) of

WCL

Post: Ukni, Tah. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal

Versus

Party No. 2

Sh. J.N. Pandey, General Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS), WNA

Tilak Nagar, Wani, Post & Tah. Wani,

Distt. Yavatmal (MS).

AWARD

Dated: 21st February, 2013

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 WCL and their workman, Shri Bhagwan

Pudke, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/114/2002-

IR (CM-II) dated 05.03.2003, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management in relation

to Rajur Sub Area of Wani North Area of Western

Coalfields Ltd. in not protecting the pay of Sh.

Bhagwan Shankar Pudke, consequent upon is

conversion from Loader to General mazdoor is legal

& 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 claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Bhagwan

Pudke, ('the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim

and the management of WCL, (“Party No. 1" in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that he is working as a fitter in Endom

Section at Kollar-Pipri open cast mine, Wani and initially

he was appointed as a loader in the year 1975 and continued

to work an underground loader with unblemished service

record and in the year, 1982, he fell ill and suffered from

acute pain in his stomach and it was detected the he was

suffering from Portal hypertension and he was admitted to

medical college hospital on 24.07.1982 and was discharged

on 04.08.1982 and after his discharge from the hospital, as

per medical advice, he was given surface job as a chowkidar

for a period of about six months and his basic salary was

protected and thereafter, he was again sent to underground

mine and he worked in the underground till 1993 and in

1993, he again fell ill and it was diagnosed of his suffering

from serious problems of stomach and he was referred to

KEM hospital, Bombay and in that hospital he was under

treatment for about one month and as per the advice of the

doctors of KEM hospital to give him light duties, party no.

1 gave him surface duty as a general mazdoor and as the

change of the nature of his duty was on medical advice, it

was incumbent on the party no. 1 to protect his basic salary

of the loader, which was about Rs. 128/- per day, but instead

of protecting his basic salary, party no, 1 fixed his basic

salary of Rs. 70-80/-per day and therefore, there was loss

of Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month and in August, 1999,

he was transferred to Junad Open cast project and at Junad

open cast project also, he was given surface job, but his

basic pay was not protected and though he made several

representations to party no. 1, he could not get any positive

relief, so he raised the dispute before the conciliation officer

and during the conciliation, the party no. 1 took the plea

that as he was given surface job on his own request, he

was not entitled to pay protection, so the conciliation failed

and matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication

and there has been a settlement with the union that if the

nature of job is changed on administrative grounds, the

pay should be protected and this settlement has acquired

the nature of service condition and he was sent to KEM

hospital for treatment on the recommendation of the medical

officer of party no. 1 and he was given surface job on

medical advice and till now, he is doing surface job, but he

was not given pay protection and it is learnt by him that

other persons, who have been given surface job on

administrative grounds, their pay has been protected and

as such, he is entitled for protection of his basic pay and

by not protecting his basic pay, party no. 1 have indulged

into illegal, unlawful and unfair labour practice and violated

the service conditions and such action is not justified and

as such, he is entitled for protection of his basic pay and to

receive the arrear wages from 1993.

3. In the written statement, the party no. 1 have

pleaded inter-alia that the industrial dispute has been raised

by the union, K.S.S. (HMS) and the General Secretary of

the union is the party to the reference and not the

individual workman and as such, the individual workman

has no locus standi/legal entity in the matter of filing of the

statement of claim and therefore, the statement of claim,

which has been signed and filed by the workman in his

individual capacity has no legal and valid status in the

eyes of law and the same does not deserve to be given

consideration and is liable to be rejected and the terms of

reference made by the government are vague and general

and it does No specify the date and year of alleged

conversion and non-protection of pay. The further case of

the party no. 1 is that according to the claim of the

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

workman, the alleged cause of action arose in 1993, but the

dispute was raised by the union before the ALC in 2001,

which is highly belated and such a belated reference is not

maintainable in the eyes of law and the workman was

converted to time rated from piece rated worker in 1993 and

he was receiving the wages of time rated worker without

any protest or objection, it is to be presumed that the

conversion was right and justified and had been accepted

by the workman and after a gap of nearly 8/10 years, he

cannot claim that it was unjust and unfair and in fact, in

such a situation, the principle of estoppels operates and

the workman is estopped from making a claim for protection

of piece rated wages of a job, which he was not performing

for such a long time. It is further pleaded by the party no. 1

that the workman had fallen ill due to natural causes in the

year 1992 and for his such ailment, he was given all medical

treatments including referral to outside hospitals from time

to time and due to this reason, he was not in a position to

work as a loader and therefore, on the request of the

workman and medical recommendation, he had been

provided category-I job from time to time and he was

provided light job in category-I for six days from 07.04.1992

to 12.04.1992, with the condition that during the said period,

he would be paid wages of category-I and after expiry of

the said six days, he would be reverted back to his original

job of loader and again, he was provided light job for six

days in Cat.-I vide office order dated 26.04.1993 specifically

mentioning there in that he would not be entitled to group

wages and provided light job in cat.-I for 15 days from

20.10.1994 to 07.11.1994 vide office order dated 19.10.1994

and allowed light job for six months from 29.12.1994 to

28.06.1995

vide

office

order

dated

28/29.12.1994 and during the period from 29.12.1994 to

28.06.1995, he was deployed in cat.-I and paid wages

accordingly and after expiry of the six months of light duty

on 28.06.1995, the workman did not report for further duty

either as a loader or cat.-I mazdoor, but however, he

represented vide his application dated 01.07.1995 to allow

him to continue to perform light duty on medical advice, so

he was allowed light duty in cat.-I, till he was permanently

regularized as cat.-I mazdoor vide office order dated

12.01.1998 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.1997 alongwith others

and on his regularisation in cat.-I his wages was fixed at

the mid point of wage scale of cat.-I w.e.f. 01.01.1997

accroding to the prevailing norms, rules and agreement

and the reason of the change over of the workman from

piece rated to time rated was purely on his own request

and on the basis of medical advice and such change cannot

be attributed to the management and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4. In support of his claim, the workman has examined

himself as a witness. The evidence of the workman is on

affidavit. In his evidence, the workman has reiterated the

facts mentioned in the statement of claim. However,

contradicting his own evidence given in the examination-

in-chief and presented in the statement of claim, in his

cross-examination, the workman has stated that he

sustained injury in the coal mine, while working

underground and thereafter, he was entrusted the work of

general mazdoor on surface on the ground of sustaining

injury. The workman has admitted the suggestions given

to him that he was declared unfit by the doctor to work as

a loader and that after he was declared unfit to work as a

loader, mamagement of WCL gave him work on surface as

a General mazdoor and the management had given a written

order for the same. The workman has also admitted that he

had not given any representation to the management to

protect his basic pay of a loader, when management gave

his wages of General Mazdoor cat.-I in time rate.

5. One Chandra Shekhar Khond has been examined

as a witness by party no. 1 In his examination-in-chief,

which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated the facts

mentioned in the written statement. It is to be mentioned

hare that the evidence of the witness for the management

remained unchallenged as neither the workman nor his

advocate appeared to cross-examine the said witness.

It is also necessary to be mentioned here that the

case was fixed to 22.01.2012 for hearing of argument on

merit of the case and as neither the workman nor anybody

else appeared on his behalf, orders was passed to proceed

exparte against the workman.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the statement of

claim has been filed by the workman in his individual

capacity, even though the dispute was raised by the union,

"Koyla Shramik Sabha" and he has not filed any authority

from the union for the same and as such, the statement of

claim is void ab-initio and liable to be rejected. It was also

submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that

the terms of reference is general and vague, as no date of

year of the alleged conversion of the workman from piece

rate to time rate and non-protection of pay have been

mentioned and such vague reference is deserved to be

struck down and according to the statement of claim, the

alleged grievance had arisen in the year 1993, but the dispute

was raised in the year 201 and there was inordinate delay in

raising the dispute and no plausible reason has assigned

for such delay and for that the claim of the workman is

required to be turned down. It is further submitted by the

learned advocate for the party no. 1 that the workman had

deployed in time rated job due to his poor health and on

his request and paid wages of time rate and subsequently

regularized in time rate and at no stage, he made any protest,

which has been admitted by the workman in the cross-

examination and as the workman accepted the wage of time

rate and his conversion without any protest, he is stopped

to raise the question under the principles of estoppels.

The further submission made by the learned advocate

for the party no. 1 was that it is clear from the evidence on

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2393

record including the documents that on medical advice

and on the own request of the workman, the workman

was deployed in light job in time rate and in the

document, annexure 'B' it was specifically mentioned that

he was being allowed to work in time rate as per his own

request and the said fact has been further fortified by

the document, annexure-G, the application of the

workman dated 01.07.1995 and as such, giving him wage

protection of a loader does not arise and though the

workman in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim has

mentioned about a settlement, copy of such settlement

has not filed and there was never any settlement

between the party no. 1 and Koyla Shramit Sabha, the

disputant union on this issue and there was a

conciliation settlement dated 02.11.1992 modified

settlement dated 31.10.1995 with R.K.K.M.S. union and

according to para 1.1 of the settlement dated 02.11.1992,

it was agreed that management shall provide alternate/

ligher job to employees particularly loaders, who are

physically weak due to their old age, sickness or I.O.D.

irrespective of vacancies and no provision has been

made for protection of wages in such events and clause

1.3 of the settlement provides for protection of group

wages of loaders, who are converted to time rate in the

event of filling up of 50% of the sanctioned vacancies in

accordance with the man power budget from amongst

the loaders, who have completed 15 years of service

and the case of the workman does not cover by clause

1.3 of the said settlement and as per the modified

settlement dated 31.10.1995, it was agreed that all such

piece rated workers, who have given option or may give

option for time rated job, their pay will be fixed at the

midpoint of commensurating category and as the

workman had opted for time rated job, he is not entitled

for protection of group wage even under the said clause

also and as such, the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

7. On perusalof the materials on record, it is found

that there is force in the contentions raised by the learned

advocate for the party no. 1. It is found that due to his

illness and doctor's advice, the workman requested party

no. 1 for alternative job on surface and accordingly, party

no. 1 gave the workman alternative job on surface from

time to time. It is also found from record that while giving

order for alternative job, it was specifically mentioned in

the orders that the workman would be entitled to get the

wages of General Mazdoor cat.-I and he would be not

entitled to group wages and accepting the conditions, the

workman performed alternate job on surface. It is also found

that the workman did not raise any objection regarding

payment of wages of General Mazdoor cat.-I to him till

2001. It is also found that the workman is not entitled for

protection of his group wages as per the settlement dated

02.11.1992 as entered between the party no. 1 and

R.K.K.M.S. Union. Therefore, the workman is not entitled

to any relief. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to Rajur

Sub Area of Wani North Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. in

not protecting the pay of Sh. Bhagwan Shankar Pudke,

consequent upon is conversion from Loader to General

Mazdoor is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled

to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 825

dkñvkñ 825.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñ lhñ ,yñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@1997½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&22012@28@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, The 11th March, 2013

S.O. 825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/1997)

of the Central Government Indusrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of ECL their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-22012/28/1996-IR(C-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

Present :

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 1997

Parties:

The management of MIC Jhanjra Project.,

M/s. ECL, Raniganj (WB)

Vs.

The Jt. Gen. Secy., CMU, Ukhra (W.B.)

Representatives:

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

For the Management:

None

For the Union (Workman): None

INDUSTRY:COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL

Dated: 12.02.2013

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

28/96-I.R.(C-II) dated 10.03.1997 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of MIC

Jhanjra Project of M/s. ECL in denying promotion

to Technical Grade 'B' w.e.f. 01.08.93 to S/Sh. Molla

Asanulla, Lal Mohan Singh and Ambika Singh is

legal and just? If not, to what relief is the concerned

workmen are entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

28/96-I.R.(C-II) dated 10.03.1997 of the above said reference

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 17 of 1997

was registered on 26.03.1997 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 the 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.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found that

the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step

since 2009 despite registered notices. It seems that the

workman is now no more interested to proceed with the

case further. The case is also too old — 1997. As such, the

case is closed and accordingly an order of " No Dispute

Award" 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.

Sd-

JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dk- vk- 826

.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

MCY;w ñ lhñ ,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼vkbZMh la[;k 129@2002½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-03-2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@301@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, 11th March, 2013

S.O. 826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 129/2002 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Ballarpur Area of

Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 11.03.2013.

[No. L-22012/301/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/129/2002

Date: 22.02.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Chief General Manager,

Ballarpur Area of WCL,

P.O. Gauri, Tah-Rajura,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS).

V/s

Party No. 2 :

Shri Mohan Vairaiyya Darla

R/o. Gauri Colliery Qrt. No.

176, PO: Gauri, Tah-Rajura,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

Dated: 22nd February, 2013

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 WCL and their workman, Shri Mohan Darla,

for adjudication as per letter No. L-22012/301/2001-IR (CM-

II) dated 25.07.2002, with the following schedule:—

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2395

"Whether the action of the management of Gauri

Sub Area (Ballarpur Area) of WCL in dismissing Shri

Mohan S/o. Viraiah Darla, Clerk Grade-II at Pouni

Open Cast Mine of Western Coalfields Limited from

service vide Order No. WCL/BA/GSA.PER/

Dismissed/2001/232 dated 28.3.2001 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

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 Mohan Darla,

("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 working at Pouni Open

Cast Mine of Gauri Sub Area, as a clerk grade II, before his

dismissal and he had put eighteen years of long,

unblemished and sincere service without any stigma and

on 08.06.2000, he was charge sheeted for commission of

the alleged misconduct as per articles 26.1, 26.13 and 26.22,

which pertain to cheating and dishonesty with the property

of the employer and commision of forgery of records and

thereby causing loss to the management and he submitted

his explanation and denied the charges leveled against

him, but party No. 1 passed orders to hold a departmental

enquiry against him, and the departmental enquiry was

conducted by Mr. C.B. Singh and after completion of the

enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the

disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority

imposed the punishment of dismissal from services against

him, vide order dated 28.03.2001 and though he preferred

an appeal against the said order, he has not received any

communication as to the result of the said appeal. The

further case of the workman is that the enquiry was

conducted in extreme haste, without giving him full and

complete opportunity and material irregularities were

committed by the enquiry officer during the enquiry and

the findings given by the enquiry officer are highly perverse

and erroneous and he was sent to personnel office as a

clerk, as per the order of the personnel manager, Gauri Sub

Area, vide order dated 24/28.08.1993 and there was no

evidence on record of the enquiry to conclude that he was

working as CMPF clerk at the relevant time and place and

the enquiry officer did not properly and correctly appreciate

the position during the course of the enquiry and abruptly

concluded about his working as a CMPF clerk and there

was no order of his appointment or posting as a CMPF

clerk and by order dated 23.01.1993, he was appointed in

R.C. and as such, no charge of any nature can be attached

to him nor he was involved in any such charge. It is also

pleaded by the workman that even though he pressed hard

for production of the vv and y y forms prepared manually

of the year 1993-94 and 1996, such documents were not

produced and due to non-production of such documents,

it was not possible to cross-examine the witnesses

effectively and to bring the real facts on record and during

the enquiry, it came on record that four to five persons

were working in the CMPF office for the purpose of filling

up the vv and y y forms manually and he had not prepared

the form, annexure 'B' and annuxere 'A' produced on record

was a document prepared manually and it did not come in

evidence that the said document was prepared by him and

the said document was in the handwriting and signature of

Shri Subhash Pimpalkar and Shri V.L. Mangrulkar, clerks,

who were appointed for that purpose and the vv statement

did not bear his counter signature or the same was not in

his handwriting and from the years 1993 to 1996, filling up

of the vv and yy forms was being done manually and

therefore, the enquiry officer came to a wrong conclusion

in that respect and he had requested the enquiry officer to

call the 11 persons, who were working in CMPF office and

were responsible for preparation of the vv and yy forms, as

witnesses on his behalf, as it was not possible for him to

call them personally to adduced their evidence and those

witnesses were afraid of to enter into the witness box and

the enquiry officer did not make bonafide attempts to

procure the attendance of those witnesses with a bias mind

to support the management and witness Shri V.G. Ganar for

the management admitted in his evidence that the vv and

yy forms do not bear his (workman) signatures and the

enquiry officer failed to appreciate the evidence of Shri

Ganar properly and the enquiry officer wrongly held that

production of witnesses was his duty and the charge has

not been proved against him beyond reasonable doubts

and there was no evidence on record showing his

involvement in commission of the alleged misconduct and

management did not lodge any complaint with the police

against him, even though the alleged charges leveled

against him were in the nature of a criminal offence and

such action of the management shows that they were afraid

of taking any penal action against him, due to want of

cogent proof. The workman has prayed to set aside the

order of dismissal from services passed against him and to

reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The party No. 1 in their written statement have

pleaded inter-alia that the workman was initially

appointed on 18.10.1982 and he was transferred from

Dhoptala OCM to Gauri OCM No. 1 w.e.f. 14.10.1992 and

from Gauri OCM, he was transferred to Pouni OCM w.e.f.

07.06.1998 and the worked as CMPF clerk at Gauri OCM-I

for the period from 14.10.1992 to 06.06.1998 and various

statutory forms, such as form yy and form vv etc. are

required to be prepared and submitted to the concerned

CMPF Commissioner in respect of PF accounts and the

clerks are responsible for all work relating to CMPF and

frequent complaints were being made by the employees as

well as office bearers of the Trade Unions, regarding

discrepancies in CMPF accounts, so the management

decided to conduct test verification of statutory record yy

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

and vv to ascertain the correctness of the remittance of

CMPF and CMPF contribution made against CMPF account

number A/7/40/1162 of the workman for the period from

March 1993 to March 1998 and the yy and vv forms were

verified and on verification, it was found that a sum of

Rs. 1544/- and a sum of Rs. 4000/- was shown in excess in

his CMPF contributions in the vv statements for the period

March 1994 and March 1996 respectively and as the

workman committed gross misconduct, he was issued with

the charge sheet dated 08.06.2000, under the provisions of

the Standing Orders and the workman submitted his reply

and as the reply was found to be unsatisfactory, it was

decided to conduct a departmental enquiry and Shri C.B.

Singh was appointed as the enquiry officer and the enquiry

was conducted legally, properly and following the

principles of natural justice and after completion of the

enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the

competent authority and the workman had fully participated

in the enquiry and he was also availed the service of a co-

worker and he was supplied with copies of the documents,

on which reliance was placed by the management to prove

the misconduct levelled against him and the workman was

also granted opportunity to cross-examine the management

witnesses as well as to lead evidence in his defence and a

copy of the enquiry report was sent to him vide letter dated

18.03.2001 by registered post and as the charges levelled

against the workman were very serious, the competent

authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from

services w.e.f. 29.03.2001, as per order dated 28.03.2001 and

the workman preferred an appeal dated 12.04.2001, against

the said order and the appellate authority dismissed the

appeal of the workman, finding the same to be devoid of

any merit and the decision of the appellate authority was

intimated to the representative of the union vide Order

No. 4804 dated 08.09.2001. It is further pleaded by the Party

No. 1 that the documentary evidence proves that the

workman worked as CMPF clerk for the period from

14.10.1992 to 06.06.1998 at Gauri OCM-I and he had prepared

and submitted the annual report of CMPF in form vv for

the currency period of 3/1993 to 3/1998 to Regional

Commissioner, CMPF, Nagpur and the workman had

accepted during the enquiry that he was doing CMPF work

and therefore, question of giving authorization or

appointment order as CMPF clerk doesn't arise and the vv

statements in question were prepared manually and

subsequently typed and submitted to the Regional

Commissioner, CMPF, Nagpur duly checked and signed

by the workman and copies of those typed vv statements

were given to the workman at the time of the enquiry and

the copy of manually prepared yy statement by the

workman for the same period were also given to the workman

during the enquiry and the preparation of vv statement

manually was purely rough work and the same were

destroyed after the typed vv statement was prepared and

therefore asking for vv statement prepared manually has

got no meaning and the enquiry officer in the departmental

proceeding though held that the workman was required to

produce his own witnesses, he agreed to issue necessary

orders to the controlling authority of the eleven witnesses,

whose name were included in the list of witnesses furnished

by the workman and accordingly issued letter No. 134 dated

10.11.2000, but no witness was present in any of the dates

of hearing and the workman did not take any step for the

appearance of the witnesses to give evidence and the

disputed documents were not prepared by Shri Subhash

Pimpalkar and Shri V.L. Mangrulkar and the enquiry was

held properly and the punishment is 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 of a departmental enquiry, the

validity of the departmental enquiry was taken as a

preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated

18.05.2012, 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 the workman had

put 18 years of clean and unblemished service with the

Party No. 1 prior to his dismissal and he was charge sheeted

on 08.06.2000 and according to the said charge sheet, the

workman while working as CMPF clerk for the period

from14.10.1992 to 06.06.1998, during the currency period 3/

94 and 3/96, he had mentioned excess amount of CMPF

contribution that the actual amount in the 'vv' statement

against his own CMPF A/c. No. A/7/40/1162 intentionally

and he was charge sheeted under clauses 26.1 26.13 and

26.22 of the certified standing orders and as the party no. 1

was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the

workman, the department enquiry was constituted and it is

an admitted position that no single person used to till in

the entries in the vv form manually and for the prupose of

filling an entries in the said form, services of more than one

person were being taken and the workman alongwith few

other clerks were performing the said task, though as per

his appointment, the same was not a part of his duty and

the Head Clerk, who was overall in-charge of the activities

of the particular section is responsible for verification and

submission of the entries in the forms yy and vv and the

said facts negate the narration in the charge sheet that the

workman was responsible for maintaining the said records

and it is clear that maintaining the entries in yy and vv

forms was not the sole responsibility of the workman, but

it was a task done by him alongwith other employees and

during the enquiry, though the workman had demanded to

supply him the copy of the yy form filled in manually for

the relevant period, such documents were not supplied to

him and inspite of the demand of the workman to examine

the 11 others persons, who were working with him and

handling the task of posting of entries in vv form and yy

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2397

forms, such persons were not examined by the management

and examination of the said persons would have shed light

as to who exactly was responsible for the erroneous

postings and it can be found that in the enquiry, even by

applying the yard stick of preponderance of probability

management failed to prove the charges levelled against

the workman and the evidence on the record of the enquiry

were insufficient to establish that it was the workman, who

committed the misconduct with dishonest intention to

cause loss to the company and there is no iota of evidence

on the record of the enquiry to hold the workman guilty of

the charges levelled against him and the findings of the

enquiry officer are perverse as he proceeded on wrong

premise and the findings are not based on the evidence on

record and based on surmises and the enquiry officer did

not analyze the evidence in its true perspective and as the

findings are perverse, the punishment of dismissal from

services passed against the workman is liable to be quashed

and set aside and the workman is entitled for reinstatement

in service with continuity and full back wages.

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for party No. 1 that in this case, it has already been held

that the departmental enquiry conducted against the

workman is legal and valid and the vv statement in question

were prepared manually and subsequently typed and

submitted to Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Nagpur duly

checked and signed by the workman and the copy of the

vv statement was given to the workman during the enquiry

and the copy of the manually prepared yy statement by the

workman for the same period was also given to him during

the enquiry and the manual preparation of the vv statement

was purely rough work so after getting it typed, the manually

prepared vv statement was destroyed and therefore, asking

for the copy of the manuscript of the typed vv statement

by the workman during the enquiry has got no meaning

and the reconciliation statement was prepared and signed

by the workman and such evidence was adduced by the

management during the enquiry and the workman submitted

the list of eleven witnesses and though the enquiry officer

wrote letter to the concerned authorities for the release of

the said witnesses to give evidence vide his letter dated

10.11.2000, No witness was present in any of the dates of

the hearing of the enquiry and the workman did not take

any effective step to see that those persons are examined

in the enquiry in his favour and it was the duty of the

workman to produce his witnesses in the enquiry and it is

clear from the materials on record that the workman did not

want to examine those persons and the findings of the

enquiry officer are based on the evidence produced during

the enquiry and not on surmses and the enquiry officer

has rightly arrived at the conclusions after analyzing the

evidence on the record of the enquiry in a rational manner

and the charges levelled against the workman were proved

beyond any doubt and the charges proved against the

workman were very serious and grave in nature and as

such, the punishment imposed against is justified and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it

proper to mention the settled principles regarding the power

of a Tribunal in interfering with punishment awarded by

the competent authority in departmental proceedings and

regarding the effect of acquittal of an employee by a

criminal court, against whom a departmental proceedings

was also initiated, by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

In a number of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court

have held that:—

"The jurisdiction of theTribunal to interfere with

the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be

equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal

cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry

officer or competent authority where they are not

arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose

penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the

competent authority either by an Act of legislature

or rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the

Constitution. If 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 competent authority. If the

penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on

the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power

to substitute its own discretion for that of the

authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is

malafide is certainly not a matter of the Tribunal to

concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot

interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the

Inquiry officer or the competent authority is based

on evidence even if some of it is found to be

irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."

So keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, now, the present

case in hand is to be considered.

8. Perused the material on record including the

documents relating to the departmental enquiry held

against the workman.

It is to be mentioned here that at the time of passing

of the order on the validity of the departmental enquiry, the

submissions made by the learned advocate for the workman

in regard to the non supply of documents, that the workman

was not the CMPF clerk and that the enquiry officer did

not take effective steps for the attendance of the eleven

witnesses required to be examined as witnesses to bring

out the real facts were already considered and as such,

there is no need to consider the same again.

On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that

this is not a case of no evidence. It is also found that the

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-1

2398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

report of the enquiry officer is based on the evidence

adduced during the enquiry and no extraneous material

was taken in to consideration by the enquiry officer to

arrive at the findings. The enquiry officer has assessed the

evidence in a reasonable manner. It is also found that the

findings given by the enquiry officer are not as such, which

could not have been arrived at by any reasonable person.

The findings of the enquiry officer are therefore nor absurd

or perverse.

9. Commission of serious misconduct has been

proved against the workman in a properly conducted

departmental enquiry. The punishment of dismissal from

services imposed against the workman cannot be said to

be shockingly disproportionate to the charged proved

against him. Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the

punishment imposed against the workman. Hence, it is

ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Gauri Sub Area

(Ballarpur Area) of WCL in dismissing Shri Mohan S/o.

Viraiah Darla, Clerk Grade-II at Pouni Open Cast Mine of

Western Coalfields Limited from service vide order No.

WCL/BA/GSA.PER/Dismissed/2001/232 dated 28.3.2001 is

legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 827

827

827.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñ lhñ ,yñ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@66@2012&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 24/2012 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of J.K. Nagar Colliery,

M/s. ECL., and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-22012/66/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, ASANSOL.

Present:

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 24 OF 2012

Parties:

The Management of J.K. Nagar Colliery,

M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)

Vs.

The Branch Jt. Secy., CMC (HMS), Asansol

(W.B.)

Representatives:

For the management :

None

For the union (Workman) :

None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated : 12.02.2013

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

66/2012-I.R.(CM-II) dated 26.04.2012 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by the Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

J.K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL in not payment HRA @

10% of basic pay to Sri Garib Paswan is fair and justified?

To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/66/

2012-I.R.(CM-II) dated 26.04.2012 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 24 of 2012 was registered on 16.05.2012 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 of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, I find that Mr. D.K.

Routh, Jt. Branch Secretary of the Union has made an

endorsement on 07.02.2013 to close the case as the workman

is no more interested to proceed with the case. Since the

Union as well as the workman is not interested to proceed

with the case, the case is closed and accordingly an order

of "No Dispute Award" is hereby passed.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as "No

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2399

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.

JAYANATA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 828.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds bZñ lhñ ,yñ chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@65@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 25/2012 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of J.K. Nagar Colliery,

M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/03/2013

[No. L-22012/65/2012-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

Present

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. 25 OF 2012

Parties

The management of J.K. Nagar Colliery,

M/s. ECL, Burdwan(WB)

Vs.

The Branch Jt. Secy. CMC(HMS), Asansol

(W.B.)

Representatives:

For the Management :

None

For the union (Workman) : None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Dated : 13.02.2013

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

65/2012-I.R. (CM-II) dated 26.04.2012 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of J.K. Nagar

Colliery of M/s. ECL in not payment HRA @ 10% of basic

pay to Sri Karmuddin Mia is fair and justified? To what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

Having received the order of Letter No. L-22012/65/

2012-I.R.(CM-II) dated 26.04.2012 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 25 of 2012 was registered on 16.05.2012 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 of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found that

Sri D.K. Routh, Branch Jt. Secretary of the sponsoring

Union, has made an endorsement for the closure of the

case as the workman is no more interested to proceed with

the case further. Since the Union does not want to proceed

with the case further, the case is closed and accordingly an

order of "No Dispute Award" 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

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 829.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lhñ ihñ MCY;wñ

Mhñ ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k vfèdj.k uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼vkbZMh la[;k

260@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@225@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 260/2011 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Vigyan Bhawan Electrical

Division, CPWD, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-42012/225/2005-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.I, KARKARDOOMA

COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. NO. 260/2011

The General Secretary,

Workers Union,

167, Panchkuin Road

Delhi-110001.

Workman....

Versus

The Executive Engineer (E),

CPWD Electrical Division,

Vigyan Bhawan, CPWD,

New Delhi.

Management....

AWARD

In consultation with the Central Advisory Labour

Board and having regard to conditions of work and other

relevant factors, specified in su- section (2) of section 10 of

the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

(hereinafter referred to as Contract Labour Act), the Central

Governmnet prohibited employment of contract labour in

work relating to khalasi (electrical) in the establishment of

Central Public Works Department, (hereinafter referred as

the management), Ministry of Urban Development and

Employment, New Delhi, vide notification dated 31.07.2002,

published in Extraordinary Gazette of India. Despite the

prohibition, the management employed contract labours

to work as khalasi (Electrical) at its Electrical Division,

Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. Shri Kamlesh Bahadur Singh

was so engaged by the management through M/s Amit

Elevator Services (in short the contractor). He raised a

demand with the management for regularisation of his

service, which demand was not conceded to. Aggrieved

by that act, Shri Kamlesh Bahadur Singh approached the

Workers Union (Regd.) (in short the union) for redressal of

his grievance. The union took up his cause and raised an

indutrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the

claim was contested by the management, conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of the

failure report, so submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, New Delhi, for

adjudication, vide order No.L-42012/225/2005-IR (CM-II),

New Delhi dated 16.04.2007, with following terms:

"Whether demand of the union for regularisation of

services of Shri Kamlesh Bahadur Singh is legal and

justified? If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?"

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Kamlesh Bhadur

Singh pleading therein that he was employed by the

management on 20.01.1998 as Khalasi. He is being paid at

daily rate basis, subject to maximum of 26 days' wages in a

month. He is working at Electrical Division of the

management located at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. He is

discharging his duties sincerely and to the satisfaction of

his superiors. He was employed by the management and is

being paid out of its budget allocation, made as per

sanctioned pre-estimated allocations. No appointment letter

wage slip, confirmatory letter and prevailing pay scales

were given to him. He has to work for more than 12 hours a

day but is deprived of his wages for extra work. No leaves

on festivals and national holidays are being granted to

him.

3. Claimant projects that clandestinely without his

knowledge, he was placed by the management under a

sham contractor. No prior notice, as stipulated under

section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act) was given to him. Work performed by him is

incidental to the main activities of the management and is

of perennial nature. His services were not confirmed by the

management despite his representation made to the labour

authorities. He projects that the union had filed a writ

petition before the High Court of Delhi. The writ petition

was disposed off by the High Court, wherein some

observations were made in his favour. Letter Patent Appeal

was filed and High Court disposed off that appeal with

liberty to move authorities under the Act. He claims

regularisation in services of the management and prays

that award may be passed in his favour to that effect.

4. Claim was demurred by the management pleading

that there had been no employer and employee relationship

between the parties. Claimant was an employee of the

contractor, under whose control and supervision he was

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2401

working. His wages were paid by the contactor. He has

been in the employment of the contractor, who has been

providing services of DG set operation at Vigyan Bhawan,

New Delhi. It is claimed that there was no question of

providing appointment lettler, wage slip, confirmatory letter,

prevailing wage scales, overtime wages and leaves by the

management to the claimant. Claimant never informed the

management to the effect that no weekly rest was given to

him and he was forced to work for 12 hours in a day.

Management claims that the principal employer cannot be

required to absorb contract labour in its establishment.

Contract was awarded to the contractor as per standard

tender procedure. Payments to the contractor are being

made as per work done/services provided. Claimant has

been working for the contractor as per terms and conditions

of agreement in force from time to time. Management claims

that claim put forward by the claimant is misconceived,

hence it may be dismissed.

5. In rejoinder, facts were reiterated by the claimant.

6. Vide order No.Z-222019/6/2007/IR (C-II), New Delhi

dated 30.03.2011, case was transferred to this Tribunal for

adjudication by the appropriate Government.

7. Claimant had testified facts to substantiate his

claim. Shri A.P. Sharma, entered the witness box to fend

facts on behalf of the management. No other witness was

examined by either of the parties.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri S.S.

Upadhyay, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri Pankaj Batra, authorised

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

management. I have given my careful considerations to

the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused

the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:—

9. In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

Shri Kamlesh Bahadur Singh unfolds that he is in the

employment of the management with effect from 20.01.1997.

He works as a Khalasi at Electrical Division, Vigyan

Bhawan, New Delhi. His present wages are Rs. 4500.00 per

month. Since the date of his joining employment with the

management, he is performing duties sincerely, honestly

and diligently. He was employed through officers of the

management and his service conditions are governed by

Central Public Works Department Manual III (Work Charge

Establishment), 1984. His wages and other monetary

benefits are being paid by the management. He has relied

on copy of attendance register, log book, pay slip, duty

passes issued for various occasions, identity card, etc. to

substantiate his claim of being an employee of the

management. During the course of his cross examination,

he feigned ignorance as to whether he was an employee of

a contractor. However, he unfolds that the contractors keep

on changing every year and his wages are being paid by

the management. His attention was invited towards his

claim statement Ex. WW1/A, wherein he had pleaded that

he was placed under a sham contractor, clandestinely.

10. Shri A.P. Sharma unfolds in his affidavit Ex. MW1/

A, tendered as evidence, that there was no employer-

employee relationship between the parties. Claimant was

an employee of the contractor and was working under his

direct control and supervision. At no point of time, he was

employed by the management. His wages were paid by the

contractor. Payment towards specific jobs entrusted to the

contractor were made to the contractor. He placed reliance

on employment card and attendance register, prepared by

the contractor, in order to establish that the claimant was

an employee of the contractor.

11. When facts unfolded by the claimant and those

detailed by Shri A.P. Sharma are appreciated, it emerged

that the parties have made rival claims relating to

employment of the claimant. According to the claimant, he

was employed by the management which fact is dispelled

by Shri Sharma. Therefore, ocular facts detailed by above

two witnesses are to be construed in the light of documents

proved by them. Employment card Ex. MW/1/1 has been

proved by Shri Sharma, which bring it over the record that

the claimant was an employee of the contractor. He was

engaged as khalasi by the contractor. This card Ex. MW1/

1 was issued by the contractor for a period of six months

from 14.11.2005 to 14.04.2006. Photocopies of wage registers

are proved as Ex.MW1/2 to Ex.MW1/7. On these copies of

wage register name of the claimant does appear, besides

names of other employees. Claimant does not dispute those

documents. These wage registers pertain to the contractor,

who paid wages to the claimant from time to time. Claimant

places reliance on passes Ex.MW1/W1 to Ex.MW1/W5.

Ex. MW1/W4 to Ex.MW1/W5 project these passes were

issued by the management in favour of the claimant. Ex.

MW1/W4 was issued for performance of duty by the

claimant on the Republic Day Parade for the year 2000.

Ex.MW1/W5 was issued in favour of the claimant to perform

his duties in a seminar organised from 21.10.2009 to

23.10.2009.

12. The claimant had proved certain documents to

substantiate his claim. Ex.WW1/1 is the document which

projects that workers, including him, have received their

entire wages upto 15.04.2007. Ex.WW1/2 is photocopy of

attendance register wherein attendance of the claimant for

19 days for the month of October 1998 has been projected.

Ex.WW1/3 is photocopy of attendance record for January

1999, Ex.WW1/4 to Ex.WW1/8 are photocopies of

attendance register for April 2000, December 2001, January

2002, January 2003 and June 2004 respectively. Ex.WW

1/9 to Ex.WW1/19 are photocopies of log book. Ex.WW

1/9 pertains to January 1997, Ex.WW1/15 pertains to

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

March 2005, Ex.WW1/16 relates to June 2005 and Ex.WW1/

19 belongs to October 2005. Ex.WW1/10 to Ex.WW1/14,

Ex.WW1/17 and Ex.WW1/18 nowhere contain date, month

and year to which it belong. Ex.WW1/20 to Ex.WW1/25 are

copies of duty charts for June 2002, May 2008, November

2009, January 2010, November 2010 and December 2010

respectively. Ex.WW1/26 is a letter written by the Executive

Engineer to the Chief Security Officer for issuance of duty

passes for the staff, who would remain on duty for 25th

and 26th January 2003 at Vigyan Bhawan and Vigyan

Bhawan Annexe, whose names figure in Ex.WW1/27.

Ex.WW1/28 and Ex.WW1/29 are similar requests by the

Executive Engineer (Electrical) to the Chief Security Officer,

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

Ex.WW1/30 to Ex.WW1/35 are temporary passes/identity

cards issued in favour of the claimant. Ex.WW1/36 is letter

written to the Security Officer, by the Junior Engineer.

Ex.WW1/37 to Ex.WW1/43 are photocopies of passes

issued in favour of the claimant. Ex.WW1/44 is certificate

issued by the Electrical Inspectorate, Labour Department,

Government of India, New Delhi. Ex.WW1/45, Ex.WW1/46

and Ex.WW1/47 are orders alongwith list of writ petitions

filed, which were disposed off vide order 26.05.2000, besides

order dated 22.08.2000 passed in LPA No. 388/2000 by High

Court of Delhi. Ex.WW1/48 is photocopy of notification

dated 31.07.2002, issued by the Government of India,

New Delhi.

13. Cumulative effect of documents relied by the

parties bring it to the light that the claimant was an

employee of the contractor. Ex.MW1/1 is the employment

card issued by the contractor in favour of the claimant. On

this document, signature of the claimant do appear. Further

more, claimant could question it when Shri Sharma proved

it. Ex.MW1/2 to Ex.MW1/7 are wage register on the strength

of which contractor made payment of wages to his

employees. Name of the claimant does appear in these

registers. Ex.MW1/2 is for April 2006, Ex.MW1/3 is for

February 2007, Ex.MW1/4 is for March 2007, Ex.MW1/5 is

for April 2007, Ex.MW1/6 is for May 2007 and Ex.MW1/7 is

for June 2007. No eyebrows were raised by the claimant

against these documents. On the other hand, his name and

signatures appear in those documents, in token of fact that

he was paid wages for the aforesaid months by the

contractor. Ex.WW1/1 is a letter written by the Executive

Engineer wherein it has been detailed that wages of the

claimant and others have been paid upto 15.04.2007.

Ex.WW1/1 projects that the Assistant Engineer also

confirms that fact. Copy of this document was sent to the

Labour Commissioner also. Therefore, this document

crystallises that a dispute was raised by the claimant and

others in respect of non-payment of their wages. When

those wages were paid, the Assistant Engineer certified

that fact and letter was written to the Executive Engineer,

with copy to the Labour Commissioner. Contents of the

letter coupled with the surrounding circumstances suggest

that the Executive Engineer and the Labour Commissioner

were informed that the wages were received by the contract

labours till 15.4.2007. Their wages were paid in presence of

the Assistant Engineer, through cheques. Therefore, this

document also gives confirmation to the theory that the

claimant was paid his wages by the contractor. Other

documents, proved by the claimant and are referred above,

nowhere give any clue as to who paid wages to the claimant.

Copy of attendance register as well as log book nowhere

specify that these documents were maintained by the

management. Documents, such as duty passes, duty charts

and temporary passes would be appreciated in subsequent

sections, since these documents nowhere espouses the

case of the claimant to the effect that he was paid by the

management for the work of khalasi performed by him at

Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.

14. There is other facet of the coin. Claimant,

alongwith others, field writ petitions before the High Court

of Delhi, seeking their regularization in services of the

management. Ex.WW/46 projects that the claimant and

other sought regularization/direct absorption in the services

of the management. Thus, it is evident that the case

projected by the claimant was that he is a contract

employee. While disposing his matter, the High Court

considered his case as of a contract employee. Therefore,

it is evident that claimant was a contract employee and at a

subsequent juncture he tried to improvise upon and claimed

that he was employed by the management. Ex.WW1/M1

also project his case when he details that clandestinely he

was brough under a sham contractor by the management.

All these aspects reaffirm that the claimant was an employee

of the contract, who was his paymaster. Under these

circumstances, it is concluded that the claimant has not

been able to establish that he was ever paid by the

management for the work of khalasi (Electrical), rendered

by him at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi.

15. Whether the claimant, who was an employee of

the Contractor, can maintain a dispute against the

management? For an answer to this proposition, the

Tribunal has to take note of the law contained in section 10

of the Contract Labour Act, which makes provision for

prohibition of employment of contract labour. For sake of

convenience provisions of section 10 of the Contract

Labout Act are reproduced thus:

"10. Prohibition of employment of contract

labour:—

(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the

appropriate Government may, after consultation with

the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2403

Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette,

employment of contract labour in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment.

(2)

Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1)

in relation to an establishment, the appropriate

Government shall have regard to the conditions of work

and benefits provided for the contract labour in that

establishment and other relevant factors, such as—

(a) whether the process, operation or other work is

incidential to, or necessary for the industry,

trade, business, manufacture or occupation that

is carried on in the establishment;

(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it

is of sufficient duration having regard to the

nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture

or occupation carried on in that establishment;

workmen in that establishment or an

establishment similar thereto;

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable

number of whole-time workmen.

Explanation—If a question arises whether any

process or operation or other work is of perennial nature,

the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall

be final."

16. As emerge out of the provisions of sub-section (1)

of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, the appropriate

Government may, by notification in the official gazette,

prohibit employment of contract labour in any process,

operation or other work in any establishment. When

employment of contract labour is prohibited, by issuance

of a notification in official gazette by the appropriate

Government, what would be the status of the contract

labour employed in the establishment? Such a question

arose before the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.

[2001 (7) S.C.C.I.]. The Apex Court rules therein that there

cannot be automatic absorption of contract labour by

principal employer on issuance of notification by the

appropriate Government on abolition of contract labour

system, under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Contract

Labour Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the law laid

by the Apex Court, which is extracted thus:

".................... they fall in three classes: (1) where

contract labour is engaged in or in connection with

the work of an establishment and employment of

contract labour is prohibited either because the

industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of

contract labour or because the appropriate

Government issued notification under section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act, no automatic absorption of contract

labour working in the establishment was ordered, (2)

where contract was found to be a sham and nominal,

rather a camouflage, in which case the contract labour

working in the establishment of the principal employer

were held, in fact and in reality, the employees of the

principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do

not relate to the abolition of contract labour but

present instances wherein the court pierce the veil

and declared the correct position as a fact at the

stage after employment of contract labour stood

prohibited, (3) where in discharge of a statutory

obligation of maintaining a canteen in an

establishment the principal employer availed the

services of the contractor, the courts have held that

the contract labour would indeed be employees of

the principal employer".

17. The Court ruled that neither section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuance of

a notification by the appropriate Government under sub

section (1) of section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order for absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case (1974 (3)

SCC 66), the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR

1964 S.C. 355) a canteen was run in the factory by the

Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in

the canteen were held to be employees of the establishment.

The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall in class (3)

mentioned above. Judgment in Hussainbhai (1978 Lab. I.C.

1264) was considered by the Apex Court in the said

precedent and it was ruled therein that the said precedent

falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court concluded

that on issuance of prohibitive notification under section 10

of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract labour in regard to

conditions of service, the Industrial Adjudicator will have

to consider the question whether the contractor has been

interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to

produce any given result for the establishment or for supply

of contract labour for work of the establishment under a

genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade

compliance of various beneficial legislation so as to deprive

the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so

called contract labour will have to be treated as employees

of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize

the services of the contract labour in the establishment

concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified

by it for that purpose.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

18. As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance of

a prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of his service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor has

been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken

to produce any given result in the establishment or for

supply of the contract labour for the work of the

establishment under a genuine contract or it is a mere ruse/

camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial legislation

so as to deprive the workers of the benefits therein. Thus it

was ruled that a contract labour can raise a dispute before

the industrial adjudicator in regard to his conditions of

service and in case the contract is found to be not genuine

but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will

have to be treated as employees of the principal employer.

Also see Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. [1960

(II) LLJ. 233], which was referred with approval in Steel

Authority of India.

19. In Shivnandan Sharma [1955 (1) LLJ 688], the

respondent Bank entrusted its Cash Department under a

contract to the Treasures who appointed cashiers,

including the appellant Head Cashier. The question before

the Apex Court was: was the appellant an employee of the

Bank? On construction of the agreement entered into the

Bank and the Treasure, the Court laid down:

"If a master employs a servant and authorizes him to

employ a number of persons to do a particular job

and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for a

cash consideration, the employees thus appointed

by the servant would be equally with the employer,

servant of the master."

In the above precedent the Apex Court for the first

time laid down the crucial test of supervision and control

for determining the relationship of employer and employee.

20. In Hussainbhai (supra) the petitioner, who was

manufacturing ropes, entrusted the work to a contractor

who engaged his own workers. When, after some time, the

workers were not engaged, they raised an industrial dispute

that they were denied employment by the petitioner. On

reference of that dispute, the labour court passed an award

against the petitioner. When matter reached the Apex Court,

on examination of various factors and applying the effective

control test, it was held that though there was no direct

relationship between the petitioner and the workers yet on

lifting the veil and looking at the conspectus of factors

governing employment, the naked truth, though draped in

different perfect paper arrangement, was that the real

employer was the petitioner, not the immediate contractor.

The Apex Court stated law in following words:

"Where a worker or group of workers labours to

poduce goods or services and these goods or

services are for the business of another, that other

is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control

over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued

employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the

worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of

intermediate contractor with whom alone the workers

have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu is

of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking

at the conspectus of factors governing employment,

we discern the naked truth, though draped in different

perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is

the management, not the immediate contractor***.

If the livelihood of the workmen substantially

depends on labour rendered to produce goods and

services for the benefit and satisfaction of an

enterprise, the absence of direct relationship or the

presence of dubious intermediaries or the make-

believe trappings of detachment from the

management cannot snap the real-life bond. The story

may vary but the inference defies ingenuity. The

liability cannot be shaken off. Of course, if there is

total dissociation in fact between the disowning

management and the aggrieved workmen, the

employment is, in substance and real-life terms, by

another. The management's adventitious connections

cannot ripen into real employment."

As noted above, this precedent does not present an

illustration of abolition of contract labour but an instance

where the Court pierced the veil and declared the correct

position to the effect that the contract labours were

employees of the principal employer and not of the

contractor.

21. In Steel Authority of India (supra) it has been

ruled that the term "contract labour" is a species of workman.

A workman may be hired: (1) in an establishment by the

principal employer or by his agent with or without the

knowledge of the principal employer, or (2) in connection

with the work of an establishment by the principal employer

through a contractor or by a contractor with or without the

knowledge of principal employer. Where a workman is hired

in or in connection with the work of an establishment by

the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts

as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship

between the principal employer and the workman. But when

a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an

establishment by a contractor, either because he has

undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment

or because he supplies workmen for any work of the

establishment, a question might arise whether the

contractor is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai's case

(supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation case

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2405

[1999 (6) S.C.C. 439] etc.; if the answer is in affimative, the

workman will be in fact an employee of the principal

employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workman

will be a contract labour.

22. In view of the legal proposition, referred above, it

is concluded that the claimant can maintain this dispute

against the management since he agitates that the contracit

agreement between the management and the Contractor is

sham and nominal.

23. Whether any directions for deeming the contract

labour as having become the employee of the principal

employer can be issued, when the contractor or the principal

employer had violated the provisions of the Contract

Labour Act? To find an answer, provisions of that Act are

to be examined. The Contract Labour Act regulates

conditions of workers in contract labour system and

provides for its abolition by the appropriate Government

as provided by section 10 of that Act. In regard to regulatory

measures section 7 requires the principal employer to get

itself registered, while section 12 obliges every contractor

to obtain a licence, under the provisions of that Act.

Section 9 places an embargo on the principal employer of

an establishment from employing contractor labour in the

establishment, when either it is not registered or its

registration has been revoked. Section 12 of the Contract

Labour Act imposes a liability on a contractor not to

undertake or execute any work through contract labour

except under and in accordance with a licence. Sections 23,

24 and 25 make contraventions of the provisions of that

Act or Rules made thereunder penal. In Dena Nath (1992

Lab. I.C. 75) the Apex Court considered the question,

whether non-compliance of the provisions of sections 7

and 12 by the principal employer and the contractor

respectively would make the contract labour employed by

the principal employer as the employee of the latter. It was

ruled that only consequence of non-compliance either by

the principal employer of section 7 or by the contractor in

complying the provisions of secton 12 is that they are

liable for prosecution under the said Act. But the employees

employed through the contractor cannot be deemed to be

the employees of the principal employer.

24. In the Steel Authority of India (supra) the Apex

Court laid emphasis "...... the consequence of violation of

Section 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in

Section 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or this Court to read in some unspecified remedy in

Section 10 or substitute for penal consequences specified

in Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel, be if absorption of

contract labour in the establishment of principal employer

or a lesser or harsher punishment. Such an interpretation

of the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principal of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such, clearly

impermissible". The above authoritative pronouncements

make it clear that on violations of the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act of Rules made thereunder the contract

labour could not be deemed to have become the employee

of the principal employer.

25. Now I would turn to the facts of the present

controversy. It is not a case where an employee of a

contractor, employed in a statutory canteen, has invoked

the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This matter, as projected

by the claimant, is left to be approached on the proposition

as to whether contract agreement entered into between the

management and the contractor was sham and nominal.

For an answer to this proposition, it would be expedient to

examine the contract agreement, which has been proved as

Ex.MW1/8 by Shri Sharma. In construction of contents of

Ex.MW1/8, this Tribunal cannot be oblivions of the rules

viz., written instruments shall, if possible, be so interpreted

"ut res magis valeat quam pereat" (a liberal construction

should be put upon written instruments, so as to uphold

them, if possible) and that such a meaning shall be given to

it as may carry out and effectuate to the fullest extent the

intention of the parties.

26. Whether Ex.MW1/8 contains clauses which are

contra bonos mores or forbidden by law? For answer of

above proposition, the Tribunal had to dwell upon the

clauses of Ex.MW1/8, described as Model Rules For

Protection of Health and Sanitation Arrangement for the

Workers and Contract Labour Regulations, framed by the

management. When perused Model Rules for Protection

of Health and Sanitation Arrangement has taken care of it

came to light that provisions have been made for first aid

facilities, drinking water, washing facilities, latrine and

urinals, provision for centre during rest, creches, canteen

and anti malarial protections. It emerges over record that

suitable arrangements were made for protection of health

and sanitary arrangement for the employees of the

contractor. Contract Labour Regulations formulated by the

management speak of payment of wages by the contractor.

For sake of convenience, the same are extracted thus:

(i) The contractor shall fix wage periods in respect

of which wages shall be payable.

(ii) No wage period shall exceed one month.

(iii) The wages of every person employed as

contract labour in an establishment or by a

contractor where less than one thousand, such

persons are employed shall be paid before the

expiry of the seventh day and in other cases

before the expiry of tenth day after the last day

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

of the wage period in respect of which the wages

are payable.

(iv) Where the employment of any worker is

terminated by or on behalf of the contractor, the

wages earned by him shall be paid before the

expiry of the second working day from the date

on which his employment is terminated.

(v) All payments of wages shall be made on a

working day at the work premises and during

the working time and on a date notified in

advance and in case the work is completed

before the expiry of the wage period, final

payment shall be made within 48 hours of the

last working day.

(vi) Wages due to every worker shall be paid to him

direct or to other person authorised by him in

this behalf.

(vii) All wages shall be paid in current coin or

currency or in both.

(viii) Wages shall be paid without any deductions of

any kind except those specified by the Central

Government by general or special order in this

behalf or permissible under the payment of

Wages Act, 1956.

(ix) A notice showing the wages period and the place

and time of disbursement of wages shall be

displayed at the place of work and a copy sent

by the contractor to the Engineer-in-Charge

under acknowledgement.

(x) It shall be the duty of the contractor to ensure

the disbursement of wages in the presence of

the Engineer-in-Charge or any other authorised

representative of the Engineer-in-Charge who

will be required to be present at the place and

time of disbursement of wages by the contractor

to workmen.

(xi) The contractor shall obtain from the Engineer-

in-Charge or any other authorised representative

of the Engineer-in-Charge as the case may be, a

certificate under his signature at the end of the

entries in the "Register of wages" or the "Wage-

cum-Muster Roll" as the case may be in the

following form:

"Certified that the amount shown in column

No ................................................... has been paid to

the workman concerned in my presence on

...................at..................."

27. Contractor was ordained to maintain register for

persons employed on work, muster roll register, wage

deduction for damages or loss, register of advances, register

of overtime work performed by the contract employees. He

was burdened with an obligation to issue identity card

cum wage slip, employment card and service certificate.

28. Records referred above were to be preserved by

the contractor for a period of three years. Labour Officers

were empowered to make investigations or enquiry with a

view to ascertain and enforce due and proper observance

of the regulations. Therefore, it emerges that proper

regulations were made by the management in order to see

that the contract employees get their dues under the law.

29. Clause 19 of the contract imposes an obligation

on the contractor to obtain a license under the Contract

Labour Act. He was further saddled with a duty to abide by

the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation)

Act, 1998. Besides Construction Workers (Regulation of

Employment & Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and other

Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996. On his failure

to fulfil requirement of the above statutes, he was to attract

penal provisions as arising out of resultant non-execution

of the work. He was to make payment of wages to his

employees. Provisions relating to the same are reproduced

thus:

(i) The contractor shall pay to labour employed by

him either directly or through sub-contractors,

wages not less than fair wages as defined in the

DAE, Contractor's Labour Regulations or as per

the provisions of the Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Central Rules, 1971, wherever applicable.

(ii) The contractor shall notwithstanding the

provisions of any contract to the contrary, cause

to be paid fair wage to labour indirectly engaged

on the work, including any labour engaged by

his sub-contractors in connection with the said

work, as if the labour had been immediately

employed by him.

(iii) In respect of all labour directly or indirectly

employed in the works for performance of the

contractor's part of this agreement, the

contractor shall comply with or cause to be

complied with the DAE Contractor Labour

Regulations made by Government from time to

time in regard to payment of wages, wage period,

deductions from wages, recovery of wages not

paid and deductions unauthorizedly made,

maintenance of wage books or wage slips,

publication of scale of wages and other terms of

employment, inspection and submission of

periodical returns and all others matters of the

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2407

like nature or as per the provisions of the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation

and Abolition) Central Rules 1971, wherever

applicable.

(iv-a) The Engineer-in-Charge concerned shall have

the right to deduct from the moneys due to the

contractor any sum required or estimated to be

required for making good the loss suffered by a

worker or workers by reasons of nonfulfillment

of the conditions of the contract for the benefit

of the workers, non-payment of wages or of

deduction made from his or their wages which

are not justified by their terms of the contract or

non-observance of the regulations.

(iv-b) Under the provisions of the Minimum Wages

Act 1948 and the Minimum Wages (Central)

Rules, 1950, the contractor is bound to allow or

cause to be allowed to the labourers directly or

indirectly employed in the works one day's rest

for six days continuous work and pay wages at

the same rate as for duty. In the event of default,

the Engineer-in-Charge shall have the right to

deduct the sum or sums not paid on account of

wages for weekly holiday to any labourer, and

pay the same to the persons entitled thereto

from any money due to the contractor by the

Engineer-in-Charge.

(v) The contractor shall comply with the provisions

of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, Minimum

Wages Act, 1948, Employees Liability Act, 1938,

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

and the Contractor's Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 or the modifications thereof

or any other laws relating thereto and the rules

made there under from time to time.

(vi) The contractor shall indemnify and keep

indemnify Government against payments to be

made under and for the observance of the laws

aforesaid and the D.A.E., Contractor Labour

Regulations without prejudice to his right to

claim indemnify from his sub-contractors.

(vii) The laws/regulations aforesaid shall be deemed

to be a part of this contract and any breach

thereof shall be deemed to be a breach of this

contract.

(viii) Whatever is the minimum wage for the time

being, or if the wage payable is higher than such

wage, such wage shall be paid by the contractor

to the workmen directly without the intervention

of Jamadar and that Jamadar shall not be entitled

to deduct or recover any amount from the

minimum wage payable to the workmen as and

by way of commission or otherwise.

(ix) The contractor shall ensure that no amount by

way of commission or otherwise is deducted or

recovered by the Jamadar from the wage of

workmen.

30. Leave and pay are to be regulated in the following

manner:

Leave and pay during leave shall be regulated as

follows:

(1)

LEAVE:

(i) In the case of delivery : Maternity leave not

exceeding 8 weeks, 4 weeks upto and including

the day of delivery and 4 weeks following that

day.

(ii) In the case of miscarriage : Upto 3 weeks from

the data of miscarriage.

(2)

PAY:

(i) In the case of delivery : Leave pay during

maternity leave will be at the rate of the women's

average daily earnings, calculated on the total

wages earned on the days when full time work

was done during a period of 3 months

immediately preceding the date on which she

gives notice that she expects to be confined or

at the rate of rupee one only a day whichever is

greater.

(ii) In the case of miscarriage : leave pay at the

rate of average daily earning calculated on the

total wages earned on the days when full time

work was done during a period of 3 months

immediately preceding the date of such

miscarriage.

(3)

CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF

MATERNITY LEAVE:

No maternity leave benefit shall be admissible to a

woman unless she has been employed for a total period of

not less than 6 (six) months immediately preceding the

date on which she proceeds on leave.

(4)

The contractor shall maintain a register of maternity

(Benefit) in the prescribed from as given below, and

the same shall be kept at the place of work.

31. As far as supervision and superintendence of

employees of the contractor are concerned, following

provisions were made:

Contractors Superintendence, Supervision, Technical

Staff & Employees.

(i) The contractor shall provide all necessary

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

superintendence during execution of the work

and all along thereafter as may be necessary for

proper fulfilling of the obligations under the

contract. The contractor shall immediately after

receiving letter of acceptance of the tender and

before commencerment of the work, intimate in

writing to the Engineer-in-Charge, the name(s),

qualifications, experience, age, address(s) and

other particulars along with certificates, of the

principal technical representative to be in charge

of the work and other technical representative(s)

who will be supervising the work. Minimum

requirement of such technical representative(s)

and their qualifications and experience shall not

be lower than specified in Schedule "F". The

Engineer-in-Charge shall within 3 days of receipt

of such communication intimate in writing his

approval or otherwise of such a representative(s)

to the contractor. Any such approval may at

any time be withdrawn and in case of such

withdrawal, the contractor shall appoint another

such representative(s) according to the

provisions of this clause. Decision of the tender

accepting authority shall be final and binding

on the contractor in this respect. Such a principal

technical representative and other technical

representative(s) shall be appointed by the

contractor soon after receipt of the approval from

Engineer-in-Charge and shall be available at site

before start of work. All the provisions applicable

to the principal technical representative under

the clause will also be applicable to other

technical representative(s). The principal

technical representative and other technical

representative(s) shall be present at the site of

work for supervision at all times when any

construction activity is in progress and also

present himself/themselves, as required, to the

Engineer-in-Charge and/or his designated

representative to take instructions. Instructions

given to the principal technical representative

or other technical representative(s) shall be

deemed to have the same force as if these have

been given to the contractor. The principal

technical representative and other technical

representative(s) shall be actually available at

site fully during all stages of execution of work,

during recording/checking/test checking of

measurements of works and whenever so

required by the Engineer-in-Charge and shall

also note down instructions conveyed by the

Engineer-in-Charge or his designated

representative(s) in the site order book and shall

affix his/their signature in token of noting down

the instructions and in token of acceptance of

measurements/checked measurements/test

checked measurements. The representative(s)

shall not look after any other work. Substitutes,

duly approved by Engineer-in-Charge of the

work in similar manner as aforesaid shall be

provided in event of absence of any of the

representative(s) by more than two days. If the

Engineer-in-Charge, whose decision in this

respect is final and binding on the contrator, is

convinced

that

such

technical

representative(s) is/are effectively appointed or

is/are effectively attending or fulfilling the

provision of this clause, a recovery (non-

refundable) shall be effected from the contractor

as specified in Schedule "F" and the decision of

the Engineer-in-Charge as recorded in the site

order book and measurement recorded checked/

test checked in Measurement Books shall be

final and binding on the contractor. Further if

the contractor fails to appoint suitable technical/

Principal technical representative and/or other

technical representative(s) and if such

appointed persons are not effectively present

or are absent by more than two days without

duly approved substitute or do not discharge

their responsibilites satisfactorily, the Engineer-

in-Charge shall have full powers to suspend the

execution of the work until such date as suitable

other technical representative(s) is/are

appointed and the contractor shall be held

responsible for the delay so caused to the work.

The contractor shall submit a certificate of

employment of the technical representative(s)

alongwith every on account bill/final bill and

shall produce evidence if at any time so required

by the Engineer-in-Charge.

(ii) The contractor shall provide and employ on the

site only such technical assistants as are skilled

and experienced in their respective fields and

such foremen and supervisory staff as are

competent to give proper supervision to the

work. The contractor shall provide and employ

skilled, semiskilled and unskilled labour as is

necessary for proper and timely execution of

the work. The Engineer-in-Charge shall be at

liberty to object to and require the contractor to

remove from the works any person who in his

opinion misconducts himself or is incompetent

or negligent in the performance of his duties or

whose employment is otherwise considered by

the Engineer-in-Charge to be undesirable. Such

person shall not be employed again at works

site without the written permission of the

Engineer-in-Charge and the persons so removed

shall be replaced as soon as possible by

competent substitute.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2409

32. When above terms of Ex. MW 1/8 are take into

account, it emerges that a perfect paper arrangement was

made when these documents were executed. Reasons for

the above observation are evident out of above clauses

itself. As per contents of the written statement contract

was awarded to the contractor for providing services of

D.G. set opertation at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. As noted

above, clauses relating to contractor's superintendence,

supervision, appointment of technical staff and technical

representative(s) project that these stipulations relate to

construction activities. It has been detailed therein that

the principal technical representative and other technical

representative, appointed by the contractor, shall be actually

available at the site during all stages of execution of work,

during recording/checking/test checking of measurements

of work and nothing it down in site order book and

measurement book. These instructions are irrelevant for

discharge of contractual obligations of providing D.G. set

operations at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. Whether these

provisions were detailed in Ex. MW 1/8 with a view to

fasten liability on the contractor for the obligations,

undertaken by him on the strength of the document referred

above? Answer lies in negation, since the contractor has

not undertaken any liability to carry out any construction

activities. It cannot be said that these terms were recorded

due to inadvertence. The circumstances, which emerge out

of Ex. MW 1/8, make it apparent that a standard document

was drafted by the management to get it executed from the

contractor, no matter that these terms are to be adhered

to or not. It was so done with a view to project that the

contract agreement does not infrigne rights available to

contract employees under beneficial labour legislations. It

is apparent that the terms, contained in Ex. MW 1/8, are

mere eye wash and parties never intended to act upon the

same.

33. Peculiar features, which are detailed herein under,

tamper with the intrusic worth of the case of the

management. "Duty slips Ex. WW 1/20 to Ex. WW 1/25

highlight that it was the officer of the management who

used to prepare duty sheet for the contract employees,

including the claimant. Ex WW 1/26 was written by the

Engineer for issuance of passes for 25th and 26th January

2003 for the employees, who were to perform duties at

Vigyan Bhawan as well as Vigyan Bhawan annexe. Name of

the claimant figures at serial No. 54 of Ex. MW 1/27, annexed

with Ex. WW 1/26, When contents of Ex. WW 1/27 are

scrutinised, it crystallises that from the level of Executive

Engineer to the level of Khalasi/Helper figure in the list for

whom duty passes were obtained. Tone and tenor of these

documents project that request was made for issuance of

duty passes for the persons who were working for the

management. Such request was made for issuance of duty

passes for 25th and 26th January 2006, on the strength of

letter Ex. WW 1/28. Name of the claimant figures at serial

No. 15 of the employees, for whom duty passes were to be

obtained. Ex. WW 1/29 was written for issuance of passes

for 25th and 26th January, 2007 and name of the claimant is

there at serial No. 11 of the list annexed therin. These

documents nowhere project that the claimant was an

employee of the contractor. On the Other hand, his name is

in the list, containing names of the Officers of the

management, who were to perform duties on republic day

parade. Duty passes were issued to the claimant for

Republic Day parade for the year 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005

and 2006. In all these passes, he has been shown as

employee of the management.

34. Ex. WW 1/35 is the identity card issued in his

favour by the Administration Officer, National Museum,

Government of India, New Delhi, wherein it has been detailed

that the claimant was an employee of the management.

This identity card was valid upto 31.12.2002 and issued on

04.02.1999. Contents of Ex. WW 1/35 bring it over the record

that the claimant was deputed in February 1999 to work at

National Museum and he performed his duties there for

the management till 31.12.2002. He has been projected as

support staff/technical staff in EX. WW 1/37 to Ex. WW 1/

39. Ex. WW 1/40 to Ex. WW 1/43 highlight that the claimant

was an employee of the management. Except Ex.WW 1/41,

these passes were issued by AC (Security) for DCP

(Secuirty). Ex.WW 1/W4 was issued by the Executive

Engineer of the management. Ex.WW 1/W5 was issued for

conference on Climate change and Technology

Development and Transfer" wherein claimant has been

shown as employee of the management. These documents

clinch that the claimant was treated as its employee by the

management for a long period. However, contractor was

interposed in-between. As detailed above, contract

document Ex.WW 1/8 is a perfect paper arrangement. The

circumstances, which peep out of the above documents,

make it clear that Ex.WW 1/8 was not genuine.

Consequently, this document, is found to be bogus and

created with a view to project the claimant as an employee

of the contractor. Lifting the veil, I conclude that direct

relationship of employer and employee existed between

the claimant and the management. He is deemed to

be an employee of the management from 04.02.1999

till date.

35. For adjudication of an issue for regularization of

services of the claimant with the management, the Tribunal

is called upon to consider as to whether he was eligible for

recruitment in Government job, on date when he was initially

engaged by the contractor. It is also to be taken into

consideration as to whether he was having requisite

qualification for the post of Khalasi (Electrical). Except

Ex.WW 1/14, no other piece of evidence has been brought

over the record. Ex.WW 1/14 is a certificate issued in favour

of the claimant by the Electrical Inspectorate, Labour

Department, Government of India, New Delhi on 21.06.2007.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The certificate is valid from 23.11.2006 to 22.11.2007. For

want of other requisites for regularization of the job of the

claimant, the Tribunal feels constrained to grant relief in

his favour. However, the management is commanded to

consider case of the claimant for regularization in service,

with whom the claimant would furnish requisite

informantion within a period of four months from the date

the award comes into operation.

36. In view of reasons detailed above, it is concluded

that clamant is deemed to be in service of the management

since February 1999. He will get his wages as per pay scales

for his category. His case for regularization would be

considered by the management within a period of four

months from the date award comes into operation. An award

is accordingly passed in favour of the claimant and against

the management. It be sent to the appropriate Government

for publication.

DR. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 11.02.2013

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 830.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñ lhñ ,yñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

vklulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@258@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, The 11th March, 2013

S.O. 830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 31/2003 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Chinkakuri Mine-I, Under Sodepur Area

of M/s. ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 11/03/2013

[No. L-22012/258/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SANSOL

Present

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 31 OF 2003

Parties

The management of Chinakuri Mine-1,

M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)

Vs.

The Chief Org. Secy., KMC, Asansol (W.B.)

Representatives:

For the management :

P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) : None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Dated - 13.02.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

258/2002-I.R.(CM-II) dated 08.08.2003 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Chinakuri

Mine-1 under Sodepur Area of M/s. ECL in stopping SLU

benefits in respect of Sh. Rashid & 11 others (as per list

enclosed) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief they

are entitled?"

Having received the order of Letter No. L-22012/258/

2002-I.R.(CM-II) dated 08.08.2003 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

31 of 2003 was registered on 01.10.2003 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 of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance

of the said order notices by the registered post were sent

to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found that

the Union is neither appearing nor taking any step since

2006 despite registered notices. Several opportunities were

given but of no effect. It seems that the workman is now no

more interested to proceed with the case further. Since the

Union does not want to proceed with the case further, the

case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute

Award" 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.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2411

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and

needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANTA KUAMR SEN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 831

831

831.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-ih-vkj-vkbZ-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

caxyksj ds iapkV ¼vkbZMh la[;k 54@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@185@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II]

ch-,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 831.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 54/2007 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Central Power

Research Institute, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 11.03.2013.

[No. L-42012/185/2004-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, BANGALORE

Dated

25th February, 2013

Present

Shri S.N. NAVALGUND

Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 54/2007

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

The Director General,

Central Power Research

Institute

Institute,

Employees Union,

Prof. Sir C. V. Raman Road,

No. 822, 1st Main Road,

Sadasivanagar P. O. P. B.

Yeshwanthpur,

No. 8066,

Bangalore — 560 022.

Bangalore— 560 022.

Appearances

I Party

Shri T. S. Anantharam, Officer, CITU

II Party

Shri Lakshman Murthy, Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government which had not passed

any order on the FOC Report No. 8(13)/2004-B3 dated

28.09.2004 of the ALC(C), Bangalore, being directed by the

Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the Writ Petition No.

19949/2005 filed by the General Secretary, Central Power

Research Institute Employees Union (CPRIEU) at whose

instance the conciliation was initiated to pass appropriate

orders in accordanCe with law on the said failure report

vide Order No. L-42012/185/20045-IR(C-II) dated 02.04.2007

made a reference for adjudication as to

‘‘hether the demand of the Union at serial number 1

to 3 (enclosed) in their charter of demands is legal

and justified? If so to what relief the workmen are

entitled to?"

Later being again directed by the Hon'ble High Court

of Karnataka in contempt petition No. 144/2007 moved by

the General Secretary, CPRI Employees Union made another

reference vide order No. L-42012/185/2004-IR(C-II) dated

05.06.2007 referring the remaining eight demands of the

Union at Sl. No. 4 to 12 in their charter of demand. As per

the annexure enclosed to the above references the demands

of the Union are as under:

Demand No. 1: The Union has alleged that there are

certain anomalies in the pay scales which need rectification.

Demand No. 2: The Union has demanded suitable

amendments in working rules of CPRI so as to make the

assessment period uniform in respect of all employees.

Demand No. 3: The Union has demanded the overtime

wage to be paid at twice the normal rates of wages and

payment of conveyance allowance, canteen facilities on

holidays to the workers who do overtime works.

Demand No. 4: The employees and their family

members should be provided the facility of full medical

reimbursement on production of bills irrespective of

inpatient or outpatient since CPRI collects contribution.

Demand No. 5: The Union has demanded quality

food from the canteen along with hygiene and quantity.

Demand No. 6: The transport allowance should be

increased by 30% every year.

Demand No. 7: Group C and D employees should

not be transferred to any out station under any

circumstance.

Demand No. 8: Two paid of good quality uniform

along with leather shoes should be provided every year.

Demand No. 9: Washing allowance @ Rs. 100/-

should be paid to the employees.

Demand No. 10: The Union says that since CPRI is a

revenue earning organisation, bonus @ 20% per year

should be paid.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Demand No. 11: Since CPRI is earning revenue from

commercial testing, both within the units and also by way

of field testing, the existing Field Testing Allowances should

be suitably enhanced.

Demand No. 12: The Ministerial staff should be given

the next higher scale irrespective of vacancy at the time of

promotion.

2. After receipt of both reference orders when notices

were issued to The General Secretary, CPRIEU (hereinafter

referred as I party) and The Director General, CPRI

(hereinafter referred as II Party) both entered their

appearances through their respective counsel and filed

their claim statement and counter statement on 30.08.2007

and 07.03.2008 respectively.

3. In the claim statement filed by the I Party it is

alleged majority of the employees working in the II Party

formed a trade union under the name and style of CPRI

Employees Union and got it Registered under the Trade

Union Act, 1926 and Rules there under vide Registration

Certificate No. DRT (B-1)/TUA/SR-01/03-07 dated

26.05.2003 and informed the formation of the Union to the

II Party and requested to recognize the Union as it is the

only Union existing in the II Party establishment and as the

II Party management was reluctant to recognise for the

reasons best known to them the Union submitted a list of

demands vide its letter dated 14.01.2004 which were the

legitimate demands of the workers and as the II Party failed

to consider the same the I Party Union left with no other

alternative approached the conciliation officer and due to

the adamant, hostile and non-cooperative attitude adopted

by the II Party the conciliation ended in failure. It is further

stated that in spite of lapse of reasonable period the dispute

was being not referred to the court for adjudication the I

Party Union filed W.P. No. 19949/2005 before the Hon'ble

High Court of Karnataka seeking direction to the appropriate

authority to refer the dispute for adjudication and the

Hon'ble High Court by order dated 14.09.2006 when directed

the concerned authorities to pass appropriate order over

the failure report the order dated 02.04.2007 was passed

referring for adjudication only three demands and declined

to refer the other nine demands findings them unfit for

adjudication and thereafter in the contempt petition moved

by the I Party Union in 144/2007 when Hon'ble High Court

of Karnataka was pleased to direct to refer the remaining

eight demands (Sl. No. 4 of 12) also for adjudication, the

second order for reference dated 05.06.2007 came to be

passed for adjudication of other demands also. It is also

stated in the claim statement that the II Party management

being an autonomous research and development

organisation under the administrative control of Ministry

of Power, Government of India the disputes between the

employees and the management in connection with the ID

Act, 1947 will come before the Office of the Regional Labour

Commissioner (C), Bangalore since the appropriate

government is the Central Government and that the various

demands mentioned in the charter of demands being

genuine, bona fide, legal and justified, it was very much

obligatory on the part of the II Party to implement them and

that various establishments/organisation similarly placed

as that of the II Party management have chosen to

implement the various demands mentioned in the charter

of demands but unfortunately the II Party has taken most

adamant stand of not implementing their demands without

any valid and justified reasons for the reasons best known

to them. It is further elaborated with regard to each charter

of demand as under:

Charter of Demands:

1. Implementation of 5th Pay Commission Scales:

The demand of the employees with regard to

rectification of anomalies and implementation of revised

pay scale as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay

Commission, Government of India with effect from

01.01.1996 is since pending. The pay scales with

retrospective effect shall be revised and implemented as

per with the scales prevailing in other institutions.

The management implemented all the eligibility

conditions for the revision of pay scale unilaterally and it

caused disparity in the wage revision. The existing

eligibility conditions in this regard should be withdrawn.

As per the existing rules the scale of pay for

Technician Grade-I/Technical Attendant Grade-3 is Rs. 950-

1400. After promotion to the post of Technician Grade-2/

Technical Grade-4 it is fixed in the scale of pay Rs. 1150-

1500. In the clerical staff the scale of pay is fixed at Rs.

1200/- after one promotion from Rs. 950. As per the 5th pay

commission Rs. 1200/- scale becomes Rs. 4000/-.

Whereas Rs. 1150/- scale of Technical Attendent

Grade-4 becomes only Rs. 3200/-. After 14 years of service

from T A Grade-3 in scale of Rs. 950/- scale get the scale of

Rs. 4000/-. Hence, the 1st party Union to fix the scale of

Rs. 1150 to Rs. 4000/- scale instead of Rs. 3200/- to the

technical staff also.

The following difference in the scale of pay is noticed:

Clerical Staff

Technical Staff

Rs. 950/-

Rs. 3050/-

Rs. 950/-

Rs. 3050/-

Rs. 1200/-

Rs. 4000/-

Rs. 1150/-

Rs. 3200/-

Rs. 1400/-

Rs. 5000/-

Rs. 1320/-

Rs. 4000/-

As per the 5th Pay Commission the scale of

Rs. 1400/- is fixed at Rs. 4500/-. But in CPRI, it is fixed at

Rs. 5000/-. Similarly the scale of Rs. 1150/- which

is now fixed at Rs. 3200/-. may please be fixed at

Rs. 4000/.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2413

Rs. 975/- scale was not existing in CPRI before 5th

Pay Commission. Rs. 1150/- basic was brought/reduced to

Rs. 975/- scale (a reduction of Rs. 175/-). Instead by

increasing the scale of Rs. 50/- in the scale of Rs. 1200/-

could have been fixed at Rs. 4000/- scale.

In many cases Rs. 875/-, 950/-, 975/-, 1150/- scales

has been fixed at Rs. 4000/- scales in different

organisations.

The 1st Party Union request this Hon'ble Tribunal

be pleased to consider this and remove the anomalies.

As per the CPRI Rules there is no further promotion

for Technical Attendant Grade-5. Additional promotion to

the post of Technical Attendant Grade-6 may please be

incorporated.

It is submitted that the organisations such as ISRO,

NAL, ISSC, DRDO, DOORDARSHAN etc., have done so.

But the 2nd Party management has failed to implement

the same, which has resulted in huge monetory loss to

the employees and the same is causing mental agony also.

This demand is required to be met to avoid anomalies and

industrial unrest amongst the employees.

2. On Assessment period for promotions:

Suitable amendments sould be made in the working

rules of CPRI in order to make the Assessment period for

promotions uniform for all categories of employees:

The review period towards promotions is fixed at 5

years for Engineers, Officer and other grades. However, it

is not the same in case of Technicians and Technical

Attendants. Hence, it is demanded to make review period

in line with higher grades. Hence, suitable amendments

should be made in the working rules of the 2nd party

management in order to make the assessment period for

promotions, uniform for all the categories of employees.

The concerned employees have given various

representations over the aforesaid two demands to the

2nd party management mentioning clearly as to how

injustice has been caused to them, when compared to the

other cadre. Unfortunately, the 2nd party management has

not chosen to concede the said demands, though, the

aforesaid demands are genuine and justified. Copy of

representation given and enclosed herewith and marked

as Annexures.

3. On overtime work:

(a) Two times of the wages should be paid as

overtime allowance. In addition to that also conveyance

allowance and canteen facilities should be provided during

holidays.

(b) Canteen facilities should also be provided after

office hours on all working days for the employees working

overtime.

It is submitted that the employees will do overtime

work with a good intention to achieve better results. If the

2nd party management want any employees to do over

time work, then it is mandatory on the part of the 2nd party

management to pay double wages for the said period, if

not, it would amount to exploitation of labour.

4. Medical Reimbursement:

The employees and their family members should be

given full medical reimbursement on production of medical

bills irrespective of in- patient or out-patient as employees

contribution is collected. Health scheme should be revised

with mutual discussion.

It is submitted that all the employees are finding very

difficult to meet both ends with the meagre wages drawn

by them. The treatment has to be obtained as per the

advise given by the doctors. Much time, the treatment is

given by treating the concerned person as an out-patient

only, through the illness is quite serious one. Hence, the

nature of treatment and the medical bills etc., has to be

taken into consideration for medical reimbursement instead

of differentially between an impatient and an out-patient.

5. Canteen facility:

Quality of food in the canteen should be hygienic,

qualitative and quantitative.

Each establishment must initiate steps to provide

the essential items in the canteen at a subsidized rates. If

the canteen is established inside the establishment by

providing all infrastructures, then, it would be possible to

provide the items at a subsidized rates to the employees.

All departmental canteens which are existing in similar

establishments are providing food items at a subsidized

rates. Hence, this demand is very much justified one.

Present rate : CPRT pays Rs. 18 + for food, Rs. 3/- fro

coffee/tea and for breakfast, inspite of providing room-

canteen hall with kitchen items, solar heater free and gas

connection - only gas has to be purchased, 100s of unit of

electricity unit is also given free above certain unit

contractor has to pay. Whereas, Hotels such as ''Samrat''

near to CPRI offers similar food for Rs. 12/- without any

facilities, likewise there are many benefits to outsiders, but

the management is not taking anything to its books inspite

of repeated requests, demand etc., for the reasons best

known to them.

6. Transport Allowance:

30% increase in transport allowance every year

should be given in addition to the existing allowance.

It is a fact that the concerned authorities are in the

habit of raising the bus fares during each year by given

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

one reasons or the other. The Transport Allowance being

paid must neutralize the aforeasaid increased effected

during each year. Earlier CPRI had conveyance to carry/

pickup staff the same has been stopped. CPRI provided

maximum Rs. 300/- to people who are residing > 12 kms

away from office to basis to law paid staff while the same is

given on % basis to the High paid staff. Therefore,

conveyance may be provided by CPRI with prescribed rate

of RTO taking into account the real facts. Otherwise, the

employees will be forced to spend their earned wages only

to meet all these unexpected expenditures, which finally

results in great hardships to run their families. Taking all

these facts into consideration the 1st party union has put

forth this demands.

7. Transfer Policy:

Employees of C & D Group should not be transferred

to any out-station, under any circumstances whatsoever:

It is relevant to state at this stage that even in

Government Sector, the employees who belongs to lower

strata will not be normally disturbed and they will not be

transferred to far-off places, as it would affect the entire

family members. In fact, these employees will run their family

with great hardship, as the wages earned by them is very

meagre when compared to the wages of their superior

officers. Hence, some relaxations is bound to be given to

the employees who belong to the lower strata, to enable

them to lead their life happily with their limited resources.

8. Uniforms:

Two pair of food quality uniform should be issued

every year along with a paid of leather shoes and two pairs

of cotton socks of reputed brand only.

9. Washing Allowance:

Washing allowance should be increased to

Rs. 100/-.

This is required to maintain some discipline also.

Many times, the financial condition of the employees will

not permit them to wear decent clothes during working

hours which may effect the reputation of the establishment.

This practice of issuing uniforms and paying washing

allowance is in force in most of the establishments. It should

be one of the essential service condition, particularly to

help the employee who gets meagre wages.

10. Bonus:

CPRI is a revenue earning organisation and hence it

should declare 20% bonus per annum:

It is relevant to state at this stage that the bonus is

being paid to all the employees of Central Government

including defence, telephones, postal services, railways,

income tax, etc. Further the 2nd party management also is

making profits during each year on account of the hard

work of the workmen employed in them. Hence, the work

force also must be treated as partner in the industry and

hence they are entitled to get the bonus. This step on the

part of the 2nd party management would instil a kind of

confidence in the minds of all the employees and the same

would create good spirit in the minds of each workman to

contribute more to the development of the establishment.

11. Field Testing Allowance:

CPRI is earning revenue from commercial testing,

both within the units and by way of field testing. The

existing field testing allowance paid to the employees

should be suitably enhanced.

12. Minterial Staff:

The ministerial staff should be given the next high

scale irrespective of vacancy at the time of promotion.

4. With the above averments in the claim statement

it is submitted all demands are being legal and justified

demands the II party which has got sufficient financial

capacity to meet those demands the same are required to

be implemented in the spirit of maintaining good industrial

peace and harmony and prayed to pass an Award holding

that the I Party Union is justified in all their demands and

to direct the II Party to implement the same.

5. In the counter statement filed by the Senior

Administrative Officer of the II Party, it is contended that

the assertion by the I Party that it is a Registered Trade

Union formed on 16.02.2003 registered under Trade Union

Act, 1926 may be true but such a Union cannot be

recognized by any statutory authority as the same is against

the law and in that regard the I Party was clearly informed

that no such trade unions could be formed except for

Service Associations. It is further contended II party being

an autonomous society under the Administrative Control

of Ministry of Power, Government of India the ID Act is

not aplicable as it is neither an industry nor it is involved

in any such activities in order to bring it into perview of

industry as such it is incorrect as asserted by the I Party

that all disputes between employees and II party will come

under the perview of the RLC(C) since the appropriate

government is central government. It is further contended

the number of employees working in the II Party institute

as on the date is 714 in number, the total number of members

of the CPRIEU as seen from the Registration on 21.03.2003

was only 127. It is further contended the CPRI was

established in 1960 at Bangalore and during 1963 at Bhopal

under the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), a Technical

Wing of Ministry of Power, Government of India which is

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2415

essentially functioning as a Regulatory body to administer

the Central Electricity Act to achieve the performances

and objection set out in the said act. It is further contended

with a view to further stream line the CPRI for more efficient

accomplishments of the objectives the Government of India

through their Resolution No. 33(14)/74-Policy/EL 1 dated

18.12.1975 re-organised it into Autonomous Body (Society)

and there after the employees who were government

servants were given an option either to remain under

Government Service or to come over under the CPRI

Society in which case their service conditions will not be

inferior to those available under the Central Government.

It is further contended in view of the said fact it became

necessary for the CPRI Society to adopt Service Conditions

which is prevallent under the Central Government which

inter alia includes the following aspects:

a. The scales of pay adopted in the Institute

conform exactly to the Central Pay Scales. Pay

fixation Rules governed under FRSR Part-I.

Bonus, Overtime Allowance is also paid to the

employees under the Rules applicable to Central

Government Employees.

b. Leave Rules, Pension Rules, GPF Rules,

Travelling Allowance, HRA, CCA rules are

governed in the Institute as per the provision

contained in CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972; GPF Rules, 1960; FRSR

Part-I and Part-II respectively.

c. The matters relating to Conduct, Discipline,

Suspension, Appeals and Reviews are also

regulated in the Institute in terms of

CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965.

d. The matter relating to formation of Service

Associations falls under the subject of conduct

and is governed by CCS (Regulation of Service

Association) Rules, 1993.

6. It is further contended that the question of

according recognition to service associations in CPRI was

raised time and again right from it was converted into

autonomous body and some of the employees had formed

union with outsider as officer bearer and sought for

recognition and in this connection the governing council

of the II Party society at its third meeting held on 11.07.1978

opined that their bye-laws provide for right to strike,

membership of offices etc., allowing them to take part in

the political activities they are conflict with the CCS

Conduct Rules, 1964 adopted by the Governing Council

for its employees and on further deliberation on the subject

the governing council decided only staff association duly

constituted according to the government of India be

recognised and a dialogue only with such staff

associations matters relating to the service conditions and

only in the matter of the institute on the service matters

and the said condition was made known to the employees

from time to time and recently under circular dated

31.12.2004. It is further contended the council of Scientific

Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi an autonomous

society under the Ministry of Science and Technology

which is having 44 laboratories under its control situated

in different parts of the country have adopted CCS for

recognition of Associations and decided they would not

deal with the Unions/Associations which have not been

formed and recognised under CCS (R&S) Rules. It is further

contended under the circumstances effective grievances

redressal mechanism is very much in existence in the II

Party Institute. As such there is no real cause of action for

the I Party to agsitate such matter before this court or any

other forum or court or authority and any grievance of

any employees are to be settled under the frame work

within the rules governing service conditions of employees

of the Institute viz., CPRI (Service Conditions) Rules, 1989

or could be agitated before the court of law as has been

done in many cases decided and pending before the Courts

of Law.

7. Without prejudice to the above contention i.e. the

II Party being not an Industry do not fall under the

jurisdiction of this Court under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 with regard to the charter of demdands it is

stated as under:

Implementation of 5th Pay Commission Scales

The adoption of pay scales to the various posts in

the Institutes is a policy decision, taken by the governing

Council. Consequent to the implementation of 5th Pay

Commission recommendation by Government of India, the

Governing Council of CPRI also had revised the pay scales

of the employees of the Institute by adopting the standard

pay scales prescribed by 5th Pay Commission

corresponding to the pre-revised scales of pay at its 41st

meeting held on 28.11.1997 at New Delhi.

It is also pertinent to mention that some of the

employees of the Institute have filed Writ Petition in the

Honourable High Court of Karnataka (W P No. 195258/05

S-Res).

The prmotional policy for the employees of the

Institute are governed by CPRI (Pay, Recruitment &

Promotion) Rules, 1989 duly formulated by the Governing

Council after taking all relevant factors into account and

career growth of each category of employees.

On Assessment period for promotion:

The Governing Council at its 62nd meeting held on

26.04.2007 provided an opportunity to Technical

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Attendants Grade 5 completing 9 years of service to bring

them under Technician Grade 4 through selection a duly

constituted committee.

On Overtime Work.

The Service Conditions of the employees in the

Institute is governed by CPRI (Service Conditions) Rules,

1989. In respect of the matter to Overtime Allowance, the

rules and order applicable to the Central Government

Employees shall be applicable to the employees of the

Institute.

It is submitted that the demand for Payment of

Overtime Allowance at twice the rates and to grant

conveyance allowance to be provided during holidays is

outside the scope of Government of India Rules on the

subject. So far as the canteen facility is concerned the

same are now extended on Saturdays also.

Medical Reimbursement:

The Service Conditions of the employees in the

Institute is governed by CPRI (Service Conditions) Rules,

1989. In respect of the matter to relating to medical re-

imbursement, the rules and orders applicable to the Central

Government Employees are adopted and made applicable

to the employees of the Institute.

The institute has adopted a scheme of Medical Re-

imbursement in the lines of Central Government Health

Scheme (CGHS) and CS (Medical Attendance) Rules vide

the decision of Governing Council at its 46th Meeting

held at Bangalore on 26.05.2000. The Medical claim of the

employees are being regulated accordingly.

Canteen Facility:

It is submitted that the Director General of the 2nd

Party has constituted a Canteen Committee consisting of

members representing different cadres of employees of

the Institute to look into various aspects of the functioning

of the Canteen quality and hygienic aspects of food being

served in the canteen. A complaint register is also

maintained in the canteen which is periodically reviewed

for taking appropriate action.

Transport Allowance:

The Service Condition of the employees in the

Institute is governed by CPRI (Service Condition) Rules,

1989. In respect of the matter relating to Transport

Allowance, the rules and orders applicable to the Central

Government Employees shall be applicable to the

employees of the Institute.

The Institute has adopted rates of Transport

Allowance in accordance with the Government of India

orders on the subject vide the decision of the Governing

Council at its 41st meeting held on 28.11.1997 at New Delhi.

Transfer Policy:

The matter of transfer of employees is an

Administrative decision which is need based and its

dependent on exigencies that arise from time to time.

Uniforms:

The Service Conditions in the Institute is governed

by CPRI (Service Conditions) Rules, 1989. In respect of

the matter relating to Uniforms, the rules and orders

applicable to the Central Government Employees are made

applicable to the employees of the Institute.

Two pair of uniforms is issued every year and one

pair of shoes is issued once in 1 ¹/2 years as per rules.

Washing Allowance:

The Service Conditions of the employees in the

Institute is governed by CPRI (Service Conditions) Rules,

1989. In respect of the matter relating to Washing

Allowance, the Rules and Orders applicable to the Central

Government Employees shall be applicable to the

employees of the Institute.

10.

Bonus:

The Service Conditions of the employees in the

Institute is governed by CPRI (Service Conditions) Rules,

1989. In respect of the matter relating to Bonus, the rules

and order applicable to the Central Government Employees

shall be applicable to the Institute as per the Government

of India. Accordingly, ad hoc-bonus to eligible employees

is being disbursed from time to time.

11.

Field Testing Allowance:

The Institute provides working lunch to employees

while they are deputed to field assignments in remote areas

vide the decision of the Governing Council of CPRI at 50th

Meeting held at New Delhi on 26.02.2002.

12.

Ministerial Staff:

The promotion in Ministerial Cadres is vacancy

based with a provision to review the number of available

posted in higher grade for promotion from time to time.

Necessary re-allocation/restricting is done from time to

time in order to ensure promotion to the Ministerial

Employees of the Institute to a reasonable extent. The

Petition itself says the demands are not legal. However

the same are not in accordance with Rules governing the

Service Rules of CPRI.

Thus it is contended there being no cause of action

for this dispute and the one alleged is imaginary and made

only to mislead and misuse the juridical process the

reference is liable to be dismissed.

8. After completion of the pleadings since it was the

case of charter of demand the I Party was being called

upon to substantiate its case, on 02.07.2010 the counsel

for I Party while filing the affidavit of General Secretary of

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2417

the I Party Union examining him on oath as WW 1 got

exhibited Copy of Registration Certificate issued by the

Registrar ofTrade Union; Letters addressed to II party to

the I party Union dated 24.07.2003, 15.09.2003 and

15.03.2004; list of charter of demands placed by the I party

to the II party; letters by II party management to the

conciliation officer dated 01.04.2004, 21.06.2004;

conciliation notice dated 07.06.2004; letter of I party union

to the letter of II party management dated 24.06.2004;

Conciliation Report; letters written by the I party union to

the Secretary to Government of Karnataka, labour

Department dated 01.06.2005, 22.07.2005; order passed in

WP No. 19949/2005 by Karnataka High Court, Annual

reports pertaining to the II party management for the years

2003-2004 and Annual report for the year 2008-2009 as Ex

W-1 to to Ex W-15 respectively and in his cross-examination

for the II Party the Book containing Memorandum of

Association, Rules and Regulation, bye laws, working rule

No. 1 and Rule No. 2 as amended upto 16.06.1989 got

exhibited as Ex M-1. After cross-examination of WW 1,

the General Secretary of I Party Union he filed the affidavit

of Sh. P.C. Philip, Joint Secretary of I Party Union and

examined him on oath as WW 2 and got exhibited Annual

Report of CPRI for the year 2009-2010 and Book containing

Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations, Bye-

laws, Working Rule No. 1 and Working Rule No. 2 of the

CPRI Society (amended upto 16.6.1989) as Ex W-16 and Ex

W-17 respectively. In his cross-examination for the

management Salary Particulars for the month of June 2011

pertaining to him got exhibited as Ex M-2.

9. Inter alia, the learned counsel appearing for the

II Party on 17.08.2011 while filing the affidavit of Chief

Administrative Officer of the II Party examining him on

oath as MW 1 got exhibited the certified copy of the orders

passed in W P No. 19528/2005 (S-RES) dated 14.06.2011;

order relating to non-production bonus dated 06.10.2010

accompanied by Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2010 as

Ex M-3 to Ex M-5 respectively. In his cross-examination

for the I Party the Photostat copies of the Revision of Test

Tariffs issued on 30.09.2009 by the Chief Accounts Officer,

CPRI and Office Order pertaining to transfer of two officials

dated 20.07.2010 got exhibited as Ex W-18 and Ex W-19

respectively. After cross-examination of the MW 1, the

counsel for II party while filing the affidavit of Sh. N

Murugesan, Director General of CPRI, Bangalore on

11.11.2011 examining him on oath as MW 2 got exhibited

Photostat copy of IEEMA Journal Article; Roving calendar

Technical Programme; Seminars/Workshops conducted by

CPRI; International Conference on Power Systems; CPRI

News; Centre for Collaborative and Advance Research

Borchure; CPRI Journal; List of Patents; Research

Contingency Projects; Research Scheme on Power; RSOP

Project Proposals; Membership of CPRI Officers in

International Committees and Release Order of Grant in

Aid as Ex M-20 to Ex M-32 respectively (since before

exhibiting Ex M-20 to Ex M-32 the last document exhibited

for the II Party was Ex M-5 these documents ought to

have been exhibited as Ex M-6 to Ex M-18 but inadvertently

they have been exhibited as Ex M-20 to Ex M-32

respectively). In his cross-examination for the I Party book

published as CPRI News; Photostat copies of the Office

Order issued by the Chief Administrative Officer (SG) dated

30.04.1992; Circulars issued by Joint Director (Marketing),

planning division of CPRI dated 24.05.2007; 27.05.2009;

Cicular issued by the HOD (Administrative and Finance)

CPRI 02.1.2010; circular issued by the Chief Administrative

Officer dated 07.09.2011; manual report for the year 2010-

2011 have been got exhibited as Ex W-20 to Ex W-26

respectively.

10.With the above pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence brought on record by both the sides the

arguments addressed by the authorised representative of

the I Party union and the learned advocate appearing for

the II Party were heard.

11. Sh. T.S. Anatharam, Officer, CITU representing

the I Party in his arguments while taking me through the

pleadings very fairly submitted that in view of specific

contention taken by the II Party that it is not an industry

and that the I Party Union has no locus standi to represent

the whole body of employees of the CPRI, before

proceeding to consider whether the charter of demands

put forth by the I Party union are legal and justified, it has

to be considered:

1. Whether CPRI is a Industry as defined under

Section 2(j) of ID Act to bring it under the

jurisdiction of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal?

2. Whether I Party Union has a locus standi to put

forth such charter of demands?

and taking me through the Audit Reports produced at Ex

W-16 and Ex W-26 and the admission given by MW 1 that

CPRI charges for testing and certification and generates

revenue and the admission given by MW 2 in his cross-

examination that CPRI is issuing Type Test Certificate to

all the Electrical Equipment manufacturers for meeting

international standard for both public and private sector

people in the industry both from India and Abroad and

that they do charge for testing urged it amounts to trade

and business as such the CPRI has to be held as an

Industry. In support of his arguments he who mainly relied

on the decision in the case of Central Machine Tools

Institute vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner, reported in

1979 (I) LLJP (Kar) and in the case of Bangalore Water

Supply Board vs. A. Rajappa reforted in 1978 (I) LLJ 349

(SC) also referred to the decisions in KBR Parimala and

another vs. Director of Postal Services, Trivandrum

reported in 1979 (II) LLJP. 176 (Hon'ble High Court of

Kerala); A. Kajendra vs. Presiding Officer, Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai & ors. Reported in 2011 LLR 438 (Hon'ble High

Court of Madras); State of Gujarat and another vs.

Ramabhai Lalabhai reported in 2011(i) LLJ Pg. 637 (Gujarat

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

High Court); Karnani Properties Ltd., vs. State of West

Bengal & ors. Reported in 1994 III LLJ (Suppl) Pg. 378;

Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha vs.

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr.

Reported in 2011 LLR 469 (Rajasthan High Court); Indian

Council of Agriculatural Research ( ICAR) and another

vs. Dduryodhan Himaman Ingole, Nagpur & other reported

in 2011 IV LLJ Pg. 410 ( Bombay); Agrucultural Produce

Market Committee and others vs. Ashok Harakuni and

others reported in 2000 (II) LLJ Pg. 1382; Physical Research

Laboratory vs. K.G. Sharma reported in 1997 (II) LLJ Pg.

625 (SC) and Nirchiliya and other vs. Management of Safire

Theatre, madras and another reported in 1991 (I) LLJ Pg.

111.

12. Interalia, the learned advocate appearing for the

II Party urged that the CPRI society being established on

the recommendation of the Planning Committee for Power

Engineering Research Institute which stressed need for

taking up the power research in the country and

recommended to set up power research at Bangalore and

switch gear testing and development at Bhopal under the

United Nations Special Fund for the discharge of the

functions as under:

i. Undertake investigations and research on

various problems connected with the

development and utilization of energy resources

in India in a rational and economical manner.

ii. Conduct such studies as would lead to technical

efficiency and economy in the various aspects

of the power industry.

iii. Develop, through research, suitable types and

designs of equipment for utilizing indigenous

material resources for the rapid growth of power

supply facilities.

iv. Undertake research towards the promotion of

the manufacturing potential of electrical

equipment in India to meet the rapidly increasing

demand for power from large scale industrial

and agricultural programme.

which is elaborated in the memorandum of association

which is produced at Ex M-1 by the II Party and Ex W-17

by the I Party as such it is purely a research and

development organization as such it cannot be held as an

Industry to bring under the perview of jurisdiction of ID

Act, 1947 and in support of his arguments he cited the

decision in the case of B Vijayakumari Pillai, Bangalore vs.

Management of Indian Institute of Science reported in

2012 (3) LLJ 627 (Kar) and urged to reject the reference. He

also urged that since the CPRI has adopted the CCA rules

and the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, GPF Rules 1960 and

CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and fixed the salary of the

employees as per the Central Pay Scales, few employees

who have formed the Trade Union cannot bring the

institute under the perview of ID Act 1947 for meeting

their demands.

13. In view of the facts narrated by me above the

points that arises for my consideration in disposal of this

reference are:

1. Whether CPRI is an Industry as defined under

Section 2(j) of the ID Act?

2. If yes, whether the I Party Union comprising of

127 members out of 714 employees of the II Party

has a locus standi to put forth such demands?

3. If yes, whether I Party demonstrate its all

demands or any of them are being legal and

justified?

4. What Order?

14. On appreciation of the pleadings oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by the

respective parties with the arguments canvassed by their

learned advocates and the citations relied upon by them

my findings on Point No. 1 is in the Negative and 2 and 3

as does not survive for consideration and No. 4 as per

final order for the following reasons:

REASONS

15. Point No. 1: Since whether CPRI is an Industry

or not goes to the root of the case, I have taken up this

point for consideration at the first instance. Section 2 (j) of

the ID Act, 1947 defines Industry to be any Business,

Trade, Undertaking, Manufacture or calling of employers

includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or

industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. As per

the leading decision of the Supreme Court on the point in

the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board

vs. A. Rajappa reported in 1978 SCC Cases (L&S) 215 it is

held that "non-existence of profit making motive or any

other gainful object is an irrelevant consideration in

determining whether an enterprise is an Industry or not

and that most decisive test for such purpose is the nature

of the activity with special emphasis on the employer and

employee relationship and if the enterprise is trade or

business it does not cease to be so because philanthropy

or charity is the primary object.’’ Therefore, whether the

CPRI earns profit or not from its activities is not relevant

and the objective for which it is established and is carrying

on being relevant we have to see the objective and

activities of the CPRI from the Memorandum of Association

on which both I Party and II Party rely upon. The I Party

has produced photocopy of Memorandum of association,

rules & regulations, Bye-laws, Working Rule No. 1 &

Working Rule No. 2 of the CPRI society (amended upto

16.6.1989) at Ex @/-17 where as the II Party has produced

the same at Ex M-1 which reads as under:

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2419

The Objectives for which the society is established

are:—

Technical:

(i) Function as a National Power Research

Organisation for undertaking and/or sponsoring

research and development projects in the fields

of generation, transmission, distribution and

operation of electricity supply systems.

(ii) Provide necessary centralized research and

testing facilities for evaluation of electrical

materials and performance of power equipments.

(iii) Serve as a national testing and certification

Authority for the purpose of certification of

rating and performance to ensure availability of

equipment of adequate quality for use under

conditions prevalant in Indian Power Systems.

(iv) Act as an apex body for initiating and co-

ordinating the R & D in the field of electric power.

(v) Evolve criteria for standards of various

equipments for operation under Indian

conditions and effectively participate in

formulation of national standard specifications.

(vi) Identity problems in the areas of basic and

oriented basic research and arrange such studies

in national academic institutions.

(vii) Co-ordinate R & D activities in the various State

Electricity Boards and maintain liaison with other

Institutions engaged in research connected with

power systems and/or power equipments.

(viii) Collect information and maintain documentation

in the field of power engineering and prepare,

print and publish any paper, periodical or report

in furtherance of the objects of the Society.

(ix) Establish, maintain and manage laboratories,

workshops and other facilities for furthering

scientific and technological research and

conduct experiments for exploiting the invention

or discoveries to the cause of power

development in the country.

(x) Enter into agreement with any enterprise or

institutions or person or persons and provide

funds to them to carry out research and

development programme of the Society.

Financial

(xi) Accept grants of money and other assistance

from Govt. of India and other sources, Indian or

foreign or enter into agreement with them with a

view to promote the objectives of the Society

provided that in respect of foreign resources

prior approval of the Government of India is

obtained.

(xii) Acquire by gift or purchase or exchange or lease

or hire or otherwise, howsoever, any lands,

buildings situated in India, equipment and any

other properties movable or immovable for the

furtherance of the objectives of the Society and

construct or alter any building which may be

necessary for the Society.

(xiii) Sell or lease or transfer or exchange or mortgage

or dispute of or otherwise deal with any

properties whatever belongings of the Society,

provided that prior approval in writing of the

Central Government is obtained.

(xiv) Draw, make, accept or endorse and discount

cheques, notes or other negotiable instruments.

(xv) Invest the funds or money of the Society not

immediately required in any securities or in such

manner as from time to time to be determined by

the Governing Council.

Administrative

(xvi) Establish and award research studentships,

fellowships.

(xvii) Retain or employ professional or technical

advisors, consultants or workers to further the

object of the Society and to pay thereof such

honorarium, fees or remuneration as may be

thought expedient.

(xviii) Negotiate and enter into contracts on behalf of

the Society and vary or rescind such

contracts.

(xix) Create administrative, technical, ministerial and

other posts under the Society and to make

appointments thereto in accordance with the

rules and regulations of the Society.

(xx) Take appropriate measures for training and

welfare of the employees.

(xxi) Make rules and regulations and bye-laws for

the conduct of the affairs of the Society and to

add, to amend, to vary or rescind them from

time to time with the approval of the Government

of India.

(xxii) Do all such other lawful acts, deeds or things

as are incidental or conductive to the attainment

of any of the above objects.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(xxiii) Maintain a research and reference Library.

16. The plane reading of the objectives for which

the II Party is established makes it clear that it is established

to aid the government for the purpose of research in the

field of power and development in the fields of generation,

distribution of electricity supply systems and in order to

achieve this object it undertakes tests and certification

and issue Type Test Certificate to all the Electrical

Equipment manufacturers for meeting international

standard for both public and private sector people in the

industry both from India and Abroad and charge for the

same and thereby makes some earnings and besides the

funds it gets from the Government and other sources makes

the maintenance. On this aspect of the case in the claim

statement filed by the General Secretary of the I Party

Union it has been clearly stated in Para 3 the II Party being

an Autonomous Research and Development Organisation

under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Power,

Government of India which reads as under:

"It is submitted that the 2nd party management is an

autonomous research and development organisation

and the administrative control of Ministry of Power,

Government of India".

The same is even reiterated in the affidavit, filled by

the General Secretary in lieu of his evidence on 02.07.2010

which reads as under:

"I state that the 2nd party management is an

autonomous research and development organisation

and the administrative control of Ministry of Power,

Government of India".

Only in his cross-examination on this aspect when

he was cross-examined by the learned advocate appearing

for the II Party he volunteers and states that till 1978 only

testing and certification is being done and from 1995

onwards only 5% of the research work is carried and

thereafter in the evidence of second witness WW 2 the

Joint Secretary an attempt is made to show that the CPRI

is involved in Trade and Business by earning revenue

from Certification of Type Test Certificate to all the Electrical

Equipment manufacturers for meeting international

standard for both public and private sector people in the

industry both from India and Abroad and charge for the

same. At the outset, I may say in the absence of the pleading

or contrary to the pleading any amount of evidence given

during the course of trial is of no avail to a party. Even

otherwise, it is clear from the evidence brought on record

the certification and testing of the equipments by the II

Party being to aid the government in the research and

development in the field of power it is in the nature of

sovereign function and it cannot be said that the CPRI is

involved in trade and business to fall under Section 2 (i)

of the ID Act, 1947 wherein Industry is defined. Therefore,

in my considered view only because the II Party is earning

some revenue from Certification of Type Test Certificate

to all the Electrical Equipment manufacturers for meeting

international standard for both public and private sector

people in the industry both from India and Abroad it

cannot be held as an Industry as defined under Section 2

(j) of ID Act, 1947 and it is an organisation purely involved

in research and development in the field of Power, the

attempt of the I Party Union to bring it under the perview

of ID Act, 1947 is a futile attempt. In the result, I have

arrived at conclusion the CPRI is not an Industry as defined

under Section 2 (j) of the ID Act, 1947 to come under the

perview of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the

jurisdiction of this tribunal. Accordingly, I answer the Point

No. 1 in the 'NAGATIVE'.

17. Point No. 2, 3 and 4 — In view of my finding on

Point No. 1 since II Party is held as not an Industry and it

cannot be brought under the perview of the ID Act, 1947

and the jurisdiction of this court/tribunal there is no

necessity to consider the Points 2 and 3. When the II

Party is held to be not an Industry this court/tribunal since

loses jurisdiction to consider on merits i.e. on the Charter

of Demands put forward by the I Party Union, I feel that

this court cannot consider the same. Accordingly, I am of

the view that Point No. 2 and 3 in view of my finding on

Point No. 1 do not survive for consideration and the

reference is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, I pass the

following Order.

ORDER

The reference is rejected having come to the

conclusion that the II party is Not an Industry as defined

under Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to

fall under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal/court. Under

the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their

own costs.

Sd/-

(S.N. NAVALGUND)

Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

Witness examined for the I Party:

WW 1

Sh. K. Channaiah, General Secretary of

I Party Union

WW 2

Sh. P.C. Philip, Joint Secretary of I Party

Union

Documents exhibited by I Party:

Ex W - 1

Copy of Registration Certificate issued by

the Registrar of Trade Union.

Ex W - 2

Letters addressed to II Party to the I Party

Union dated 24.07.2003

Ex W - 3

Letters addressed to II Party to the I paty

Union dated 15.09.2003

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2421

Ex W - 4

Letters addressed to II Party to the I Party

Union dated 15.03.2004

Ex W - 5

List of charter of demands placed by the I

Party to the II Party

Ex W - 6

Letters by II Party management to the

conciliation officer dated 01.04.2004

Ex W - 7

Letters by II Party management to the

conciliation officer dated 21.06.2004

Ex W - 8

Conciliation notice dated 07.06.2004

Ex W - 9

Letter of I Party union to the letter of II

Party management dated 24.06.2004

Ex W - 10

Conciliation Report

Ex W - 11

Letters written by the I Party Union to the

Secretary to Government of Karnataka,

Labour Department dated 01.06.2005

Ex W - 12

Letters written by the I Party union to the

Secretary to Government of Karnataka,

Labour Department dated 22.07.2005

Ex W - 13

Order passed in WP No. 19949/2005 by

Karnataka High Court

Ex W - 14

Annual Reports pertaining to the II Party

management for the years 2003-2004

Ex W - 15

Annual Report for the year 2008-2009

Ex W - 16

Annual Report of CPRI for the year 2009-

2010

Ex W - 17

Copy of the bye-law along with

Memorandum of Association, Rules and

Regulations, working Rule No. 1 & 2 of

CPRI

Ex W - 18

Photostat copy of Revision of Test Tariffs

issued on 30.09.2009 by the Chief

Accounts Officer

Ex W - 19

Photostat copy of the Office Order

pertaining to transfer of two officials

Witness examined for the II Party:

MW 1

Sh. N. R. Padmanbha, Chief Administrative

Officer

MW2

Sh. N. Murugesan, Director General of CPRI

Documents exhibited by II Party:

Ex M - 1

Memorandum of Association, Rules and

Regulations, Bye-laws, Working Rule No.

1 and Rule No. 2 as amended upto

16.06.1989

Ex M - 2

Salary particulars pertaining to me for the

month of June 2011

Ex M - 3

Orders passed in Writ Petition No. 19528/

2005 (S-RES) dated 14.06.2011

Ex M - 4

Order relating to Non-production bonus

dated 06.10.2010 accompanied by Office

Memorandum dated 22.09.2010.

Ex M - 5

Auditors Report dated 02.07.2011

Ex M - 20

Photostat copy of IEEMA Journal Article

Ex M - 21

Roving Calender Technical Programme

Ex M - 22

Seminars/Workshops conducted by CPRI

Ex M - 23

International Conference on Power

Systems

Ex M - 24

CPRI News

Ex M - 25

Center for Collaborative and Advance

Research brochure

Ex M - 26

CPRI Journal

Ex M - 27

List of Patents

Ex M - 28

Research Contingency Projects

Ex M -29

Research Scheme of Power

Ex M - 30

RSOP Project Proposals

Ex M - 31

Membership of CPRI Officers in

International Committees

Ex M - 32

Release Order of Grant in Aid and Postal

cover dispatched on 26.06.2008 served on

02.07.2008

NOTE

: 13 Documents marked after marking

Ex M-1 to Ex M-5 which ought to have been exhibited as

Ex-M-6 to Ex M-18 inadvertently exhibited as Ex M-20 to

Ex M-32

Sd/-

(S.N. NAVALGUND)

Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 832.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w- lh- ,y-

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|kfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k vf/kdj.k ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼vkbZMh la[;k 70@2002½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@16@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d

vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O.—832 In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 70/2002 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Rayatwari Sub Area

of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by

the Central Government on 11/03/2013

[No. L-22012/16/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK,

Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/70/2002

Dated 27.02.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Rayatwari Sub Area of WCL

Post-Rayatwari, Distt. Chandrapur

(MS)

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Shri Jagatpal Biru through

I.R.K.K.K.S., Chandrapur Area,

Niraj Niwas Mahakali Colliery

PO. & Distt. Chandrapur

AWARD

(Dated: 27th February, 2013)

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 and their workman, Shri Jagatpal Biru, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/16/2002-IR (CM-II)

dated 15.07.2002, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management in relation

to Rayatwari Sub Area of under Chandrapur Area of

Western Coalfields Ltd. in fixing the pay of Shri

Jagatpal Biru, Loader at Midpoint of category-I vide

letter No. 926 dated 09.09.1997 which resulted in the

reduction of pay 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 claim and

written statement and accordingly, the union, "The Indira

Rashtriya Koyla Kamgar Sangh" ("the union" in short)

filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri

Jagatpal Biru, ("the workman" in short), and the

management of WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their

written statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a registered

union, under Trade Unions Act, 1926 and party No. 1 is a

government company owned and controlled by the Central

Government and is a "state" under Article 12 of the

constitution of India and the workman was appointed as a

loader on 22.04.1979 and National Coal Wage Agreements

("the NCWAs" in short) are binding on the party No. 1

and neither the party No. 1 nor any union is competent to

resort to change the service conditions and wage

structures etc, as laid down in the NCWAs, unilaterally

and also adversely and the NCWAs cover the wage

structure including dearness allowances, fitment in revised

scale of pay, fringe benefits, service conditions and other

allied matters including welfare, safety measure and cover

all the employees of coal industry and in terms of NCWA-

V, all the workmen were given minimum benefit of Rs. 235/

- per month inclusive of interim relief over and above the

wages prescribed in NCWA-IV and the loaders were

placed in group V-A and revised basic pay and work load

were fixed from 01.07.1991, per day at the rate of Rs. 88.93

p for workload of 100 cft and Rs. 104.93 for workload of

118 cft and besides the same, the loaders were also entitled

to special piece rate allowance ("the SPRA" in short)

@Rs. 2.12 per day and the workman was granted additional

SPRA of Rs. 2.12 paise w.e.f. 01.07.1992 vide office order

No. 1736 dated 4/6.07.1993 of Dy CME/Manager, Mahakali

colliery and besides the NCWAs, the service conditions

of the employees of party No. 1 are governed by the

certified standing order.

The further case of the workman as presented by

the union in that the workman met with an accident during

and in course of his employment in the underground Mine,

Mahakali Colliery on 07.06.1992, in the first shift and

sustained serious injuries and he was admitted in the Area

Hospital of WCL, Chandrapur for two weeks for treatment

and as the same could not give any relief, he was again

admitted in the said hospital for about four weeks and

thereafter, he was under rest, under medical advice and he

was also referred to Government Medical College, Nagpur

for treatment, for the injuries sustained by him, vide letter

dated 16.01.1993 of Manager, Mahakali colliery and as per

letter dated 13.06.1993 of the Deputy CME/Manager,

Mahakali colliery, he was directed to appear before the

Apex Medical Board at WCL headquarters Dispensary on

15.06.1993 and accordingly, he appeared before the Apex

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2423

Medical Board and the Board recommended to provide

him surface duty not involving carrying of heavy weight

and running about, holding his case to be a case of chronic

PID and accordingly, he was given surface duty and his

group wages, SPRA and other benefits as admissible to

him in accordance with the terms and conditions of

NCWA-V were protected and given to him, which can be

found out from him wage slip for the month of May, 1997

and vide order dated 3/5.07.1997 of the Personnel Manager

(MP) WCL (HQ), Nagpur, the workman and some other

were converted from piece rated to time rated workmen

and the Suptd. of Mines/Manager, Mahakali Colliery vide

office order No. 615 dated 14/17.07.1997 in most arbitrarily

and illegally, placed him in category-I and also further

ordered that wages would be fixed in accordance with the

prevailing system and he was placed in category-I with

basic of Rs. 72.96 per day, by reducing the basic from

Rs. 104.93 per day and stopped the payment of SPRA of

Rs. 27.06 P per day from the month of July, 1997 and thus,

the condition of services and wages were changed

arbitrarily and illegally and the workman approached the

management personally and submitted an application dated

12.08.1997 to protect his wages, but party No. 1 neither

considered his appeals nor replied to the same.

The further case as presented by the union on behalf

of the workman is that a settlement was arrived at as per

section 12(1) of the Act, between "R.K.K.M.S. Union" and

the Party No. 1 before the Regional Labour Commissioner,

(Central) Nagpur on 02.11.1992 and according to para 1.3

of the said settlement, "That the management shall on

conversion from P.R. to T.R./M.R. will fully protect the

group wages including SPRA wherever is applicable. The

basic pay so fixed in the TR/MR category grade if exceeds

the maximum of the category/grade, the balance will be

treated as personal pay to the person concerned which

shall be adjusted in the subsequent revision of pay/

promotion. This decision shall be effective from

01.01.1992." and in para 1.4 of the said settlement, it is

mentioned that, "The Management will convert all pending

cases of P.R. workers, who are working in TR/MR category/

grade for more than 190/240 days in a calendar year w.e.f.

01.01.1992. The management further agreed that such P.R.

worker will get group wages and SPRA w.e.f. 01.01.1992 if

they, have worked in TR/MR category/grade. It is further

agreed that after conversion in TR/MR category the person

concerned get the increments of TR/MR category/grade

as the case may be." And therefore, the action of the party

No. 1 in not protecting his wages is illegal and amounts to

change of his service condition. It is also pleaded by the

workman that Clause 21.01 of the certified standing order

provides that "workman may be transferred due to

exigencies of work from one coal mine to another or from

one establishment, department/section to another within

the same company or same holding company provided

the pay, grade and other conditions of service including

continuity of service of the workman are not adversely

affected by such transfer and a decision was taken by the

Sub-Area Manager of Hindusthan Lalpeth underground

Sub-Area on 07.09.1998 that the basic and SPRA of Loader,

whether given option or not would be protected and the

decision so taken was circulated vide letter No. 517 dated

10.09.1998 of Personnel Manager, Hindusthan Lalpeth

underground sub-area and office order No. 2676 dated

10.02.2000 was issued by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager,

WCL, Chandrapur Area, with the approval of the competent

authority to give protection of the basic wages of all

employees of Chandrapur Area, irrespective of

degradation/reduction in post and category and

management of WCL, Chandrapur Area gave protection

of group wages and SPRA in other cases of loaders

similarly situated like him, including Shri Raneswar Yadav,

Md. Riyaz and Sheikh Nabi Sheikh Chand (Tub Munshi)

and therefore, the action of the party No. 1 in not giving

him protection of his basic and SPRA is discriminating

and the settlement dated 02.11.1992 is a tripartite settlement

and the same has become the service condition of the

employees working with the employer and for change of

service condition, it is necessary for the employer to give

notice under section 9A of the Act, but in his case, no

such notice was given and therefore, the action of party

No. 1 is illegal and the workman is entitled for protection

of his basic wages and SPRA from the month of July, 1997,

annual increment and all consequential benefits.

3. The party No. 1 in their written statement have

pleaded inter-alia that the workman received injury while

on duty, on 07.06.1992, in the underground Mine of

Mahakali colliery and for his injury, he was treated in the

company hospital and finally referred to the Apex Medical

Board, for assessment of his disability and the workman

appeared before the Medical Board on 15.06.1993 and the

Medical Board found him fit for surface duty not involving

carrying of any weight or running about and based on the

recommendation of the Medical Board, he was deployed

as category-I Mazdoor as an interim arrangement till regular

full time rated job was available to adjust him against that

post and according to the extent Rules and practice, during

such interim arrangement, he was paid group wages of

piece rated loader and since such interim arrangement

could not be continued for unlimited period, his case was

referred to headquarters for permanent absorption in the

category-I post in the year in 1997 and the headquarters

approved his permanent absorption in Category-I post

especially when he had also completed 240 days in that

post and while fixing the wages of the workman in category

I as per policy decision of the company arrived at by an

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

agreement on 30.10.1995, his pay was fixed at the midpoint

of category-I and there was no breach of any law, rules

and serivce conditions and they are following the policy

of rehabilitation of employees declared permanently

disabled for the normal job due to accident on

humanitarian ground and such cases, which are dealt on

humanitarian grounds cannot be compared with others

and they have not brought about any change in the service

condition or the wage structure as fixed by JBCCI

(NCWAs) and office order No. 615 dated 14/17.07.1987

was issued in accordance with the norms and practice

followed in the company and the same is neither arbitrary

nor illegal and as there was no valid grounds to consider

the representations of the workman, they did not concede

to the demand and as there was no merit in the demand of

the union, they did not agree to settle the case in the

conciliation.

It is further pleasded by the party No. 1 that the

contents of the settlement dated 02.11.1992 are matters of

interpretations and have to read with its modification vide

agreement dated 31.10.1995 and the workman is not entitled

for any relief.

4. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,

both the parties led oral evidence in support of their

respective claims. The workman examined himself as a

witness in support of his claim and reiterated the facts

mentioned in the statement of claim in his examination in

chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross-examination, the

workman has stated that he was medically examined by

the Medical Board and he was found not fit to work as a

loader and the Medical Board recommended to engage

him on surface work and thereafter, he was engaged on

surface work and at present, he is working as a chowkidar

and wages of a loader was paid to him, so long he was in

the injury list and when he was given appointment

permanently in time rate, wages of time rate cateogory I

was paid to him.

5. Besides the workman, one Shri Dinesh Pandurang

Telang has been examined as witness on behalf of the

workman. His evidence is in the line of the stands taken

by the workman in the statement of claim.

Witness, Dinesh Pandurang Telang in his cross-

examination has stated that as the workman was found

unfit to work as a Loader, after his medical examination by

the Medical Board, he was given light work of a general

Mazdoor category-I, on surface and the settlement dated

02.11.1992 was modified by a settlement dated 31.10.1995

arrived at by the management and the union, RKKMS and

the settlement dated 31.10.1995 is still binding on the

workers of WCL.

6. One Shri Naresh Bahadur Singh has been examined

as a witness by party No. 1, whose evidence is in the line

of the stands taken by the party No. 1 in the written

statement.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated

that as the workman was injured, while working

underground and was not in a position to work in the

underground as a loader, management gave him alternative

work on surface.

7. During the course of the argument, learned

advocates for the parties reiterated the contentions made

in their respective statement of claim and written statement.

8. Before delving into the merit of the matter I think

it necessary to mention about the admitted facts, which

are necessary to decide the issue in question.

It is the admitted case of the parties that the workman

was working as a loader in the underground of Mahakali

colliery and he met with an accident during and in course

of his employment in the underground mine, in the first

shift of 07.06.1992 and was injured and he was treated for

receiving such injuries in the Area Hospital, Chandrapur

of WCL and also in the Government Medical College

Hospital, Nagpur, being referred and the workman was

examined by the Apex Medical Board on 15.06.1993 and

was recommended by the said Medical Board for surface

duty, not involving carrying of heavy weight and running

around and as per the suggestion of the Medical Board,

the workman was given surface duty as category-I

Mazdoor as an interim arrangement and during such interim

arrangement, he was paid group wages of piece rated

loaders. It is also not disputed that on completion of 240

days of work on surface, the workman was permanently

absorbed in category-I post, with the approval of the

competent authority and his pay was fixed at the mid-

point of cat-I and his basic pay with SPRA as a loader was

not protected.

It is also admitted by the parties that even though,

the workman is not a member of the RKKMS union, the

tripartite settlement signed by the management of WCL

with RKKMS union before the Regional Labour

Commissioner, Nagpur on 02.11.1992 with its modification

vide agreement dated 1.10.1995 is applicable to the

workman and both the parties are bound by the settlement.

9. On perusal of the settlement dated 02.11.1992, it is

found that clause 1.3 of the said settlement says that,

"That the management shall on conversion from

PR to TR/MR will fully protect the group wages including

SPRA wherever applicable. The basic pay so fixed in the

TR/MR category/grade is exceeds the maximum of the

category/grade, the balance will be treated as personnel

pay to the person concern which shall be adjusted in the

subsequent revision of pay/promotion. This decision shall

effective from 01.01.1992.

The terms of the above settlement was modified by

the terms of settlement dated 31.10.1995. According to the

new terms of settlement, "all such piece rated workers

who have given or may give option for time rated/monthly

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2425

rated jobs or incase of their selection through internal

notification for any time rated/monthly rated jobs, 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. 01.11.1995. Clause 5 of the settlement dated

31.10.1995 says that such piece rated workers who may be

put in time rated/monthly rated in future by managerial

decisions i.e. without seeking option for time rated/monthly

rated or without going through the selection process

against internal notification for time rated/monthly rated,

will continue to get protection of piece rated wages. Such

piece rated workers who come to TR as per option given

by them will not get this benefit.

In this case, admittedly, the option of the workman

has not been taken for his posting as time rated worker.

The posting of the workman in time rated therefore can be

said to be managerial decision. So, as per clause 5 of the

settlement dated 31.10.1995, the workman is entitled for

protection of piece rated wages. The submissions made

by the learned advocate for the management that the

obtaining of option from the workman for alternative job

on surface would have meant only an empty formality has

no force at all. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management in relation to

Rayatwari Sub Area of under Chandrapur Area of Western

Coalfields Ltd. in fixing the pay of Shri Jagatpal Biru, Loader

at midpoint of category-I vide letter no. 926 dated 09.09.1997

which resulted in the reduction of pay is illegal and

unjustified. The workman is entitled for protection of his

group VA wages from July, 1997 and he is also entitled to

get all the differential of wages and other consequential

benefits from July, 1997.

Sd/-

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 833.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñ lhñ ,yñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 115@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@421@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 115/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of ECL their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-22012/421/1998-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 115 OF 1999

PARTIES

The management of North Searsole Colliery,

M/s ECL,

Burdwan (WB)

Vs.

The Org. Secy., CMS, Asansol (W.B.)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the management :

Sri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) : None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Dated - 13.02.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

421/98-I.R.(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of North

Searsole Colliery in denying regularisation/promotion to

the post of Magazine in charge and in denying the higher

wages to Sh. Subir Kumar Chowdhury for performing his

duties in the higher post for about four years is justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

421/98-I.R.(CM-II) dated 30.07.1999 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour,

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 115 of 1999 was registered on 18.09.1999 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 of witnesses in support

of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

On persusal of the case record, it has been found

that the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step

since 03.04.2007 despite registered notices. Several

opportunities were given but of no effect. It seems that

the workman is now no more interested to proceed with

the case further. The case is also too old — 1999. As such,

the case is closed and accordingly an order of "No Dispute

Award" 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

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ — 834 vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 79@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@3@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. — 834 In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 79/2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of ECL their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-22012/3/2000-IR (CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

Present

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 79 OF 2000

Parties

The management of Bhanora Colliery,

M/s. ECL, Burdwan (WB)

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., WBCSS, Asansol (W.B.)

Representatives:

For the management

None

For the union (Workman) : None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Dated-12.02.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

3/2000-I.R.(CM-II) dated 08.08.2000 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bhanora

West Block Colliery under M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in

not regularising Sh. Mukhlal Singh as U.G. Trammer (TR)

is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/3/

2000-I.R.(CM-II) dated 08.08.2000 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 2000 was registered on 06.09.2000 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 of witnesses in support

of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by

the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found that

the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since

2010 despite registered notices. Several opportunities were

given but of no effect. It seems that the workman is now

no more interested to proceed with the case further. The

case is also too old—2000. As such, the case is closed

and accordingly an order of "No Dispute Award" is hereby

passed.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2427

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

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 835.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñlhñ,yñ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]

vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@266@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 36/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Nakrakonda Colliery,

Bankola Area, M/s. ECL, and their workman, received by

the Central Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-22012/266/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 36 OF 2004

Parties

The management of Nakrakonda Colliery

under Bankola Area of M/s. ECL, Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol (WB)

Representatives:

For the management

SHRI P.K. Goswami,

Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman): Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ld.

Representative

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Dated-08.02.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

266/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 23.06.2004 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Nakrakonda Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited, in dismissing Shri Joydev Bouri w.e.f.

18.01.1997 is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the

workman is entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

266/2003-IR(CM-II) dated 23.06.2004 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case

No. 36 of 2004 was registered on 05.07.2004 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 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 workman Joydev Bouri, U.G. Loader, Nakrakonda

Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s E.C.L., was found

unauthorized absent from 26.07.96 to 26.09.96 and a

domestic enquiry was held and thereafter he has been

dismissed by the Management w.e.f. 18.01.97.

This matter has been referred to this Tribunal by the

Ministry No L-22012/266/2003-IR(C.M.II) dated 23.06.2004

to decide while the action of the Management is legal and

justified?

On perusal of the record I find that workman has

filed the report of the doctor from which it appears that he

was suffering from jaundice during the relevant period

and could not attend his duties for two months. It further

appears from the document the workman is aged about

40 years. It has been submitted on behalf of the workman

that the Management did not consider point No.7 of the

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

memorandum of settlement in between the Management

and Workman in which it has been resolved—

"Management agrees reinstate those employees for the

reasons absenting for a period of nine months and below

45 yrs of age such case will be considered on merit basis."

On perusal of the Written Statement filed on behalf

of the Management, I find from Para-10 that the workman

was found unauthorized absent for some occasion for

which he was punished. I find that only this ground the

Management did not consider the case of the workman in

view of the memorandum of Settlement.

In my opinion this time the workman only remain

absent for two months and for this absence Medical

Certificate has also been filed, but the Management brush

aside all the plea of the workman and dismissed him from

service—which is no doubt a capital punishment has been

awarded to the workman by the Management and threw

him and his entire family on road for begging which is

against the principle of Natural Justice.

So, in my opinion, the action of the Management of

Nakrakonda Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s E.C.L. in

dismissing Joydev Bouri, U.G. Loader from service w.e.f.

18.1.97 is illegal and not justified, and accordingly the

order of the management, above stated, is hereby set aside.

The workman Joydev Bouri is fit to be reinstated in Service

and he is entitled for 50% back wages.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. 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

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 836.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

bZñ lhñ ,yñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@1998½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@120@1997&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby published the award (Ref. No. 13/1998)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of ECL their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-22012/120/1997-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

Present

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 13 OF 1998

Parties

The management of J.K. Nagar (R) Mines,

M/s. ECL, Burdwan(WB)

Vs.

The Vice President, CMU(INTUC),

Burdwan(WB.)

Representatives:

For the management

P.K. Das, Ld.

Advocate

For the union (Workman) : None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Dated - 13.02.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section(1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

120/97-I.R. (CM-II) dated 09.06.98 has been pleased to refer

the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of J.K. Nagar

(R) Mines of M/s. ECL in not paying the difference of

wages of CDS Operator Grade 'D' to Sh. Sarju Mahato,

Telephone Line Man Category IV is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

Having recevied the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

120/97-I.R.(CM-II) dated 09.06.98 of the above said

reference from the Govt of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

13 of 1998 was registered on 22.06.98 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

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2429

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.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found that

the Union on behalf of the workman has made an

endorsement that they are no more interested to proceed

with the case further and prayed for the closure of the

case. Since the Union does not want to proceed with the

case further, the case is closed and accordingly an order

of "No Dispute Award" 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

ubZ fnYyh 11ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 837

dkñvkñ 837.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZñ lhñ ,yñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 68@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@4@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March,

S.O. 837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Governemnt hereby publishes the Award Ref. 68/2006 of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Bankola Area of M/s.

Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 11/03/2013

[No. L-22012/4/2006-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

Present

Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 68 OF 2006

Parties

The management of Khandra Colliery under

Bankola Area of M/s. ECL, Burdwan

Vs.

The Gen Secy. KMC, Asansol (WB)

Representatives:

For the management

Shri P.K. Goswami,

Ld. Advocate

For the union (Workman) : Shri S.K. Pandey, Ld.

Representative

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Dated - 08-02.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-

section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

4/2006-IR.(CM-II) dated 23.10.2006 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Khandra

Colliery under Bankola Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfield

Limited, in dismissing Shri Mirza Ghalib w.e.f. 7.7.2005 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief is the workman

entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/4/

2006-IR.(CM-II) dated 23.10.2006 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

68 of 2006 was registered on 31.10.2006 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 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 workman Mirza Ghalib was working as U/G

Loader of Khandra Colliery, Bankola Area of M/s Eastern

Coalfields Limtied and he was dismissed from service with

effect from 07.07.2005 on the ground of unauthorized

absence from 13.09.2004 to 15.10.2004 on the basis of

Enquiry report.

The learned representative of the workman has

submitted that the workman had submitted the sick report

regarding his absent period, (copy which has been filed),

but the enquiry officer did not consider the same nor has

been found in the enquiry report. It has further been

submitted that it is a fact that the workman was earlier

penalized by the Management due to his unauthorized

absent. It has further been submitted that the management

has taken very harsh step against the workman by

dismissing him from service instead of any penalty, hence

the action of the Management against the workman

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Mirza Ghalib is not legal and justified, and the workman is

entitled for reinstate with back wages.

The learned layer of Management has submitted

that it is apparent from the enquiry report (Fact Findings)

Para 4 that the previous conduct of the workman shows

his chequered carrier as he was found habitual

unauthorized absentee and he was penalized five times by

the Management and in spite of that the workman failed to

reform himself, So the Management has taken right

decision by dismissing the workman from service.

On perusal of the record I find that the workman has

stated before the Enquiry officer that he could not attend

the duty due to fear of unknown persons, but no document

has been filed in support of it. On perusal of the record I

find that on 04.09.07 the learned representative of the

workman has filed four (4) documents with a list, and

document No. 2 is the copy of Sick Certificate. On perusal

of the very Sick Certificate "I find that the same has been

issued by one Dr. M.I. Ansari (a private doctor of Asansol

which is also admitted by the workman in Para 9 of Cross-

Examination) regarding illness from 16.10.04 to 16.04.05

which is apparently not for the relevant period (13.09.2004

to 15.10.2004). So, in my opinion the certificate of the doctor

is nothing but a purchased one and reliance can not be

given on this very document.

Hence considering the whole facts and

circumstances of the case, discussed above, I find and

come into conclusion that the workman is habitual

unauthorized absentee and he is unable to reform himself

even after he was punished five times by the Management.

Moreover the workman has filed a Medical Certificate

before the Tribunal, which is not for the relevant period,

to impress the Tribunal that he (workman) was sick during

absent period.

Hence I do not find any irregularity, illegality and

unjustified in the action of the Management of Khandra

Colliery under Bankola Area of M/S E.C.L. The

Management has rightly dismissed the workman from

service.

ORDER

Let an "Award" be and the same is passed as per

above discussion. 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

ubZ fnYyh] 11 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 838

dkñvkñ 838.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj bZñ lhñ ,yñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 71@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 11@03@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[,y&22012@422@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 11th March, 2013

S.O. 838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/1999)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of ECL their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 11/03/2013.

[No. L-2012/422/1998-IR(ICM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present

Shri Jayanta Kumar Sen,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. 71 OF 1999

Parties

The management of Amritnagar Colly.,

M/s. ECL, Raniganj(WB)

Vs.

The Org. Secy., CMS, Asansol (W.B.)

Representatives:

For the management

None

For the Union (Workman) :

None

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST

BENGAL

Dated—12.02.13

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India

through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/

422/98-I.R. (CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 has been pleased to

refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2431

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Damoda (N)

Colliery under Agent Amritnagar Colliery in refusing to

provide employment to Sh. Kebla Bhuiya as dependent is

justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/

422/98-I.R. (CM-II) dated 07.07.1999 of the above said

reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.

71 of 1999 was registered on 23.07.1999 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 alongwith 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.

On perusal of the case record, it has been found that

the workman is neither appearing nor taking any step since

2006 despite registered notices. It seems that the workman

is now no more interested to proceed with the case further.

The case is also too old—1999. As such, the case is closed

and accordingly an order of "No Dispute Award" 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

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ.—839

839

839 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj feuyk;u VªkaLiksVZ

ds izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/

k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ1@59@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj

dks 11-03-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&36011@02@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2013

S.O.—839 In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-1/59 of 2003)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of MENLYN TRANSPORT, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 11.03.2013.

[No. L-36011/02/2013-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

CAMP: GOA

Present

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/59 OF 2003

Parties

Employers in relation to the management of

Menlyn Transport

And

Their workmen

Appearance

For the first party :

Not present.

For the Union

Not present.

State

Maharashtra

Dated the 20th day of February, 2013

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:

“Whether the demands raised by the President

M.O.H.P. (MPT) Workers' Union, Goa vide his letter

dated 7.12.2002 (Annexure I-A) on the Management

of M/s. Menlyn Transport, Goa is justified? If yes,

what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

According to the statement of claim filed by the

MOHP (MPT) Workers' Union the employer M/s. Menlyn

Transport is a contractor of Mormugao Port Trust (MPT)

and is engaged in the business of removal, cleaning of

iron-ore spillage. Initially around 170 employees were

employed but presently around 94 workmen are employed

at Berth No. 9 of Mechanical Ore Handling Plant at MPT

and are engaged in the process of removal, cleaning and

sweeping of iron-ore spillage. The 99 workmen who have

recently been made permanent were also doing the same

work as done by the workmen of Menlyn Transport. The

salaries and other allowances paid to the permanent

khalasis employed by MPT as well as the 99 workmen who

have recently been made permanent by MPT and who are

doing similar job are paid higher salaries and allowances

whereas the salaries paid to the workmen employed by the

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Menlyn Transport are very low. These workmen are, therefore,

entitled for enhancement and revision in their existing salaries.

The employer is in a strong financial position. The demand

for an increase of Rs. 40/- per day over and above the existing

wage is fair, proper and just. Whenever the workers are

required to work on Sundays, holidays and weekly off days

they should be paid double the rate of wages and each

workman should be paid bonus every year @ 20% on the

gross salary earned by him. Thus the demands raised by the

Union vide letter dt. 7.12.2002 are just, fair and proper and the

same be considered in favour of the workmen.

3. Menlyn Transport Company has filed written

statement wherein it has stated that the actual number of

workmen made permanent is about 40 and the remaining have

availed the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. Those

workmen who were found medically fit and within the

prescribed age limit of 40 years were made permanent and not

other. The wages of the workmen have already been enhanced

by Rs. 10/- w.e.f. 12.12.2001 and again Rs. 10/- w.e.f. March

2003 and, therefore, it is not feasible and there is absolutely

no justification for considering any further increase. The

financial condition of the management is also not sound. The

Government has prescribed Rs. 60/- as minimum wage whereas

the management pays Rs. 140/- to the workmen. The quantum

of work does not warrant overtime work and hence the

question of payment of overtime does no arise. The

management is already paying bonus @ 10% and there is no

justification for its increase. According to the written statement

the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

4. The Union has filed rejoinder wherein it has

reiterated its stand.

5. After filing statement of claim and written

statement the parties have not appeared inspite of service

of notices. Neither party has led evidence.

6. There is nothing on the record to show that the

demands raised by the Union vide letter dt. 7.12.2002 are

justified.

The workmen are, therefore, not entitled to any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ.—840

840

840 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; thou

chek fuxe ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;&I ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ vkbZñMhñ uañ

261@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 8-3-2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y 17012@4@98&vkbzZvkj ¼chñ&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2013

S.O.—840 In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 261/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-I, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of LIC OF INDIA and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

08.03.2013

[No. L-17012/4/98-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

I.D. No. 261/2011

Shri Om Pal Singh,

R/o H. No. S-18-B,

New Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059.

...Workman

Versus

The Sr. Branch Manager,

LIC of India, Local Shopping Centre,

Branch No. 12, Saraswati Vihar,

New Delhi-110034.

...Management

AWARD

Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of

Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 (hereinafter referred

to as temporary staff employment scheme) was formulated

by Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred

to as the Corporation) on 28.06.1993 to employ temporary

staff in Class III and Class IV posts. Temporary staff could

be engaged in situations: (i) permanent vacancy pending

recruitment on regular basis, (ii) vacancies arising out of

absence on maternity leave of a regular female or when

regular employee proceeds on sick leave for a period

exceeding one month, and (iii) ad hoc vacancies sanctioned

by the Zonal Manager to cope with the work of seasonal

nature.

2. Claimant was engaged by the Corporation on

16.12.1996 as peon for 85 days. His services were extended

from time to time. However, no extension was given to him

after December 1997. Feeling aggrieved by the said act of

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2433

the Corporation, claimant raised an industrial dispute

before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Corporation

contested his claim, conciliation proceedings ended into

failure. On consideration of failure report, submitted by

the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide

order No. L-17012/4/98-IR(B-II), New Delhi dated 17/

25.05.1999 with following terms:

"Whether action of the management of Senior Branch

Manager, LIC Branch No. 12, Local Shopping Center,

Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi-34, in stopping from duty

with effect from 28.01.1998 to Shri Om Pal Singh S/o

late Shri Gangabasi, R/o House No. S-18B, New Raja

Puri, New Delhi-59, is justified and legal? If not, what

relief and benefit the concerned workman is entitled

to?"

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Om Prakash

Singh pleading that he was appointed as peon by the

Corporation on 16.12.1996, vide appointment letter dated

14.12.1996. His monthly salary was Rs. 1600.00 plus other

admissible allowances. He worked honestly, diligently and

to the entire satisfaction of the Corporation. His attendance

was duly marked in attendance register. Though he was

appointed on a monthly salary of Rs. 1600.00,

subsequently with mala fide intention his pay was released

at the rate of Rs. 1175.00 per month. He completed 280

days of continuous service with the Corporation. He made

a request for regularisation of his services but the

Corporation had not paid any heed to his request. Left

with no alternative, he raised a demand on 28.01.98

requesting the Corporation to regularise his services.

Annoyed with that act, his services were illegally

terminated on 04.02.1998. His wages for the month of

January 1998 were withheld. No notice of termination of

his services was given to him. Neither any charge sheet

was served nor departmental enquiry was held against

him. Action of termination of his services is illegal and

uncalled for. He is unemployed since the date of

termination of his service. He seeks reinstatement in service

with continuity and full back wages.

4. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading

that the claimant was employed purely on temporary basis

for a fixed period. After expiry of that period, he ceased to

be an employee of the Corporation. Termination of his

services has been as a result of non-renewal of the contract

and as such it does not amount to retrenchment.

Termination of services of the claimant falls within the

exception contained in second limb of section 2(oo) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Claimant

was engaged only for a period of 85 days to complete the

work accumulated on account of leave accrued to regular

employees. In the event of non-completion of specific work,

extension could be accorded to him but in no case beyond

period of 120 days. Since there was no renewal of contract

of his service, claimant was neither entitled to any notice

nor pay in lieu thereof. His claim for reinstatement in service

may be dismissed, being devoid of merits, pleads the

Corporation.

5. In rejoinder, claimant reiterates facts pleaded in

his claim statement.

6. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II) New Delhi

dated 11.02.2008, the case was transferred to the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, New Delhi, for

adjudication by the appropriate Government. The case

was retransferred to this Tribunal for adjudication vide

order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II), New Delhi dated

30.03.2011, by the appropriate Government.

7. The claimant entered the witness box to establish

his claim. Shri Gainda Lal also unfolded facts to

substantiate claim of his younger brother. Ms. Annu

Sachdeva testified facts on behalf of the Corporation. No

other witness was examined by either of the parties.

8. Parties were called upon to advance arguments at

the bar. Shri L.S. Thakur, authorised representative of the

claimant, opted to file written submissions. Shri S.M.

Bhatnagar, authorised representative, also submitted

written arguments on behalf of the Corporation, instead

of raising oral contentions. I have considered the records

carefully. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:

9. In his affidavit Ex. WW1/A, claimant swears that

he was appointed as peon by the Corporation on

16.12.1996., vide appointment letter dated Ex. WW1/1. He

was appointed at a monthly salary of Rs. 1600 plus other

allowances admissible under the rules. He served the

Corpration with sincerity. Initially his wages were paid @

Rs 1600.00 per month besides allowances. But later on

with mala fide intention Corporation started paying him

only a sum Rs. 1175.00 per month. His wages were paid on

vouchers which are Ex. WW1/5 to Ex. WW1/20. He

rendered continous service of 280 days upto 03.02.1998.

He raised a demand for regularisation of service, which

annoyed the Corporation. His services were illegally

dispensed with on 04.02.1998. His wages for the month of

January 1998 were not paid. Neither any notice for

termination of his service nor any charge sheet was served

upon him. Action of the Corporation in terminating his

services is uncalled for.

10. Shri Gainda Lal unfolds in his affidavit Ex. WW2/A

that his younger brother was employed with the

Corporation from 16.12.1996. Initially he was engaged for

85 days from 16.12.1996 to 10.03.1997. He continously

worked with the Corporation for 280 days. His services

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

were illegally terminated on 04.02.1998. Claimant sent

demand notice dated 10.02.1998 for reinstatement in service

of the Corporation.

11. In his affidavit Ex. WW1/A tendered as evidence,

Ms. Annu Sachdeva details that the claimant was

appointed for 85 days by the Corporation vide appointment

letter Ex. WW1/1. He was paid his salary through account

No. 285501 and 285502 for the period from 16.12.1996 to

10.03.1997. Salary of temporary employees is to be paid by

the Corporation through above account codes. He worked

as a temporary peon and after expiry of his contractual

period, his services came to an end.

12. Appointment leter Ex. WW1/1 is put in service

by the claimant. When this document is perused, it emerged

that the claimant was engaged by the Corporation as a

termporary peon for a period for 85 days from 16.12.1996

to 10.03.1997. His termporary appointment was to be

governed under the provisions of Temporary Staff

Employment Scheme. It was mentioned there in that he

was not eligible for projecting claim for regularization of

his services. It was further detalied therein that his services

would come to an end on completion of period for which

he was engaged. Out of contents of apointment letter, it

came to light that the claimant was engaged as temporary

peon in consonance with temporary staff employment

scheme formulated by the Corporation. When above

scheme is perused it came to light that the Corporation

could employ temporary staff in Class III or Class IV posts

in following situations:

(i) Due to pendancy of recruitment of staff on

regular basis, against permanent vacancies.

(ii) Vacancies arising out of absence of maternity

leave of regular female employee or when regular

employee proceeds on medical leave for a period

exceeding one months; and

(iii) Ad hoc vacancies sanctioned, by the Zonal

Manager, to cope up with the work of seasonal

nature.

13. In his testimony, Shri Om Prakash Singh

announced that his name was sponsored by the Employment

Exchange for the post of temporary peon with the

Corporation. As unfolded by Shri Gainda Lal, claimant was

offered appointment for 85 days as temporary peon from

16.12.1996 to 10.03.1997. These facts get reaffirmation

through contents of appointment letter Ex. WW/1. Though

Corporation claims through affidavit of Shri Annu Sachdeva

that services of the claimant came to an end on 10.03.1997

yet claimant had proved payment vouchers Ex. WW1/5 to

Ex. WW1/20, which docuemnts project a different story.

When these payment vouchers are considered, it came to

light that after 10.03.1997, claimant rendered 13 days service

in March 1996, work for 12 days was taken from him in

April 1997, he attended duties for 19 1/2 days in May, 22 ¹/2

days in June, 26 days in July, 23 ¹/2 days in August, 22

days in September, 19 days in October, 21¹/2 days in

November and 25 1/2 days in December 1997. Thus it came

over the record that he rendered 200 ¹/2 days service,

besides initial 85 days service with the Corporation. In all

claimant rendered 285 1/2 days service with the

Corporation.

14. As emerged out of the documents, no work was

taken from the claimant after December 1997. Question for

consideration would be as to whether non-engagement of

the claimant after December 1997 would amount to

retrenchment. For an answer definition of word

"retrenchment", enacted in clause (oo) of section 2 of the

Act, needs consideration. For sake of convenience, the

said definition is as extracted thus:

"(oo) "retrenchement" means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reasons

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action, but does not include—

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman

concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf;

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as a

result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation in

that behalf contained therein; or

ground of continued ill-health".

15. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of

a workman by the employer "for any reason whatsoever"

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2435

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

16. Sub Clause (bb) purports to exclude from the

ambit of the definition of retrenchment (i) termination of

the service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the

contract of employment between the employer and the

workman concerned, on its expiry, or (ii) termination of the

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf. The first part

relates to termination of service of a workman was a result

of non-renewal of the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry.

Thus "non-renewal of contract of employment" pre-

supposes an existing contract of employment, which is

not renewed. When services of an employee is terminated

on account of non-renewal of contract of employment,

between the employer and the workman, it does not amount

to retrenchment. The second part refers to "such contract"

being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf

contained therein. The cases contemplated, under this part

too, would not amount to retrenchment. However this sub-

clause, being in the nature of an exception to clause (oo)

of section 2 of the Act, is ruled to be construed strictly

when contractual agreement is used as modus operandi

to frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or

permanent against a job. The adjudicator has to address

himself to the question whether the period of employment

was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device

to escape the applicability of the definition of retrenchment.

See Shailendra Nath Shukla (1987 Lab. I.C. 1607), Dilip

Hanumantrao Shrike (1990 Lab. I.C. 100) and Balbir Singh

[1990 (1) LL.J 443].

17. On review of law laid by the Apex Court and

various High Courts, a single Judge of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court, in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari

Sangh (1996 Lab. I.C. 1161) has laid following principles of

interpretation and application of sub-clause (bb) of clause

(oo) of section 2 of the Act:

"(i) that the provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) are to

be construed benevolently in favour of the

workman,

(ii) that if the workman is allowed to continue in

service by making periodic appointments from

time to time, then it can be said that the case

would not fall under section 2(oo)(bb),

(iii) that the provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) are not

to be interpreted in the manner which may stifle

the main provision,

(iv) that if the workman continues in service, the

non-renewal of the contract can be deemed as

mala fide and it may amount to be a fraud on

statute.

(v) that there would be wrong presumption of non-

applicability of section 2(oo)(bb) where the work

is of continuous nature and there is nothing on

record that the work for which a workman has

been appointed had come to an end".

18. Whether provisions of retrenchment, enacted in

the Act, provide for any security of tenure? Answer lies in

negative. Provisions of retrenchment provide for certain

benefits to a workman in case of termination of his service,

falling within the ambit of definition of retrenchment. On

compliance of the requirements of section 25F or 25N and

25G of the Act, it is open to the employer to retrench a

workman.

19. Termination of service of an employee during

the period of probation was held to be covered by the

exception contained in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the Act, in C.M. Venugopal [1994 (1) LL.J 597]. As per fact

of the case. Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1962 empowered

the Corporation to terminate the service of an employee

within the period of probation. The employee was put on

probation for a period of one year, which was extended by

another year. Since he could not achieve the target to earn

confirmation, his service was terminated in terms of

Regulation 14 as well as order of appointment. The Apex

Court ruled that the case was covered by the exception

contained in sub-clause (bb), hence it was not

retrenchment.

20. In Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1996

Lab. I.C. 221) a sugar factory used to employ certain number

of workman during crushing season and at the end to the

crushing season their employment used to cease. The

Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the workmen

worked for more than 240 days in a year, cessation of their

employment at the end of crushing season would not

amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of sub-

clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. It was observed as

follows:

"4. It would thus be clear that the respondents

were not working throughout the season. They

worked during crushing seasons only. The

respondents were taken into work for the season

and consequent to closure of the season, they ceased

to work.

5. The question is whether such a cessation would

amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal

work, the respondents cannot be said to have been

retrenched in view of what is stated in sub-clause

(bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. Under these

circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is

illegal However, the appellant is directed to maintain

a register for all workmen engaged during the seasons

enumerated herein before and when the new season

starts the appellant should make a publication in

neighbouring places in which the respondents

normally live and if they would report for duty, the

appellant would engage them in accordance with

seniority and exigency of work".

21. Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex

Court in Anil Bapurao Kanase (1997 (10) S.C.C. 599) wherein

it was noted as follows:

"3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends

that the judgment of the High Court of Bombay relied

on in the impugned order dated 28.03.1995 in Writ

Petition No. 488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable.

Since the appellant has worked for more than 180

days, he is to be treated as retrenched employee and

if the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied, his

retrenchment is illegal. We find no force in this

contention. In Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v.

Ram Kishan in para 3, this Court has dealt with

engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane

crushing, in para 4, it is stated that it was not a case

of retrenchment of the workman, but of closure of

the factory after the crushing season was over.

Accordingly, in para 5, it was held that it is not

'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2(oo)

of the Act. As a consequence the appellant is not

entitled to retrenchment as per sub-clause (bb) of

Section 2(oo) of the Act. Since the present work is

seasonal business, the principles of the Act have no

application. However, this Court has directed that

the respondent management should maintain a

starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority.

Until all the employees whose names appear in the

list are engaged in addition to the employees who

are already working, the management should not go

in for fresh engagement of new workmen. It would

be incumbent upon the respondent management to

adopt such procedure as is enumerated above".

22. In Harmohinder Singh (2001 (5) S.C.C. 540) an

employee was appointed as a salesman by Kharga canteen

on 1.6.74 an subsequently as a cashier on 9.8.75. The letter

of appointment and Standing Orders, inter alia, provided

that his service could be terminated by one month's notice

by either party. He was served with a notice to the effect

that his service would be relinquished with effect from

30.6.1989. Relying precedent in Uptron India Ltd. (1998 (6)

S.C.C. 538) the Apex Court ruled that contract of service

for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of retrenchment.

Decision in Balbir Singh (supra) was held to be erroneous.

It was also ruled that principles of natural justice are not

applicable where termination takes place on expiry of

contract of service.

23. In Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. (2205 (8) S.C.C.

481) an employee was engaged on casual basis on daily

wages for specific work and for a specific period. He was

engaged on 1.4.1986 and worked upto 12.2.94. The Labour

Court concluded that termination of his services was

violative of provisions of section 25-F of the Act, hence

ordered for his reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Relying precedents in Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills (supra)

and Anil Bapurao Kanase (supra) the Apex Court ruled

that since his engagement was for a specific period and

specific work, relief granted to him by the Labour Court

can not be maintained.

24. The Apex Court dealt with such a situation again

in Darbara Singh (2006 LLR 68) wherein an empployee

was appointed by the Punjab State Electricity Board as

peon on daily wage basis from 8.1.88 to 29.2.88. His services

were extended from time to time and finally dispensed with

in June, 1989. The Supreme Court ruled that engagement

of Darbara Singh was for a specific period and conditional.

His termination did not amount to retrenchment. His case

was found to be covered under exception contained in

sub-clause (bb) of section 2 (oo) of the Act. In Kishore

Chand Samal (2008 LLR 65), same view was maintained by

the Apex Court. It was ruled therein that the controversy

since it was ruled therein that mere mention about the

engagement being temporary without indication of any

period attracts section 25 F of the Act if it is proved that

the concerned workman had worked continuously for more

than 240 days. Case of Darbara Singh and Kishan Chand

Samal were found to be relating to fixed term of

appointment.

25. In BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (2006 LLR 1144)

Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Capyist on 29.9.96,

initially for a period of three months as a daily wager. His

term of appointment was extended up to 20.9.90. No further

extension was given and his services were dispensed with

on 20.9.90. On consideration of facts and law High Court

of Delhi has observed thus:

"......In the present case, the respondent was

appointed as copyist for totalling the accounts of

ledger for the year 1986-87 and then for 1987-88. His

initial appointment was for the period of three

months, It was extended from time to time and no

extension was given after 20th September, 1990. He

was appointed without any regular process of

appointment, purely casual and on temporary basis

for specific work of totalling of ledger. When this

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2437

work was over, no extension was given. I consider

that appointment as that of the respondent is squarely

covered under section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Act. Giving

of non extension did not amount to termination of

service, it was not a case of retrenchment".

26. Precedents, handed down by Allahabad High

Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla (supra), Bombay High

Court in Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke (supra), Punjab &

Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh (supra) and Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari

Sangh (supra) castrate sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the Act. Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates

statutory provisions of sub-clause (bb) of section 2 (oo)

of the Act without even discussing the legality or

constitutional validity of the clause. On the other hand

the Apex Court in C.M. Venugopal (supra), Morinda Co-

operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), Anil Bapurao Kanase

(supra), Harmohinder Singh (supra), Batala Coop. Sugar

Mills Ltd. (supra), Darbara Singh (supra) and Kishore

Chand Samal (supra) and High Court of Delhi in BSES

Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) spoke that case of an employee,

appointed for a specific period which was extended from

time to time, would be covered by the exception contained

in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, in case his

services are dispensed with as a result of non-renewal of

the contract of employment between him and his employer,

on its expiry or termination of the contract of employment

in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of

employment in that behalf. The law, so laid, holds the water

and would be applied to the case of the claimant.

27. Out of facts unfolded by the cloimant and those

corroborated by appointment letter Ex.WW/1/1 and

vouchers Ex.WW1/5 to Ex.WW1/20, it emerges over the

record that initially claimant was engaged for a period of

85 days, with the stipulation that his services would come

to an end on expiry of the period for which he was engaged.

However, after expiry of the stipulated period services of

the claimant were taken by the Corporation, for the periods

referred in preceding sections. It is evident that the

Corporation extended his terms of employment from time

to time in exigencies. His engagement was against leave

vacancies and purely temporary in nature. His terms of

contract were not renewed any further. His case falls within

the ambit of sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of section 2 of

the Act. Such an act does not amount to retrenchment.

When services of the claimant were not retrenched, he is

not entitled to benefits of provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G

and 25-H of the Act.

28. Appointment of the claimant was in pursuance

of temporary staff employment scheme. Claimant could

not question contents of the scheme formulated by the

Corporation. Question for consideration would be as to

whether on consideration of aspect of social justice, this

Tribunal should discard the scheme of temporary staff

employment formulated by the Corporation? For

consideration of aspects of social justice, the Tribunal

has to keep in mind that the Act is a beneficiary legislation

calculated to ensure social justice to both employers and

employees and advance progress of industry by bringing

harmony and cordial relationship between the parties. The

Act empowers adjudicating authorities to abrogate

conditions in contract of employment, in the interest of

social justice. Social and economic justice is ultimate ideal

of industrial adjudication. Social and economic justice has

been given place of pride in our constitution and doctrine

of absolute freedom of contract has thus to yeild to the

higher claims for social justice. See Raibahadur Deewan

Badri Das [1962 (II) LLJ 366].

29. Social justice is not based on contractual

relations and is not to be enforced on principles of contract

of service. It is something outside these principles and

invoked to do justice without a contract to back out.

Reference can be made to precedent in Rashtriya Mill

Mazdoor Sangh [1960 (II) LLJ 263]. In J.K. Cotton Spinning

& Weaving Mills Company Ltd. [1963 (II) LLJ 435] the

Apex Court ruled that industrial disputes are to be

adjudicated laced with the concept of social justice. It

would be expedient to reproduce the observations made

by the Apex Court which are extracted.

"In our opinion the argument that the considerations

of social justice are irrelevant and untenable in

dealing with industrial disputes, has to be rejected

without any hesitation. The development of

industrial law during the last decade and several

decisions of this court in dealing with industrial

matters have emphasised the relevance, validity and

significance of doctrine of social justice.......... Indeed

the concept of social justice has now become such

an integral part of industrial law that it would be idle

for any party to suggest that industrial adjudication

can or should ignore the claim of social justice in

dealing with industrial disputes.The concept of social

justice is not narrow or one sided, or pedantic, and is

not confined to industrial adjudication alone. Its

sweep is comprehensive. It is founded on the basic

idea of socio economic equality and its aim is to

assist the removal of socio economic disparities and

inequalities."

30. In Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico

Printing Company Ltd. [1972 (II) LLJ 165] the above

principles were reiterated by the Apex Court. Therefor, the

law laid down by Apex Court makes it clear that the

industrial adjudication cannot and should not ignore the

claims of social justice. Same views were expressed in Basti

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Sagar Mills Company Ltd. [1978 (II) LLJ 412]. Therefore

this Tribunal has to consider the case on the touch stone

of social justice also.

31. The claimant wants that offer of appointment for

a period of 85 days may be substituted as an offer of

appointment on regular post. The terms and conditions of

contract between the employer and employee can be

interfered with by this Tribunal only when it is found

necessary in exigencies of the situation. The Tribunal

cannot indiscriminately interfere with the contracts. This

discretion, to interfere with the contract contained in Ex.

WW1/1, has to be laced with by requirements of social

justice. Alas! the claimant has not been able to put forward

any fact which may tilt scale of social justice in his favour.

As projected by Ms. Sachdeva, appointment, purely on

temporary basis, was given to the claimant since vacancies

for specific period were created to clear back log of

workload accumulated on account of regular employees

being on leave and also because recruitment of regular

staff through selection process was to take considerable

long time. The claimant could not raise eye-brows on facts,

so testified by Ms. Sachedeva. The situation/exigencies

unfolded by Ms. Sachdeva led the Corporation to formulate

Temporary Staff Employment Scheme. Under that scheme

the claimant was engaged for a specific period. When

vacancy was created to clear backlog created on account

of regular employee being on leave, this Tribunal cannot

adventure to substitute contract of employment, entered

in between the parties, using social justice principles. I do

not find any case to substitute the terms of contract,

entered into between the parties. No case is, therefore,

made out in favour of the claimant.

32. In view of the above reasons, the claim put

forward is to be brushed aside. In his written arguments

the claimants projected certain facts, which were beyond

the evidence adduced in the matter. Those facts cannot

espouse his cause. Claim is, accordingly, brushed aside.

An award is passed in favour of the Corporation and

against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer.

Dated: 07-02-2013

ubZ fnYyh] 12 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ 841

dkñ vkñ 841.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqjxkao iÙku

U;kl ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; 1 eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lanHkZ la[;k

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ 1@43@2007

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ 1@43@2007 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11-3-2013 dks i

zkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&36011@02@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 12th March, 2013

S.O. 841.—In pursurance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-

1/43 of 2007) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court-1, MUMBAI now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Mormugao Port Trust,

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11.03.2013.

[No. L-36011/02/2007-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

CAMP: GOA

Present

Justice G.S. SARRAF

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/43 OF 2007

Parties

Employers in relation to the management of

Mormugao Port Trust

And

Their Workmen

Appearances:

For the first party :

Shri Vilas A. Biliye,

Representative.

For the Union :

Shri C.B. Cautilho, Representative

State :

Maharashtra

Dated the 20th day of February, 2013.

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:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

Mormugao Port Trust in implementing the Notice of

change issued under reference No. CME/EO/2(15A)/2006/

4724 dated 4.10.2006 is legal and justiced? If not, to what

relief the workmen are entitled?’’

2. An application has been filed by General Secretary,

Mormugao Port Trust and Railway Workers Union that he

does not want to lead any evidence and pursure the matter

and, therefore, the reference be disposed of accordingly.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % vizSy 06] 2013@pS= 16] 1935

2439

In view of the above application the workmen are

not entitled to any

Award is passed accordingly.

Justice G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 ekpZ] 2013

dkñ vkñ 842

dkñ vkñ 842.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch

lh lh ,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼vkbZ Mh la[;k

42@06½

½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-03-

2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@163@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I)]

,eñ dsñ flg] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th March, 2013

S.O. 842.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/06)

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 M/s. BCCL and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 12.03.2013

[No. L-20012/163/2005-IR(C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D)(2A)

OF I.D.ACT, 1947.

REF. NO. 42 OF 2006

Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of

M/s. B. C.C.L.

AND

Their Workmen

Present

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,

Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

Sri D.K. Verma,

Advocate

For the Worman :

Sir Nitish Sahay, Advocate

State : Dhanbad, (Jharkhand)

Industry : Coal.

Dated. 18.02.2013.

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/163/2005-IR (CM-I),

dt. 01.06.2006, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dismissal from Service of Sh.

Bhuneshwar Chamar w.e.f. 31.3.89 ( as contended by the

management of BCCL, Sijua Area BCCL) was justified. fair

& legal in the light of the fact that he was claimed missing

since 1985. (2) If not whether the demand of the NCWA

from the management that Smt. Bijuli Devi wife of the said

workman be given employment under the provisions of

NCWA since Sh. Bhuneshwar Chamar has been declared

"Dead" by the competent authority because of his

traceless justified. If so, to what relief is the said

dependent entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 20.06.2006. Parties are notice, both parties appeared,

the Union files their written statement on 06.04.2009.

Hearing commenced. The only point raised in the case,

can a deceased workman will be dismissed on the ground

of his long absence from duty. The widow of the deceased,

raised the dispute.

3. Claims is to declare, dismiss a illegal and prays

for compensatory appointment, according to the norms

of the company. From the claim statement of the

management it appears that, the workman absenting from

duty since 01.08.1985.

4. The management without tracing the workman,

without knowing his state of affairs conducted enquiry

and dismissed the workman on 31.3.1989. Since the

workman is unheard of since 1985 and is not traced till

today. He can not be dismissed on the ground of long

absence.

5. Since the competent authority has already

declared the long untraced workman as dead, there is no

difficulty to provide compensatory appointment to her

dependent wife. In this case management also does not

dispute traceless situation of the workman nor disputes

the death declaration of the workman.

6. Considering the fact and circumstances the

dismissal of Shri Bhuneshwar Chamar w.e.f. 31.3.89 is not

justified, fair and legal, accordingly the deceased employee

dependent be given compensatory employment within 30

days from the date of publication of the award.

Server3/E/1249RR/1249RR-2

2440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 6, 2013/CHAITRA 16, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ ] 2013

dk-vk-843

.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948

dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vizSy] 2013

01 vizSy] 2013

01 vizSy] 2013 dk ml rkjh[k

ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44

o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Rr gks pqdh gS½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6

[/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok;

tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS ] ds mica/k vle

vle

vle jkT; ds

fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

^^dke:i ftys esa nf[kujkuh ekStk esa jktLo okys xkao]

tksxhikjk] dkghdqph lfgr xqokgkVh {ks= esa lfUufgr cksj>kj

gokbZ&vM~Ms ds varxZr vkus okys {ks= ls cksj>kj gokbZ&vM~Ms

rdA**

[la- ,l&38013@16@2013&,l-,l- 1

]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2013

S.O. 843.—In exercise of the powers & conferred

by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government.

Hereby appoints the 1st April, 2013 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV [except Sub-Section

(i) of section 76 and sections 77, 78, 79, and 81 which have

already been brought into force] of the said Act strall

come into force in the folliwng areas in the state of Assam

namely.

"Areas under Borjhar Airport falling within the

contiguous areas of Guwahati upto Borjhar Airport

including Revenue village-Jogipara, Kahikuchi in the

Dakhin Rani Mouza in the Dist. of Makrup.

[No. S-38013/16/2013-S.S.I]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Sec.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 vizSy] 2013

dk-vk-dk-vk-dk-vk-dk-vk-dk-vk-

—844%

844%

844% Hkkjr ds jkti= la[;k 12] Hkkx&II, [kaM&3]

mi [kaM (ii) fnukad 12-03-2008 esa izdkf'kr bl dk;kZy; dh

lela[;d vf/klwpuk fnukad 12-03-2012 ¼lka-vk-la- 650½ ds

i`"B la[;k 1333 esa 4 othj uxj gnoLr la- 44 dks gnoLr la- 41

i<+k tk,sA

[la- ,l&38013@16@2008&l-l-1

]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

DORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2013

S.O. 844.— In this Ministry notification of even

number dated 12.03.2008 (S.O. No. 650), published in the

Gazette of India No. 12, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-Sec. (ii)

dated 12.03.2008, at page number 1333, in Sl. No. 4 Wazir

Nagar Hadbast No. 44 may be read as 41.

[No. S-38013/16/2008 S.S.I.]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Sec.

PRINTED BY THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PRESS, RING ROAD, MAYAPURI, NEW DELHI-110064

AND PUBLISHED BY THE CONTROLLER OF PUBLICATIONS, DELHI-110054.

GMGIPMRND—1249RR (S3)—24-07-2013.