dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku

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

ea=ky;

¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1264-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mièkjk ¼8½

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir vkjlhñ 21@2008&dksyñ rFkk vkjlhñ

19@2012&dksyñ ¼vkbZVh,Vh lewg ds ekeys½ esa vkijkfèd iqujh{k.k

;kfpdk esa lhchvkbZ dh vksj ls dydÙkk mPp U;k;ky; esa

vihyksa@iqujh{k.kksa ;k blls lacafèr rFkk lEc) vU; ekeyksa esa mifLFkr

gksus ds fy, Jh v#.kok ?kks"k] odhy dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds

:i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 225@27@2013µ,ohMhµII]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

2866 GI/2013

(3267)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013

S.O. 1264.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Arunava Ghosh, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for his appearance on behalf of CBI in

Criminal Revision Petitions in RC 21/2008-Kol and RC 19/

2012-Kol (ITAT Group of cases) instituted by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Calcutta High

Court and appeals/revisions or other matters connected

therewith and incidental thereto.

[No. 225/27/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1265-

1265-

—dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 ¼1974 dk vfèfu;e lañ 2½ dh èkjk 24 dh mièkjk ¼8½

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

la- 28]

ubZ fnYyh, tqykbZ 7—tqykbZ 13] 2013] 'kfuokj@vk"kk<+ 16—vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

No. 28]

NEW DELHI, JULY 7—JULY 13, 2013, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 16—ASHADHA 22, 1935

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

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

Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

———————

3268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

¼lhchvkbZ½ }kjk laLFkkfir fnYyh] fLFkr fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; esa]

rRdkyhu Hkkjr ds eq[; U;k;kèh'k Jh ,ñ ,uñ jk; rFkk vU; dh

gR;k ds iz;kl ls lacafèr vkjlh 11 ¼,½@75&,lh;w&VI@,uMh ds

varxZr vkijkfèd vihy lañ 436@1976 rFkk 443@1976 esa ,oa

blls lEc) vU; vkSj vkuq"kkafxd ekeyksa esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky;

esa is'k gksus ds fy,] Jh jktho esgjk] Hkkjr ds vij lkfyfLkVj tujy

dks fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[lañ 225@24@2013µ,ohMhµII]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2013

S.O. 1265.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Rajeev Mehra, Additional Solicitor

General of India, in Delhi High Court as Special Public

Prosecutor for appearing in Criminal Appeal No's. 436/1976

and 443/1976 pertaining to RC 11 (A)/75-ACU-VI/ND

related to Attempt to murder the then Chief Justice of India

Mr. A.N. Ray and other instituted by the Delhi Special

Police Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Delhi High Court at

Delhi and other matters connected therewith and incidental

thereto.

[No. 225/24/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 10 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1266-

1266-

—foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk izfrHkwfrdj.k ,oa

iquxZBu rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr dk izorZu vfèfu;e] 2002 dh èkjk 21

dh mi&èkjk ¼i½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;

ljdkj],rn~}kjk] Jh vkjñ ohñ oekZ] v/;{k ,oa izcaè funs'kd] jk"Vªh;

vkokl c®d ¼,u,pch½ ds jftLVªkj rFkk izcaè funs'kd ,oa eq[;

dk;Zdkjh vfèdkjh ¼dsUnzh; jftLVªkj½] Hkkjrh; dsUnzh; vkfLr

izfrHkwfrdj.k iquxZBu vkSj izfrHkwfr fgr jftLVªh ¼lhbZvkj,l,vkbZ½

ds :i esa muds dk;Zdky dks vxys N% ekg ds fy, vFkkZr~

01-04-2013 ls 30-09-2013 rd ;k vxys vkns'ksa rd] tks Hkh igys

gks] c<+krh gSA

2- Jh vkjñ ohñ oekZ] jk"Vªh; vkokl c®d ds v/;{k ,oa izcaè

funs'kd ds :i esa vius dÙkZO;ksa ds vfrfjDr dsUnzh; jftLVªkj dk

dk;ZHkkj Hkh laHkkysaxsA

[Qkñlañ 56@5@2007µchvksµII ¼MhvkjVh½ fjdojh]

fefgj dqekj] funs'kd ¼fjdojh½

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2013

S.O. 1266.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (i) of section 21 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002, the Central Government hereby

extends the tenure of Shri R.V. Verma, Chairman and

Managing Director, National Housing Bank (NHB), as the

Registrar and Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer

(Central Registrar), Central Registry of Securitisation Asset

Reconstruction and Security Interest of India (CERSAI)

for a further period of six months with effect from

01-04-2013 till 30.09.2013 or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

2. Shri R.V. Verma shall hold the charge of Central

Registrar in addition to his duties as Chairman & Managing

Director, National Housing Bank (NHB).

[F. No. 56/5/2007-BO-II (DRT) Recovery]

MIHIR KUMAR, Director (Recovery)

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1267.—Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk 23½ dh èkjk 21d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 21 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vfuy xxZ ¼tUe

frfFk % 27-05-1963½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls

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

gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ds Hkksiky LFkkuh; cksMZ esa lnL; ukfer djrh

gSA

[Qkñlañ 3@16@2012µchvksµI]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1267.—.In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, read with section

21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the

Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of

India, hereby nominates Shri Anil Garg (DOB: 27.05.1963),

as a Member on the Bhopal Local Board of State Bank of

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

of his appointment or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F.No. 3/16/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1268-

1268-

—Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk 23½ dh èkjk 21d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 21 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3269

[k.M ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vfuy vjksM+k

¼tUe frfFk % 08-08-1969½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh

rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ds p.Mhx<+ LFkkuh; cksMZ esa lnL;

ukfer djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 3@26@2012µchvksµI]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1268.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, read with section

21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the

Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of

India, hereby nominates Shri Anil Arora (DOB: 08.08.1969),

as a Member on the Chandigarh Local Board of State Bank

of India, for a period of three years from the date of

notification of his appointment or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 3/26/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1269.—Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk 23½ dh èkjk 21d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 21 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ,eñohñ jaxukFk

¼tUe frfFk % 26-09-1962½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh

rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ds gSnjkckn LFkkuh; cksMZ esa lnL;

ukfer djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 3@39@2012µchvksµI]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1269.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, read with section

21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the

Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of

India, hereby nominates Shri M.V. Ranganath (DOB:

26.09.1962), as a Member on the Hyderabad Local Board of

State Bank of India, for a period of three years from the

date of notification of his appointment or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 3/39/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1270.—Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk 23½ dh èkjk 21d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 21 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh equh"k dqekj tSu

¼tUe frfFk % 25-12-1949½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh

rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ds y[kuÅ LFkkuh; cksMZ esa lnL;

ukfer djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 3@47@2012µchvksµI]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2013

S.O. 1270.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, read with section

21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the

Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of

India, hereby nominates Shri Munish Kumar Jain (DOB:

25.12.1949), as a Member on the Lucknow Local Board of

State Bank of India, for a period of three years from the

date of notification of his appointment or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 3/47/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1271.—c®ddkjh fofu;eu vfèfu;e] 1949

¼1949 dk 10½ dh èkjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

Hkkjr ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls dh flQkfj'k ij] ,rn~}kjk]

?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼x½ ds mi&[k.M ¼i½ ds micaè c®d vkQ bafM;k ij ykxw

ugha gksaxs] tgka rd mudk lacaè c®d dh v/;{k ,oa izcaè funs'kd

Jherh ohñ vkjñ v¸;j dk baMks tkafc;k c®d fyñ ¼vkbZtsMch½ ds

cksMZ esa xSj&dk;Zdkjh v/;{k ds :i esa ukfer gksus ls gSA

[Qkñlañ 13@23@2012µchvksµI]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013

S.O. 1271.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),

the Government of India on the recommendations of the

Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions

of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section

10 of the said Act shall not apply to Bank of India in so far

as it relates to the nomination of Smt. V.R. Iyer, Chairperson

& Managing Director of the Bank on the Board of Indo

Zambia Bank Ltd. (IZB) as Non-executive Chairperson.

[F.No. 13/23/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

3270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

¼jktLo foHkkx½

¼dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lhek 'kqYd cksMZ½

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1272.—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 ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa jktLo foHkkx] dsanh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lhek 'kqYd

cksMZ ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy;] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa

us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vfèlwfpr djrh

gS%µ

vk;qDr] dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd] lhek 'kqYd] lsokdj dk

dk;kZy;] esjB&f}rh;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k A

[Qkñlañ bZ&11017@1@2012µ¯gnhsµII]

pUnz Hkku ukjukSyh] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS)

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013

S.O. 1272.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (use for official purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, The Central Government hereby

notifies the following office of the Department of Revenue,

Central Board of Excise & Customs, whereof more than

80% of the staff have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi:

Office of the Commissioner Central Excise, Customs

& Service Tax, Meerut-II, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

[F.No. E-11017/1/2012-Hindi-II]

CHANDER BHAN NARNAULI, Director (OL)

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1273.—Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955

dk 23½ dh èkjk 21d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 21 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds

[k.M ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ljr pUnz Hknzk

¼tUe frfFk % 10-02-1950½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh

rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d ds Hkqous'oj LFkkuh; cksMZ esa lnL;

ukfer djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 3@21@2012µchvksµI]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2013

S.O. 1273.—.In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, read with section

21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the

Central Government , in consultation with Reserve Bank of

India, hereby nominates Shri Sarat Chandra Bhadra (DOB:

10.02.1950), as a Member on the Bhubaneswar Local Board

of State Bank of India, for a period of three years from the

date of notification of his appointment or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 3/21/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1274.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izcaè ,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.k½vfèfu;e]1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM

¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

c®d vkQ cM+kSnk ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh lqèhj dqekj tSu ¼tUe

frfFk% 21-07-1960½ dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls

ikap o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys

gks] ¯lfMdsV c®d ds v/;{k ,oa izcaè funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr

djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 4@4@2012µchvksµI]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013

S.O. 1274.—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 of sub-clause

(1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management

and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the

Central Government, hereby appoints Sh. Sudhir Kumar

Jain (DOB: 21.07.1960), Executive Director, Bank of Baroda

as Chairman and Managing Director, Syndicate Bank for a

period of five years from the date of taking over charge or

until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 4/4/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1275.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izcaè ,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.k½vfèfu;e]1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM

¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

bafM;u c®d ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh jktho _f"k ¼tUe frfFk%

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3271

30-08-1959½ dks fnukad 01-08-2013 dks ;k mlds ckn inHkkj

xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls ikap o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys

vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] lSUVªy c®d vkQ bafM;k ds v/;{k ,oa

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

[Qkñlañ 4@4@2012µchvksµI]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013

S.O. 1275.—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 of sub-clause

(1) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks (Management

and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the

Central Government, hereby appoints Sh. Rajeev Rishi

(DoB: 30.08.1959), Executive Director, Indian Bank as

Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India,

for a period of five years from the date of taking over charge

on or after 01.08.2013 or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F.No. 4/4/2012-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 10 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1276.—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] Jh ,lñ chñ eSud] izcaè funs'kd] Hkkjrh; thou

chek fuxe dks 10 tqykbZ] 2013 ls mudh vfèof"kZrk dh rkjh[k rd

vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] mDr fuxe ds lnL; ds

:i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ ,&15011@06@2010&Ins. I]

fiz;k dqekj] funs'kd ¼chek½

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2013

S.O. 1276.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S.B.

Mainak, Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of

India as a Member of the said Corporation with effect from

10th July, 2013 till the date of his superannuation or till

further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. A-15011/06/2010-Ins. I]

PRIYA KUMAR, Director (Insurance)

ekuo lalkèu fodkl ea=ky;

¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk ;wfuV½

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1277.—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 ,oa lk{kjrk foHkkx½ ds vUrxZr Øe'k% vyhx<+

eqfLye fo'ofo|ky;] vyhx<+&202002 rFkk tokgj uoksn; fo|ky;]

voku] jkenkl] ve`rlj ¼iatkc½ dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa ds :i esa]

ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vfèd deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlkèd

Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gSA

[lañ 11011&1@2013&jk-Hkk-,-

]

vuUr dqekj flag] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. Unit)

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2013

S.O. 1277.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002 and Jawahar

Navodaya Vidyalaya, Awan, Ramdas, Amritsar (Punjab)

respectively under the Ministry of Human Resource

Development, (Department of Higher Education) and

(Department of School Education and 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.

okf.kT; vkSj m|ksx ea=ky;

¼okf.kT; foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1278.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] fu;kZr ¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k

vkSj fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1964 ds fu;e 12 ds lkFk ifBr] fu;kZr

¼DokfyVh fu;a=.k vkSj fujh{k.k½ vfèfu;e] 1963 ¼1963 dk 22½

dh èkjk 7 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]

eSllZ dslh 'kekZ ,aM da-] Mk- vkstylZ Qksje ds ihNs] fudV rkU;k

gksVy] ekbeksye] okLdks&nk&xkek xksok&403802 dks Hkkjr esa bl

vfèlwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy,

okf.kT; ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk la[;kad dk-vk- 3975 rkjh[k 20

fnlEcj] 1965 ls mikc) vuqlwph fofu£n"V [kfutksa vkSj v;Ldksa

lewg&I mikc) vFkkZr~ ykSg v;Ld dk fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds vèhu

jgrs gq,] mDr [kftuksa vkSj v;Ldksa dk xksok esa] fu;kZr ls iwoZ fujh{k.k

3272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

djus ds fy, ,d vfHkjd.k ds :i esa ekU;rk iznku djrh gS]

vFkkZr~µ

¼i½ eSllZ dslh 'kekZ ,aM da-] Mk- vkstylZ Qksje ds ihNs]

fudV rkU;k gksVy] ekbeksye] okLdks&nk&xkek xksok&403802]

[kfut vkSj v;Ldksa lewg&I dk fu;kZr ¼fujh{k.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds

fu;e 4 ds vèhu fujh{k.k djus ds fy, muds }kjk viukbZ xbZ

fujh{k.k dh i)fr dh tkap djus ds fy, bl fufeÙk fu;kZr fujh{k.k

ifj"kn~ }kjk ukefufnZ"V vfèdkfj;ksa dks i;kZIr lqfoèk,a nsxh( vkSj

¼ii½ eSllZ dslh 'kekZ ,aM da-] Mk- vkstylZ Qksje ds ihNs]

fudV rkU;k gksVy] ekbeksye] okLdks&nk&xkek] xksok&403802] bl

vfèlwpuk ds vèhu vius d`R;ksa ds ikyu esa funs'kd ¼fujh{k.k

vkSj DokfyVh fu;a=.k½ }kjk le;≤ ij fyf[kr esa fn, x, funs'kksa

ls vkc) gksaxsA

[Qk- la- 4@2@2013&fu;kZr fujh{k.k

]

,ñ dsñ f=ikBh] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013

S.O. 1278.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with

rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules,

1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s. KC

Sharma & Co. located behind Dr. Ozlers forum, Near Taaniya

Hotel, Maimolem, Vasco da Gama, Goa-403802, India as an

agency for a period of three years from the date of

publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for

the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group-I, namely, Iron

Ore, specified in the Schedule annexed to the Ministry of

Commerce notification number S.O. 3975, dated the 20th

December, 1965, prior to export of said minerals and ores at

Goa, subject to the following conditions, namely:—

(i) M/s. K.C. Sharma & Co. located behind Dr. Ozlers

forum, Near Taaniya Hotel, Maimolem, Vasco da Gama,

Goa-403802, shall give adequate facilities to the officers

nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf

to examine the method of inspection followed by them in

carrying out the inspection under rule 4 of the Export of

Minerals and Ores-Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii)M/s. KC Sharma & Co. located behind Dr. Ozlers

forum, Near Taaniya Hotel, Maimolem, Vasco da Gama,

Goa-403802, in the performance of its function under this

notification shall be bound by such directions as the

Director of Inspection and Quality Control may give in

writing, from time to time.

[F. No. 4/2/2013-Export Inspection]

A. K. TRIPATHY, Jt. Secy.

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtufd forj.k ea=ky;

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½

ubZ fnYyh] 3 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1279.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e

7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s

ekud ¼dks½ esa la'kksèu fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksfèr Hkkjrh;

la'kksèu dh la[;k

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud ¼dksa½

vkSj frfFk

dh la[;k]

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkbZ,l 2888% 2004

la'kksèu la[;k ua 3

15 twu] 2013

izlkèu lkcqu—fof'kf"V ebZ 2013

¼rhljk 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] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr#ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq

miyCè gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk

baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ lh,pMh 25@vkbZ,l 2888]

Mkñ jktho dsñ >k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND

PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2013

S.O. 1279.—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

amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which

are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and Year

No. and year

Date from which

No.

of the

the amendment

Indian Standards

amendment

shall have effect

IS 2888:2004

Amendment

15 June, 2013

Toilet Soap-

No. 3

Specification

May 2013

(Third revision)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3273

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 2888]

Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)

ubZ fnYyh] 24 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1280.—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 ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps

vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og os LFkkfir gks x;k gS%µ

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l 13778

24&06&2013

¼Hkkx 2½% 2013

dqa.Myu rkjsa µ

ijh{k.k i)fr;ka

Hkkx 2 vk;ke Kkr

djuk

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh ,d izfr 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] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]

xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk

fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA

[lanHkZ bZVh 33@Vh&108]

vkjñ lhñ eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2013

S.O 1280.—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 is given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of the Indian

Establishment

Indian Standard

Standards,

if any

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13778

—

24-06-2013

(Part 2): 2013

Winding Wires-

Test Methods Part 2

Determination

Dimensions

(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.

[Ref. ET 33/T-108]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1281.—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 ftl Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k

uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%µ

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

vkSj frfFk

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l@vkbZ lh

2&07&2013

60079 ¼Hkkx 26½%

2006 foLQksVh

i;kZoj.k Hkkx 26

miLdj lqj{kk Lrj

¼bZ ih ,y½

th , okys miLdj

3274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

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] 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

miyCè gSaA

[lanHkZ bZVh 22@Vh&84]

vkjñ lhñ eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013

S.O. 1281.—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 issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of the Indian

Established

Indian Standard

Standards,

if any

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/IEC 60079

—

02-07-2013

(Part 26) : 2006

Explosive Atmos-

phere Part 26

Equipment with

Equipment

Protection Level

(EPL) Ga

Copy of this Standard are 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.

[Ref. ET 22/T-84]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1282.—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 ftl Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k

uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%µ

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l 15967

2 tqykkbZ] 2013

¼Hkkx 2½% 2013

ufydkdkj izfrnhfIr

ySEiksa ds fy,

laèkf=r Hkkx 2

dk;Zdkfjrk visa{kk,a

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] 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

miyCè gSaA

[lanHkZ bZVh 23@Vh&91]

vkjñ lhñ eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼fo|qr rduhdh½

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013

S.O. 1282.—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 Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of the Indian

Established

Indian Standards

Standards,

if any,

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 15967

—

02 July, 2013

(Part 2) : 2013

Capacitors for Use

Intubular Fluorescent

and Other Discharge

Lamp Circuits Part 2

Performance

Requirements

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3275

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.

[Ref. ET 23/T-91]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1283.—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 dk fooj.k

uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s gSa%µ

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud ¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ ,l vks

—

ebZ 2013

14708&1&2000 'kY;

fpfdRlk ds vUrjksZi.k

lfØ; vUrjksZi.k ;ksX;

fpfdRlh; ;qfDr;ka Hkkx 1

fuekZrkvksa }kjk miyCè

djkbZ tkus okyh lqj{kk

fpUgkadu ,oa lwpuk

dh lkekU; vis{kk,a

vkbZ ,l@ vkbZ ,l vks

ebZ 2013

14708&3&2008 'kY;

fpfdRlk ds vUrjksZi.k

lfØ; vUrjksZi.k ;ksX;

fpfdRlh; ;qfDr;ka Hkkx 3

vUrjksZi.k ;ksX;

U;wjksfLVE;wysVlZ

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] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyCè

gSaA

[lanHkZ ,e ,p Mh@th&3-5

]

,lñ fd'kksj dqekj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,e ,p Mh½

New Delhi, the 2nd July, 2013

S.O. 1283.—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 issued.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of the Indian

Establishment

Indian Standard

Standards,

if any

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/ISO 14708-1:

May 2013

2000 Implants for

surgery active

implantable medical

devices

Part 1 General

requirements for

safety, marking and

for information to be

provided by the

manufacturer

IS/ISO 14708-3:

May 2013

2008 Implants for

surgery active

implantable

medical devices

Part 3 Implantable

nerostimulators

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, Cochi.

[Ref. MHD/G-3.5]

S. KISHORE KUMAR, Scientist 'F' & Head (MHD)

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1284.—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 ftl ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph

esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;k gS%µ

3276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vuqlwph

uqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud ¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 8758%

30&05&2013

2013 vLFkkbZ

lajpukvksa vkSj

iaMkyksa ds fuekZ.k

esa vfXu 'keu ds

fy, ,gfr;krh&

jhfr lafgrk

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr 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] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyCè

gSaA

[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]

lhñ vkjñ jktsUnzk] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013

S.O. 1284.—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 Standard, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the

date indicated it:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of Indian

Establishment

Indian Standard

Standards,

if any

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 8758:2013 Fire

—

30-05-2013

Precautionary

Measures in

Construction of

Temporary

Structures

and Pandals-

Code of Practice

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, Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

C. R. RAJENDRA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ 1285.—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;k x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%µ

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud ¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l@vks,lvks

31 ebZ 2013

5416%2006 izR;{k

vodkjd ykSgk&

eSVsfyd ykSg Kkr

djuk&czksfeu&

esaFkkuky VkbVªhesfVªd

i)fr

vkbZ ,l@vks,lvks

31 ebZ 2013

10835%2007 izR;{k

vodkjd ykSgk ,oa

rIr bf"Vdkd`r ykSgk&

uewus ysuk rFkk uewus

rS;kj djuk

vkbZ ,l@vkbZ,lvks

31 ebZ 2013

15968%2000 izR;{k

vodkjd ykSgk&rIr

bf"Vdkd`r ykSgs dh

¼,p] ch- vkbZ-½

vkHkklh ?kuRo ,oa

ty vo'kks"k.k Kkr

djuk

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] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa%

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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3277

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:okukarkiqje esa fcØh gsrq

miyCè gSaA

[lanHkZ ,eVhMh 30@Vh&30]

ihñ ?kks"k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2013

S.O. 1285.—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 issued established on

the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of the Indian

Established

Indian Standards

Standards,

Established

if any

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/ISO 5416:2006

—

31 May, 2013

Direct reduced

iron-Determination

of metallic iron-

Broine-Methanol

Titrimetric method

IS/ISO 10835:2007

—

31 May, 2013

Direct reduced iron

and hot briquetted

iron-sampling and

sample preparation

IS/ISO 15968:2000

—

31 May, 2013

Direct reduced

iron-Determination

of apparent density

and water absorption

of hot briquetted

iron (HBI)

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.

[Ref. MTD 30/T-30]

P. GHOSH, Scientist 'F' and Head (MTD)

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1286.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks u;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 ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph

esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 15973

—

31 ebZ 2013

¼Hkkx 2½% 2013

fofHkUu izdkj ds

fyXukslSY;wyksfld

iSuy ds p;u vkSj

iz;ksx—jhfr lafgrk%

Hkkx 2 gkMZcksMZ~l

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] iq.ks rFkk dksph esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k

gSA

[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]

lhñ vkjñ jktsUnzk] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

¼flfoy bathfu;jh½

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013

S.O. 1286.—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 Standard, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule below has been established on the date indicated

against it:

3278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of the Indian

Established

Indian Standards

Standards,

Established

if any

and Title

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 15973 (Part 2):

—

31 May 2013

2013 Selection

and use of various

types of lignoce-

llulosic panel

products: Part 2

Hardboards

Copy of the 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: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai

and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,

Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Kochi.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

C. R. RAJENDRA, Scientist 'F' and Head (Civil Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1287.—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;s x;s ekud¼dksa½

esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s g®%

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksfèr Hkkjrh;

la'kksèu dh

la'kksèu ykxw

la[;k ekud dh

la[;k vkSj

gksus dh frfFk

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 15834%

la'kks/ku la[;k

30 twu 2013

2008

1 twu 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] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa %

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

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

miyC/k gSA

[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]

lhñ vkjñ jktsUnzk] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013

S.O. 1287.—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

amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which

are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and Year

No. and year

Date from which

No.

of the

the amendment

Indian Standards

amendment

shall have effect

IS 15834: 2008

Amendment

30.06.2013

No. 1, June 2013

Copy of this amendment 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 New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and

also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,

Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. CED/Gazette]

C. R. RAJENDRA, Scientist 'F' and Head (Civil Engg.)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1288.—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;s x;s ekud¼dksa½

esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s g®%

vuqlwph

Øe

la'kksfèr Hkkjrh;

la'kksèu dh

la'kksèu ykxw

la[;k ekud dh

la[;k vkSj

gksus dh frfFk

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

frfFk

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 177% 1989

la'kks/ku la[;k 3

16 vxLr] 2013

lwrh fMªy—fof'kf"V

Qjojh 2013

¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3279

vkbZ ,l 1144% 1980 la'kks/ku la[;k 2

16 vxLr] 2013

lwrh lsyqyj deht+

Qjojh 2013

ds diM+s dh fof'kf"V

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

bu la'kks/kuksa dh izfr 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:ouUr~iqje esa fcØh gsrq

miyC/k gSA

[lanHkZ Vh,DlMh@th&25]

izHkkdj jk;] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k ¼Vh,DlMh½

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013

S.O. 1288.—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

amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which

are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and Year

No. and year

Date from which

No.

of the

the amendment

Indian Standards

amendment

shall have effect

IS 177: 1989

Amendment

16 August, 2013

Cotton Drills—

No. 3

Specification

February 2013

IS 1144: 1980

Amendment

16 August, 2013

Specification for No. 2

Cotton Cellular

February 2013

Shirting

Copy of these amendments are available for sale with

the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices:

New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and

also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,

Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. TXD/G-25]

PRABHAKAR RAI, Scientist 'E' & Head (TXD)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1289.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼4½ ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph eas fn, x, g®] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, g®%—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la[;k

Lohd`r djus

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la[;k

la[;k lh,e@,y

lh,e@,y

dh frfFk

,y&4800456

09-05-2013

eSñ txnEck bEiSDl]

vkS|ksfxd lqj{kk gsyesV~l

2925

—

1984

IykV uañ 69] izFke ry]

lSDVj & 17]

,p,lvkbZvkbZMhlh b.MLVªh;y

bLVsV] cgknqjx<+ & 124505

fty >Ttj

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&4803159

23-05-2013

eSñ vfnfr cSojsftl izkñ fyñ

iSdstcUn is; ty

14543

—

2004

[kljk uañ 22@182]

¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd

vkn'kZ uxj]

feujy ty ds vykok½

vkxjk duky jksM]

ftyk Qjhnkckn

¼gfj;k.kk½

3280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

,y&4807066

27-05-2013

eSñ ,pih,y bySfDVªd

, lh LFkSfrd ?kaVk

13779

—

1999

,.M ikoj izkñ fyñ

ehVj]

¼;wfuV II½] IykV uañ 375 D;w]

oxZ 1 vkSj 2

isl flVh II] lSDVj&37]

ftyk xqM+xk¡o & 122001

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&4805062

28-05-2013

eSñ vkSyafid fly®MlZ izkñ fyñ

vYi nkc nzo.kh; xSlksa

3196

—

2006

IykV uañ 147@7@1]

ds fy, 5 yhVj ls vf/kd

44 QqV jksM]

ty {kerk okys osfYMr

xk¡o jksgn]

vYi dkcZu bLikr ds

43 dsñ ,eñ ekbyLVksu ds ikl]

flysaMj Hkkx 1 nzfor

cgknqjx<+ & 124507

iSVªksfy;e xSl ¼nziSxS½

ftyk >Ttj

ds fy, flysaMj

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&4805365

28-05-2013

eSñ ch;l bUthfu;fjax odZl]

fueTtuh; iEilsV

8034

—

2002

1285] tokgj dkyksuh]

,uñvkbZñVhñ]

ftyk Qjhnkckn & 121005

¼gfj;k.kk½

,y&4807167

28-05-2013

eSñ fnus'k bySDVªhdYl]

lkekU; iz;kstu ds

996

—

2009

204@18] 'kfDr uxj]

fy, ,d Qst+h , lh

ftyk xqM+xk¡o & 122001

izsj.k eksVjsa

¼gfj;k.kk½

[la- lh,eMh@13%11 ]

ns'k nhid] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2013

S.O. 1289.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant

Name & Address

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

No. CM/L-

Date

of the Licensee

L-4800456

09.05.2013

M/s Jagdamba Impex

Industrial Safety Helmets

2925

—

1984

Plot No. 69, 1st Floor,

Sector - 17,

HSIIDC Industrial Estate,

Bahadurgarh - 124505

Distt. Jhajjar

(Haryana)

L-4803159

23.05.2013

M/s Aditi Beverages

Packaged Drinking Water

14543

—

2004

(P) Ltd. Khasra

(Other Than Packaged

No. 22/182,

Natural Mineral Water)

Adarsh Nagar,

Agra Canal Road,

Distt. Faridabad

(Haryana)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3281

L-4807066

27.05.2013

M/s HPL Electric &

AC Static Watthour

13779

—

1999

Power Pvt. Ltd. (Unit II),

Meters

Plot No. 375Q, Pace City II, Class 1 & 2

Sector - 37,

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001

(Haryana)

L-4805062

28.05.2013

M/s Olympic Cylinders

Welded Low Carbon Steel

3196

—

2006

Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 147/7/1,

Cylinders Exceeding 5 Litre

44 Ft. Road,

Water Capacity for Low

Village Rohad,

Pressure Liquefiable Gases

Near 43 KM Mile Stone,

Part 1: Cylinders for

Bahadurgarh - 124507

Liquefied Petroleum Gases

Distt. Jhajjar

(LPG)

(Haryana)

L-4805365

28.05.2013

M/s Beas Engineering

Submersible Pumpsets

8034

—

2002

Works, 1285, Jawahar

Colony, N.I.T.,

Distt. Faridabad - 121005

(Haryana)

L-4807167

28.05.2013

M/s Dinesh Electricals,

Single Phase A.C.

996

—

2009

204/18, Shakti Nagar,

Induction Motors for

Distt. Gurgaon - 122001

General Purposes

(Haryana)

[No. CMD/13:11]

DESH DEEPAK, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1290.—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;s x, g® os LFkkfir gks x, g®%—

vuqlwph

Ø e

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud ¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ ,l 15969%

—

31 ebZ 2013

2013 lqØkyksl]

[kk| xzsM—fof'kf"V

bl Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ 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] p.Mhx<+ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa %

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

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

miyC/k g®A

[la- ,Q,Mh@th&128

]

dqekj vfuy] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼[kk| ,oa d`f"k½

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2013

S.O. 1290.—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 Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the

date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of the Indian

Establishment

Indian Standard

Standards,

if any

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 15969: 2013

—

31 May, 2013

Sucralose, Food

Grade— Specification

3282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Copy of these standards are available for sale with

the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur

Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices:

New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and

also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,

Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. FAD/G-128]

KUMAR ANIL, Scientist 'F' and Head (Food & Agri.)

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1291.—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

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh;

u;s Hkkjrh; ekud

LFkkfir frfFk

la[;k ekud ¼dksa½

}kjk vfrØfer

dh la[;k]

Hkkjrh; ekud

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vFkok ekudksa]

;fn dksbZ gks] dh

la[;k vkSj o"kZ

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks

31 ebZ] 2011

2822&1 % 1998 eosf'k;ksa

dk peZ vkSj cNM+s dh

[kky Hkkx 1 nks"kksa dk

fooj.k

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks

31 ebZ] 2011

4683&1 % 1998 HksM+ dh

dPph [kky Hkkx 1 nks"kksa dk

fooj.k

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks

31 ebZ] 2011

4683&2 % 1999 HksM+ dh

dPph [kky Hkkx 2

vf/kuke vkSj izLrqfrdj.k

vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks

31 ebZ] 2011

7482&1 % 1998 cdjh

dh dPph [kky Hkkx 1

nks"kksa dk fooj.k

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]

gSnkjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] 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 17@vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 2822&1@4683&1

& 2@7482&1]

Mkñ jktho dsñ >k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2013

S.O. 1291.—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. and

No. and year

Date of

No.

Year of the

of the Indian

Establishment

Indian Standard

Standards,

Established

if any

Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS/ISO 2822-1 :

31 May, 2011

1988 raw cattle

hides and calf

skins Part 1 :

description of defects

IS/ISO 4683-1 :

31 May, 2011

1998 raw sheep skins

Part 1 description of

defects

IS/ISO 4683-2 :

31 May, 2011

1999 raw sheep skins

Part 2 designation

and presentation

IS/ISO 7482-1 :

31 May, 2011

1998 raw goat skins

Part 1 description of defects

Copy of these Standards are 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,

Bhubneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram. On line

purchase of Indian standards can be made at : http://

www.standardsbis.in.

[Ref. CHD 17/IS/ISO 2822-1, 4683-1 & 2, 7482-1]

Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3283

dks;yk ea=ky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 9 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1292.—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½

vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh

dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;kad

dkñvkñ 3296] rkjh[k 26 vDrwcj] 2012] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx

II] [kaM 3 mi[kaM (ii)] rkjh[k 3 uoEcj] 2012 esa izdkf'kr gksus ij]

mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml

ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk

x;k gS½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] lHkh

foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;kafrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr

gks x, Fks(

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk

bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] Mkd?kj la[;k 60]

ftyk&fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙkhlx<+½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± dk tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu

djus ds fy;s jtkean gSA

vr%] vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh

mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS

fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr 87-646 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 216-57 ,dM+

¼yxHkx½ Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/kdkj] rkjh[k 3 uoEcj]

2012 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus dh ctk;]

fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/khu jgrs gq,] mDr ljdkjh

dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—

¼1½

ljdkjh dEiuh] mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk

vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkuh vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh

ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ

djsxh(

¼2½

ljdkjh daiuh }kjk 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr

vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu

fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy,

fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/kksa esa mixr lHkh O;;] mDr ljdkjh

daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj blh izdkj fufgr mDr

Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkj ds fy, ;k mlds laca/k esa

tSls vihy vkfn lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~ mixr

lHkh O;; Hkh] blh izdkj mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd,

tk,axs(

¼3½

ljdkjh dEiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dks] ,sls

fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa] {kfriwfrZ djsxh tks bl izdkj

fufgr mDr Hkwfe;ksa esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha

dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko';d gks(

¼4½

ljdkjh dEiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds

fcuk] mDr Hkwfe;ksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus

dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj

¼5½

ljdkj dEiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

}kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds

fy, fn, tk,a] ;k vf/kjksfir dh tk,] ikyu djsxhA

[Qkñ lañ 43015@06@2011&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]

ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2013

S.O. 1292.—Whereas on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal number S.O. 3296, dated the 26th October, 2012 in the

Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated

the 3rd November, 2012, issued under sub-section (1) of

section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred

to as the said Act), the land as surface rights in or over the

land described in the Schedule appended to the said

notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested

absolutely in the Central Government free from all

encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the

said Act.

And whereas the Central Government is satisfied

that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,

Post Box No. 60, District-Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh)

(hereinafter referred to as the Government company) is

willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the

Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-

section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the surface rights

of 87.646 hectares (approximately) or 216.57 acres

(approximately) in or over the said land so vested

shall, with effect from the 3rd November, 2012,

instead of continuing to so vest in the Central

Government, vest in the Government company,

subject to the following terms and conditions,

namely:—

(1)

the Government company shall reimburse to the

Central Government all payments made in respect

of compensation, interest, damages and the like, as

determined under the provisions of the said Act;

(2)

a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of

the said Act for the purpose of determining the

amounts payable to the Central Government by the

3284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Government company under condition (1), and all

expenditure incurred in connection with any such

Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the said

Tribunal, shall be borne by the Government

company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in

respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc.,

for or in connection with the rights in or over the

said land so vested, shall also be borne by the

Government company;

(3)

the Government company shall indemnify the

Central Government or its officials against any other

expenditure that may be necessary in connection

with any proceedings by or against the Central

Government or its officials, regarding the rights in

or over the said land so vested;

(4)

the Government company shall have no power to

transfer the said land to any other person without

the prior approval of the Central Government; and

(5)

the Government company shall abide by such

directions and conditions as may be given or

imposed by the Central Government for particularly

areas of the said land, as and when necessary.

[F.No. 43015/06/2011-PRIW-I]

V. S. RANA, Under Secy.

iSVªksfy;e ,oa izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tqykbZ] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1293.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e ,oa [kfut

ikbiykbUl ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½] dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k esa]

fnukad 20 flrEcj] 2011 dks Hkkjr ds jkti= esa izdkf'kr] Hkkjr

ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e ,oa izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk la[;k

dkñvkñ 2102 ¼v½ fnukad 19 flrEcj] 2011 esa fuEufyf[kr :i

ls la'kks/ku djrh gS] vFkkZr~—

mDr vf/klwpuk

vf/klwpuk

vf/klwpuk dh vuqlwph ds] LrEHk 1

LrEHk 1

LrEHk 1 esa Jh fnyhi dqekj

vxzoky] fMIVh dysDVj] l{ke izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku

fyfeVsM] ikjknhi] lEcyiqj] jk;iqj] jkaph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk]

,&13] lsDVj&1] voafr fogkj] jk;iqj&492006 ¼NÙkhlx<+½ 'kCn

'kCn

ds LFkku ij Jh fnyhi dqekj vxzoky] fMIVh dysDVj] l{ke

izkf/kdkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ikjknhi] lEcyiqj]

jk;iqj] jkaph] ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] vkbZñchñihñ fMohtu vkWfQl]

xksikyiqj] iksLV&teuhikyh] dksjck&495450 ¼NÙkhlx<+½ 'kCn

'kCn

'kCn j[ks

tk,axs

;g vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA

[lañ vkj&25011@12@2010&vksvkj&I]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2013

S.O. 1293.—In pursuance of, Clause (a) of Section

2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of

Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central

Government hereby makes the following amendments in

the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry

of Petroleum and Natural Gas, S.O. No. 2102 (E) dated

19.9.2011, published in Gazette of India on 20.9.2011,

namely:—

In the said notification, in the schedule, in column 1,

for the words "Shri Dilip Kumar Agarwal, Deputy Collector,

Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Paradip-Sambalpur-Raipur-Ranchi Pipeline Project, A-13,

Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur-492006 (Chhattisgarh)" the

words "Shri Dilip Kumar Agarwal, Deputy Collector,

Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Paradip-Sambalpur-Raipur-Ranchi Pipeline Project IBP

Division office, Gopalpur, PO: Jaminipali, Korba-495450

(Chhattisgarh)" shall be substituted.

This notification is applicable from the date of issue.

[No. R-25011/12/2010/OR-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 7 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1294.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k 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; caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñvkjñ uañ 07@2013½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22&5&2013 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y 12011@70@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 7th June, 2013

S.O. 1294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1949), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (C.R. No. 07/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, BANGALORE now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of VIJAYA BANK and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 22-05-2013.

[No. L-12011/70/2012-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3285

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED :

16th May, 2013

Present : Shri S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 07/2013

1 Party

II Party

Sri S. S. Shetty,

1. The Dy. Gen. Mgr.

Regional Office, Vijaya Bank

(PA & PD)

Workers Organisation, Hubli

Vijaya Bank,

Personnel Dept,

41/2, M.G. Road,

B'lore-1.

Regional Committee, 122, 1st

2. The Asst. Gen.

Floor, Srinath Complex, New

Manager, Vijaya

Cotton Market, Hubli.

Bank, Reg. Office,

Laimington Road,

Hubli-20.

APPEARANCES

I Party

Nil

II Party

Shri Shyam Sunder Shetty

Legal Assistant

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12011/

70/2012-IR (B-II) dated 07.02.2013 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya

Bank in withdrawing the practice of advance

salary disbursal during festival season is correct

and justified? or amounts to violation of section

9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? What

relief the concerned union is entitled to?"

2. Though in the reference order itself the parties

raising the dispute i.e., Sh. S.S. Shetty, Regional Office,

Vijaya Bank Workers' Organisation was directed to file a

statement of claim complete the relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with the tribunal within 15 days

from the date of receipt of reference since did not respond

while registering the reference in C R 07/2013 on the file of

this tribunal notices were ordered to the I Party and II

party. The I Party raising the dispute did not turn up and

only Sh. Sham Sundar Shetty, Legal Assistant for II Party

appeared on 21.03.2013 and submitted that the matter is

settled between the parties and that a report will be made in

that regard by next date. Even on that day though once

again notice was issued to I Party to appear and file claim

statement on 01.05.2013 at Hubli Camp, he did not turn up

whereas Sh. Shyam Sundar Shetty, Legal Assistant for II

party appeared and produced a copy of Memorandum of

Settlement dated 20.12.2012 entered between the

management of Vijaya Bank and Vijaya Bank Workers'

Organisation in the matter of disbursal of advance of salary

to employees for National Festivals, before the lok-adalat

at Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai and requested to close the matter. Since in

a similar reference to Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai the management

having entered into a settlement with representatives of

the workers organisation to restore the practice of advance

salary disbursal for the three National Festivals in a calendar

year namely Diwali, Ramzan and Christmas seven days in

advance, it appears that the I Party in this reference is

satisfied with the said settlement and has not come forward

to persue this reference. Accordingly, I pass the following

Order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected in view of the settlement

of the similar dispute between Lok-Adalat held

by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Chennai on 20.12.2012 in I. D. No.

33/2012 on its file.

(Dictated to U.D.C. transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 16th May, 2013)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1295.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy

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|ksfxdh

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@53@03 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 8&5&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@177@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2013

S.O. 1295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/No.

53/03) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 08.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/177/2002-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

3286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/53/03

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Shankar Singh Thakur,

C/o Shri Munna Singh Thakur,

House No. 571/1, Narayan Nagar,

B.T.Bangla, Garha, Jabalpur

...Workman

Versus

The Senior Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Regional office,

1227, Napier town,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of May 2013

As per letter dated 28-2-2013 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

177/2002-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National Bank in terminating the services of Shri

Shankar Singh Thakur w.e.f. 6-8-99 vide their order

dated 14-9-00 is legal and justified? If not what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

After receiving reference, notices were issued

to the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/8. The case of 1st party workman is that his

services were terminated by way of punishment as per

order dated 6-10-2000 as per report in the enquiry.

That at the time of termination of the services, he

was working as clerk cum cashier, Nagpur Road Branch,

Jabalpur of the Bank. That he had completed 24 years of

service. He was suspended from 16-5- 98 for commission

of alleged irregularities as per the letter dated 16- 5-98,

subsistence allowance was payable in terms of bipartite

settlement. On completion of one year of suspension, he

was entitled to subsistence allowance equal to full salary.

That he was not paid subsistence allowance as per rules,

only half salary was paid to him after, one year of his

suspension. The said period comes to 17 months.

3. That FIR was registered by the Non-applicant

against him and co-applicant at Madanmahal Police Station,

Jabalpur for the same set of allegation on 17-5-98. That

police had investigated into the matter, statements of

several employees and officers including both accused

were recorded, inspected the relevant record and found

that no offence of alleged nature was committed. The police

did not proceed further in the matter. That after lapse of 15

months of his suspension, chargesheet containing those

charges were issued to him. Charges in chargesheet and

FIR were identical. The charges relates to (i) That workman

committed fraud by crediting 4 credit entries in Saving Bank

A/C 11906 Om Prakash Burman without their being any

corresponding voucher, the details of entries are given, (ii)

That while acting as clerk-cum-cashier, 1st party workman

conspired with account older Om Prakash Burman and co-

operated him in withdrawing the money and as such

misused the Bank's fund (Rs.29,500), (iii) 1st party workman

with intention to conceal the fraud, deposited the amount

in the S.B. A/C No. 11906 — (Rs. 24,450), (iv) That the 1st

party workman had issued cheque book without obtaining

proper consent/authorisation from Manager to Om Prakash

Burman the account holder and by that way helped him to

dupe the Bank.

4. That the Departmental Enquiry was conducted

against him. The Enquiry Officer held Charge no.1 as

proved, charge No. 2 — not proved from evidence. The

Disciplinary Authority terminated his services vide order

dated 6-10-2000 i.e. by compulsory retirement for alleged

gross misconduct. He had preferred appeal challenging

said order. The decision was awaited. 1st party workman

submits that the finding of Enquiry Officer on Charge No.1

is perverse. That evidence was not properly recorded in

the enquiry.

5. 1st party workman further refers to the

observations of the Enquiry Officer. The attending

circumstances was that the chargesheet was issued after

15 months of suspension, whole subsistence allowance

was not paid, he was paid half salary for the period of

about 17 months. It is further submitted that he had

explained conduct in reasonable manner and prays for

setting aside order of his termination. He also prays for

reinstatement of his services with all consequential

benefits.

6. IInd party management has filed exhaustive

Written Statement at page 5/1 to 5/16. It is not disputed

that 1st party workman was employed as clerk cum cashier

in the Bank. Chargesheet No. 478 was issued to him on

6-8-99 for committing fraud by crediting false credit entry

etc.That A/C No. 11906 in ledger No.17 was opened on

8-9-89 in the name of Shri Om Prakash Burman. The Account

Holder was introduced by A/C Holder no. 3255 Shri Mahesh

Kumar. That while workman was working in Bank, he had

shown credit of Rs. 25,000 on 16-2-98, Rs. 12,500 on

23-12-97, Rs. 14,500 & Rs. 5000 on 24-12-97, total Amount

Rs. 57,500 without verifying corresponding vouchers. The

details of deposits and withdrawals in this Account on

different dates are given. It is submitted that the enquiry

was conducted properly. That the workman was given full

opportunity for his defence. He had participated in the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3287

Departmental Enquiry. The details of the evidence recorded

in Enquiry Proceeding is given in the Written Statement.

Two witnesses produced by management were cross-

examined . That workman expressed that he doesnot want

to file any documents or to led any, evidence in defence.

Having considered the entire facts and looking to the

seriousness of misconduct committed by workman, the

punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed against

workman. The IInd party management has referred to ratio

held in different cases and submits that the punishment

imposed against workman doesnot call for interference.

The relief prayed by workman be rejected.

7. Additional Written Statement filed by IInd party at

Page 19/1 to 19/3. After the reference was corrected that

the services of 1st party were terminated by compulsory

retirement. The earlier contention in Written Statement filed

by IInd party are reiterated in the Additional Written

Statement. It is rather submitted that in departmental

enquiry, management produced two witnesses Shri

M.S.Chawla, Sr. Manager and Shri R.K.Shrivastava, Officer

Tendukhera Branch. The details pertaining to charge No. 1

to 4 are reproduced . The findings of Enquiry Officer are

reproduced. IInd party management prayed for rejection of

claim of 1st party workman.

8. 1st party workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/

8 with amendment. It is emphasized that punishment of

compulsory retirement against 1st party workman is no

proper. It is inconsistent with Sastry Award, Desai Award.

Subsistence allowance not paid. Police had not prosecuted

workman even after registering FIR under 409, 420, 467,

468, 477 A R/1 S.120 B. IPC. That Clause 19.4 of Sastry

Award was violated by not paying full salary as subsistence

allowance during suspension period. It is contented that

the enquiry is vitiated. That punishment imposed against

him is not as per clause 19.4 of Sastri Award. The

probabilities were not taken into consideration while

imposing the penalty.

9. My learned predecessor has already decided

preliminary issue as to the legality of enquiry was properly

conducted following the principles of natural justice that

Enquiry is legal and proper. It appears that other issues

were not framed in the matter. However the evidence of

parties have been adduced.

10. Considering pleadings on record, other issues

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the finding of

Enquiry Officer on Charge

In Affirmative

No. 1 is proper?

(ii)

Whether the punishment of

compulsory retirement

In Affirmative

imposed by Disciplinary

Authority is legal?

(ii)

If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed

workman is entitled to?"

by workman is

rejected.

REASONS

11. As discussed above, enquiry held against

workman is found legal and proper, the question arises

whether charges alleged against workman are proved from

Enquiry proceedings.

12. 1st party workman filed affidavit of his evidence

on 25-7-07 before legality of the enquiry proceeding was

decided. 1st party workman was cross-examined.

Documents produced by 1st party workman Exhibit W-1 is

order of his compulsory retirement. Exhibit W-2 is letter

given by Disciplinary Authority. For payment of

subsistence allowance as per Bipartite Settlement. Exhibit

W-3 is copy of FIR. FIR clearly refers to the entries taken in

Account No. 11906 of one Shri Om Prakash Burman, deposit

and withdrawal of amount etc. Exhibit W-4 is copy of

chargesheet. Exhibit W-5 is letter accompanied with

chargesheet. The report of Enquiry Officer is produced on

record. Record of Enquiry Proceeding is also produced.

The statements of management's witnesses Mr. Chawla

and Shri R.K. Shrivastava given details in context of the

documents produced and the working procedure in the

bank. The amount deposited in account of Shri Om Prakash

Burman without any vouchers, defence in cross-

examination of witness Shri Shrivastava was that the 1st

party had taken entries in the Account No. 11906 as per

directions given by Shri Santosh Shrivastava. As pointed

out by learned counsel for management Mr. Shashi, said

Santosh Shrivstava is not examined by workman. Thus the

witness of 1st party workman is not substantiated that he

has taken entries of Shri Santosh Shrivastava as in usual

course in the Bank. The Tribunal cannot act as Appellate

Court and re-appreciate the evidence recorded in the

enquiry proceeding. Consequently the question is whether

the finding of Enquiry Officer are supported by evidence

or without evidence and as such perverse. Considering

the statement of management's witness Shri Chawla and

Shri R.K.Shrivastava and the relevant documents produced,

it cannot be said that the findings of the enquiry Officer are

without supporting evidence.

13. Learned counsel for 1st party workman submitted

detailed note of argument. It is emphasized that punishment

imposed against workman is not consistent with the clause

19(4) of the Bipartite Settlement. It is reproduced at Page 4

of the note of argument. It provides it shall be open for the

management to proceed against the employee under the

provisions set out below in sub paragraphs 19.11 and 19.12

infra relating to discharge, but he shall be deemed to have

been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and

shall be entitled to the full wages and allowances and to all

other privileges for such period. In the event of the

management deciding, after enquiry, not to continue him in

service, he shall be liable only for termination with three

months pay and allowances in lieu of notice as provided in

clause 19.3 supra. Thus as per above clause of the Bipartite

3288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

settlement, for suspension period, full salary and allowance

are required to be paid. As per evidence and submissions,

workman was under suspension for 17 months. The

punishment as per above clause would have been imposed.

For termination of his services, the management was

required to pay 3 months salary in lieu of notice.

14. Ultimately the punishment as per, clause 19(4) is

not imposed for proved misconduct as per charge No. 1.

The punishment of compulsory retirement has been

imposed. Considering past service record of delinquent

employee and members of his family, it is reiterated that the

punishment is not as per the Bipartite settlement, instead

punishment of compulsory retirement has been illegally

imposed. The compulsory retirement contemplates retiring

benefits including pay etc. Workman is retiring on

6-10-2000. He must be getting pensionary benefits and other

allowance. The punishment as per bipartite settlement

would have been imposed. He would have been entitled to

full salary instead of half salary and allowances for 17

months and notice pay for 3 months. The punishment as

per clause 19.4 would have denied the 1st party workman

from getting pensionary benefits . Thus such punishment

would have been harsh.

15. Learned counsel for workman has emphasized

that intention to commit fraud is not established, the

punishment of compulsory retirement was not justified.

Some other punishment like reduction to lower scale could

have been imposed. It is also emphasized that showcause

notice was issued for imposing punishment of dismissal

from service and considering the service antecedents,

punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed.

Proceeding with such anology, counsel for workman

submits notes of arguments that as per clause 19 (4) of

settlement, 3 months notice pay was required to be paid in

lieu of notice at the time of termination of the services of

the workman. Considering the service record of the

workman, other punishment like reduction in pay could

have been imposed.

16. Learned counsel for 1st party workman has placed

reliance in case of Shri Kuldeep Singh Versus The

Commissioner of Police and others reported in AIR 99 SC

677 by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17-12-98. The facts of

the said case are not comparable in the said case. The

constable of Delhi Police was dismissed after departmental

enquiry. The findings are recorded in domestic enquiry.

They are characterized as perverse. The evidence in

departmental enquiry against workman of management's

witness Shri Chawla and Shri R.K.Shrivastava have shown

details how the amount was credited in the account of Shri

Om Prakash Burman holder of A/C No. 11906, how the said

amount was withdrawn. The ratio cannot be applied to the

present case at hand when 1st party has failed to

substantiate his claim by not examining Shri Santosh

Shrivastava.

17. Learned counsel also cited judgment in Case of

Shri B.C.Chaturvedi Versus Union of India and others by

Supreme Court delivered on 1-11-96. Their Lordship

observed that when an enquiry is conducted on charges

of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is

concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a

competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a

competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are

complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are

based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the

power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority

to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding

must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical

rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of act or evidence is

defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When

the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives

support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to

hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge."

Legal position by the Lordship cannot be disputed.

However it cannot be beneficially applied to the present

case at hand when findings of Enquiry Officer are supported

by evidence of Shri Chawla and Shri R.K.Shrivastava and

1st party workman failed to examine Shri Santosh

Shrivastava.

Learned counsel for 1st party workman also pointed

out my attention to judgment in case of Shrii Krishan versus

the Kurukshetra University, judgment dated 17- 11-1975

by Supreme Court . My attention was drawn to the

observation that if neither the Head of the Department

took care to scrutinize the admission form, then the question

of the appellant committing a fraud is in a position to

discover the truth by fraud is committed is in a position to

discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It

was neither a case of suggestion, falsi nor of

suppressioveri. The appellant never wrote to the University

authorities that he had attended the prescribed number of

lectures.

The facts of the present case are not comparable

with facts of the case at hand. The evidence of Shri R.K.

Shritastava is clear about the amount deposited in A/C No.

11906 held by Shri Omprakash Burman without any voucher.

The said amount was withdrawn by Shri Omprakash

Burman without passbook and amount was deposited

without vouchers. The evidence of management's witness

in enquiry needs no re-appreciation. Observations made

by the Lordship cannot be applied to the present case at

hand as its facts are not comparable.

18. Attention was also pointed out to judgment of

case of—

Degala Suryanarayana versus Bank of India

decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12-7-99.

My attention was pointed out to observations

made by Lordship that strict rules of evidence are

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3289

not applicable to departmental enquiry

proceedings. The only requirement of law is that

the allegation against the delinquent officer must

be established by such evidence acting upon

which a reasonable person acting reasonably and

with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding

the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent

officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot

sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental

enquiry proceedings.

The statements of Shri Chawla and Shri

R.K.Shrivastava recorded in Departmental Enquiry were

subjected to cross-examination by co-worker. The findings

of Enquiry Officer on Issue No.1 cannot be said based on

conjuction.

19. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi relies

on ratio held in case of Shri N.P.Mehta Versus State of

Gujarat in 2011- LAB.I.C.173. The facts of the above cited

case and the case at hand are not comparable as petitioner

in above cited case was judicial officer and his services

were terminated under Rule 10(4)(a)(I) & (II) of the Gujarat

civil services (Pension) Rules 2002 in public interest. The

ratio cannot be applied to the present case at hand.

20. Next reliance is placed in ratio held in-

case of State of Tamil Nadu versus Thiru K.V.

Perumal in 1996-5-Supreme court Cases 474. Their

Lordship held in judicial review in departmental

enquiry, the question as to whether the charges

were established on the material available, held ,

beyond the scope of judicial review as the

Administrative Tribunal is not an appellate

authority.

The above cited case relates to the power of

Administrative Tribunals under Section 14 & 15 of the said

Act and not powers of the Industrial Tribunal under Section

11-A of I.D. Act. therefore the ratio cannot be beneficially

applied to the present case.

21. So far as submissions by learned counsel for

workman Shri Manish Reja that as per clause 19(4) of the

Bipartite Settlement punishment was not imposed, learned

counsel relies on ratio held in-

State Bank of India Versus Central Govt. Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another reported

in Case No. 1996- M.P.K.J. 560. Their Lordship

dealing with scope of Section 11 and 521 (10)(C)

of Sastry Award held submissions of employee

that he made entries under belief that pass book

was unused and of closed account only to

demonstrate to a person how entries are made in

a pass book. The finding of Enquiry Officer

showing that there was no ulterior motive on part

of delinquent in making entries and that Bank had

not suffered any financial loss due to act of

employee. Disciplinary Authority did not consider

the extenuating circumstances as also the

requirements of Sastri Award regarding

punishment Tribunal under Section 11-A has wide

discretion in the matter of substituting punishment.

Punishment altered from discharge from service

to stopping of two increments and directed

reinstatement with back wages and directed

reinstatement with back wages.

The evidence in the enquiry proceeding shows that

deposit of Rs. 57,000 was made by 1st party workman in A/

C No. 11906 held by Shri Omprakash Burman, amount of

Rs. 24,500 was withdrawn from the said amount, further

amount of Rs. 24,500 were deposited were shown without

verifying any vouchers by workman at different dates and

the amount was withdrawn by the account holder at

different dates. Considering the evidence in my considered

view, the ratio in above case cannot be applied to the

present case at hand. The punishment of compulsory

retirement after considering the service record and in my

considered view, the punishment of compulsory retirement

cannot be said improper or exonerated. For above reasons,

I record my finding on Point No. 1 & 2 in Affirmative.

22. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Punjab

National Bank in terminating the services of

Shri Shankar Singh Thakur w.e.f. 6-8-99 vide

their order dated 14-9-00 is legal.

(2)

1st party workman is not entitled to relief

prayed by him."

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1296.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

;wdks cSad

;wdks cSad 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;

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@,yñlhñ@

vkjñ@28@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22&5&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&12012@234@99&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼chñ II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 10th June, 2013

S.O. 1296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (No. CGIT/LC/R/

28/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

3290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of UCO BANK and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 22.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/234/99-IR (B-II)]

SHESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2000

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Anandkumar Dhupare,

S/o B.Dhupare, R/o Maya Apptt.,

Plot No. 363, F-1,

Sarvadharma Colony,

Bhopal (MP)

....Workman

Versus

The Managing Director,

UCO Bank, Head Office,

12, Old Court House Street,

Calcutta

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of March 2013

1. As per letter dated 14-1-2000 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

234/99/IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of UCO

Bank in terminating the services of Shri

Anandkumar Dhupare, S/o Baburao Dhupare

w.e.f. 10-5-97 is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for?"

2. After receipt of reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party workman submitted his statement of

claim at page 2/1 to 2/5. The case of 1st party workman is

that he was appointed as peon by IInd party on 29-9-87.

Since his appointment, he was continuously working till

10-5-97 honestly and with full devotion. That he was

working for several years on the vacant post of peon and

acquired eligibility for said post. He further contented that

though he was appointed as peon, appointment order was

not given to him, he was paid wages Rs. 15 per day. The

wages were enhanced from time to time upto Rs. 60 per

day. That he had not received adverse communication

about his service. He was assured for appointment for the

regular post of peon.

3. That there was agreement between management

of IInd party and the Union dated 12-10-89 governing

services of the employees. The said agreement was with

management and the Union. For implementation of the said

agreement, notice was issued on 19-10-89. Dy. General

Manager had also issued circular dated 31-3-90 for

implementation of earlier circular. That information was

called from Non-applicant No.3 with respect to daily wage

casual employees. The Non-applicant No.3 had submitted

such information under letter dated 1-2-94. 1st party

workman claims that his name was included in said letter as

he was working on vacant post of peon for 11 years.

However services of 1st party workman were not

regularized. It is submitted that services of 1st party

workman was terminated in 1997. He was not paid

retrenchment compensation. No notice was issued.

According to the workman, he had completed 240 days

continuous service. He was not given benefit of permanent

employee as per agreement with the Union. The Writ Petition

No. 3008/97 was filed by Union. Hon'ble High Court had

issued direction for availing remedy under I.D. Act. 1st

party workman submits that termination from services is in

violation Section 25-F. 1st party workman prays for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page

5/1 to 5/5 denying claim of 1st party workman. It is submitted

that the applicant workman was engaged by the then Branch

Manager dehors the recruitment rules and procedure of

Bank. Any vacant post of subordinate staff is not available.

The engagement of 1st party workman was due to extreme

exigency of work purely on casual basis on daily wages. It

is denied that 1st party workman was working with sincerity

and devotion. 1st party workman being casual labour

engaged due to extreme exigency is not entitled to

regularization. It is denied that termination of services of

workman is illegal.

5. IInd party further submits that in circular dated

19-10-89 it is admitted where mandatory guidelines were

provided for drawing a panel of daily wager engaged dehors

the recruitment rules for their continuity of service.

Absorption and regularization subject to the availability of

posts and vacancies in subordinate cadre. It is contended

that 1st party has never worked against the vacant post.

1st party did not apply to the competent authority in

prescribed manner before 30-11-89 as per directions in

Circular dated 19-10-89 dealing with procedure for

absorption and empanelment of daily wages. Applicant

deliberately decided himself not to be empanelled and

absorbed legality only with view to file complaints in High

Court and this Tribunal. It is contended that the applicant/

workman was paid his remuneration and dues as daily wager

according to the prevailing rules of the Bank. His claim is

not tenable. It is further submitted that maintenance of

muster roll and service roll is not essential and engagement

and disengagement of daily wagers. That applicant was

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3291

not holding any post, he had not vested right. That 1st

party workman has not represented to the higher authorities

immediately instead remained silent for issue. There is no

retrenchment of daily wage employees. Junior employees

are not engaged. Names of the junior employees are not

given. IInd party could not give clear reply about it. IInd

party further submitted that in W.P.No. 1339/98, order is

passed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on 24-8-99. It is

submitted that the claim of 1st party is not tenable and the

same be rejected.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i)

Whether the action of the

management of UCO Bank

In Negative

in terminating the services

of Shri Anandkumar

Dhupare, S/o Baburao

Dhupare w.e.f. 10-5-97

is legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

1st party workman is

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to compensation

with other benefits as

per final order.

REASONS

7. Though the dispute under reference relates to

legality of termination of 1st party workman w.e.f. 10-5-97.

In his statement of claim, 1st party workman has pleaded

about the agreement between Union and the management

dated 12-10-89. He claims that he had submitted application

as per circular dated 19-10-89 & 31-3-90. His name was

appearing in the information submitted by Non-applicant

No.3. Thus pleadings of 1st party workman are beyond

scope of reference made by Central Govt. The pleadings

and evidence in that regrd therefore needs no

consideration.

8. On the point of legality of his termination, 1st party

workman in his affidavit of evidence has stated that he was

appointed as peon at Habibganj Branch, Bhopal from

29-9-87. He continuously worked in 10-5-97. Initially he

was paid wages Rs. 15 per day. The wages were enhanced

to Rs.60 per day. That he had worked for around 9 years

with IInd party. Surprisingly his services were terminated

without notice, not paying retrenchment compensation. In

his affidavit of evidence, he has stated that employees

junior to him Ramasahare appointed on 14-1-89 at Habibganj

Bhopal , R.Kumar appointed on 14-2-89 at Dabra, P.K.Jagtap

appointed on 1-3-89 at Ujjain were in service . He is

terminated illegally. In his cross-examination, 1st party

workman says that he was not given appointment letter by

the Branch Manager Shri S.P.Surana. His name was not

sent by the Employment Exchange for appointment. He

was serving drinking water, sweeping and other works as

per the directions. He was paid weekly wages. He was not

getting holidays. Wages paid to him were less than the

collector's rate. He claims ignorance what was the rate of

daily wages of Collector rate. In his cross-examination, 1st

party workman says there are rules of recruitment in the

Bank. On 22-10-89, there was agreement between the Union

and Bank Exhibit P-1. He has submitted application for

empanelment in 1989. List of employees working in the

Bank is produced as Exhibit P-4. On careful perusal of

record, I donot find those documents bearing Exhibit P-1,

P-4 on record.

9. The evidence of management's witness Shri

B.B.Nand submitted on affidavit. He has stated in his

affidavit that 1st party workman was not appointed as per

recruitment rules. 1st party workman had not completed

240 days continuous working preceding his termination.

That the Bank is nationalized and provisions of Employment

Exchange Act, 1956 notification of vacancy and

consideration of persons recommended by Employment

Exchange are binding on the Bank. That Bank is not required

to maintain any Muster roll or salary bill or assessment of

performance of casual daily wagers. The management's

witness further states that the engagement of 1st party

ended on the day. The payment was made under voucher

on No Work No Pay with no holiday, no sick leave, no

disciplinary control and master servant relationship

between the 1st and the IInd party. It was purely contract

for service for routine. In his affidavit, management's

witness further states that due to awareness of his

engagement dehors the rules of the Bank and by Manager

not empowered to make any appointment. The applicant

during his engagement did not make any representation

either for regularization or for equal pay for equal work. In

his cross-examination, management's witness says that he

was working at Habibganj from 30-12-97 to 2-5-02 as Asstt.

Manager (Advance and Estt). While he was working in

said branch, workman was not working. He further says

that 1st party was casual daily wager, no educational

qualifications are prescribed for casual daily wagers. He

was unable to say about qualification of 1st party workman.

He had denied suggestion that 1st party was doing work

of making bundles of note. That 1st party was sent to the

Federation of Tilhan for collecting cheque for sending

telegram to RBI. He claims ignorance whether one

Ramkumar was working on daily wager. In evidence of

management's witness is believed, it is clear that no record

was maintained about the working days of 1st party

workman. There is no basis to accept evidence of the

management's witness about working days of the workman.

The evidence of 1st party and management's witness is on

oath against oath.

3292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

10. Learned counsel for management Shri

Bhattacharjee on the point relies on ratio held in-

"Surendranagar District Panchayat Versus

Dahyabhai Amarsingh in 2006 (Supreme Court

Cases )(L&S) 38. Their Lordship of Apex Court

dealing with requirement of 240 days continuous

service- onus to prove held burden of proof lies

on the workman. It is for workman to adduce

evidence apart from examining himself or filing

affidavit to prove the said factum, such evidence

may be in form of receipt of salary or wages for

240 days or record of the appointment or

engagement for that year to show that he had

worked with the employer for 240 days or

examination of a co-worker."

“In case of Karur Vysya Bank Employees Union,

Bangalore vrs. Presiding Officer, CGIT, Bangalore

and another reported in 1988 LAB.I.C.1746 held

failure of employee to prove that he worked for

240 days continuous days in a year- provisions

of Section 25-F of I.D.Act is not attracted."

“In case of Range Forest Officer Versus S.T.

Hadimani in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 367.

Their Lordship of Apex Court dealing with ownus

and manner of proof held whether the workman's

claim that he had worked for more than 240 days

in the year preceding his termination was denied

by the employer, it was for the claimant to lead

evidence to that effect. It was further held that

workman's evidence was not sufficient evidence

for that purpose."

11. In present case though 1st party workman filed

affidavit of co-worker Shri Abhitab Chatterjee. The said

witness was not produced for his cross-examination.

Therefore the arguments advanced by Shri Bhattacharjee

for management that his evidence cannot be relied upon

needs to be accepted. Besides evidence of workman and

witness of management, the record shows that 1st party

workman had submitted application on 3-12-2001

requesting management of IInd party to produce entire

service record of 1st party as well as record of payment

made to the applicant during his tenure. Though copy was

received, documents are not produced. Management's

witness says that no record is maintained. The wages were

paid under vouchers even vouchers are not produced by

management. Under such circumstances, question arises

whether the workman has completed 240 days continuous

service preceding his termination. When management has

not produced record, in my considered view the evidence

of workman deserves to be accepted. The facts of the cases

relied by counsel for management are little different. It

appears that no application for calling documents by the

workman was submitted in these cases therefore ratio in

above cited cases cannot be applied to the present case at

hand.

12. From evidence of workman and management's

witness, it is clear that services of the workman are

terminated without notice. The retrenchment compensation

was not paid. 1st party had worked with IInd party for

about 9 years. He is entitled to retrenchment compensation,

15 days wages for every completed year service. As such

workman would be entitled to retrenchment compensation

for 135 days, one months wages in lieu of notice. 1st party

workman had worked for about 9 years with the Bank but

he was not appointed following recruitment rules. Therefore

workman will not be entitled to reinstatement instead the

payment of compensation would be appropriate.

Considering the facts of the case, in my considered view,

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- would be appropriate. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Negative.

13. Point No.2- 1st party is entitled to compensation

Rs.1,50,000/-, retrenchment compensation, wages of 30 days

in lieu of notice and 135 days wages towards retrenchment

compensation.

14. In the result, I pass award as under:-

(1)

Termination of services of 1st party workman

Shri Anand Kumar Dhupare by management is

illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.

1,50,000/- and wages of 30 days in lieu of notice

and 135 days wages towards retrenchment

compensation.

Amount as per above order be calculated at the rate

of last wages paid to the 1st party. Amount as per above

order be paid to the workman within 30 days from the date

of order. In case of default, amount carry interest @ 9 % per

annum from the date of award till realization of amount.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 11 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1297.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy

cSad 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@

,yñlhñ@vkjñ@197@91 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

22&5&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@202@91&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3293

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2013

S.O. 1297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/No. 197/91) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Punjab National Bank and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

22.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/202/91-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/197/91

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE

Assistant General Secretary,

Punjab National bank Employees Association,

Sarafa Bazar, Lashkar,

Gwalior

... Workman/Union

Versus

The Regional Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

20, Sneh Nagar,

Indore

... Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of March, 2013

As per letter dated Nil by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/202/91-IR (B-II).

The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

National bank in terminating the services of Shri

Gopal Rao Shinde is justified? If not, to what relief is

the workman entitled?"

2. After notice, 1st party/workman submitted

statement of claim at Page 6/1 to 6/3. As per his statement

of claim, the case of 1st party is that he was appointed as

full time peon in Sarafa Bazar, Laskhar, Gwalior of Punjab

National Bank on 5-12-1998, he continued to work till

31-5-90. His services were terminated w.e.f. 1-6-1990 without

prior notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation

as per Section 25-F of the I.D.Act. That he was working

against permanent vacant post on transfer of other peon

Shri Arjun Singh from Sarafa Bazar to Piparia branch. That

he was deemed to be probationer and confirmed employee

after completion of six months service in the bank in terms

of para 495 of the Sastry Award. That he was entitled to get

full scale wages . That disregarding the provisions of the

settlement at bipartite agreements, the IInd party paid wages

Rs. 10/-, 12/-, 15/- & 20/- per day to him That under clause

4.5(b) of the Bipartite settlement, on completion of 29 hours

a week duty, he was entitled to full scale wages.

Management did not pay him wages as per the award. His

services were illegally terminated. On such grounds, 1st

party prays for reinstatement with full back wages.

3. IInd party files Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/

3. Preliminary objection is raised that 1st party is not a

workman. He was never engaged as temporary peon. 1st

party was intermittently engaged for casual work for filling

of water, clearing old records etc. There was no relationship

of employer employee. The provisions of I.D.Act are not

applicable. Para 16.9 of Desai Award deals with the service

conditions of the employees. The said award is not

applicable to the casual employees. The reference is wrongly

made. 1st party had not completed 240 days continuous

service preceding his termination. The agreed wages were

paid to the 1st party when engaged for casual work. IInd

party prayed for rejection of the claim of 1st party.

4. 1st party filed rejoinder at page 9/1 to 9/4 retreating

that he was engaged as temporary peon in vacant post

after transfer of Shri Arjun Singh. Two other peons in the

Bank were holding higher qualification. They were

performing duties of clerk. That he was working as peon

from 5-12-88 to 31-5-90. His wages were paid under voucher.

Preliminary objection is no legal. It is contended that he

has completed 240 days continuous service. His services

were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.

5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether termination of

In Negative

services of 1st party/

workman Shri Gopal

Rao Shinde w.e.f. 1-6-90 is

just and legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the

IInd party shall pay compen-

workman is entitled to?"

sation Rs.40,000/-, notice

pay and retrenchment

compensation as per

final order.

REASONS

6. 1st party/workman is challenging his termination

from 1-6-90. He is claiming that he was appointed as peon

on vacant post on transfer of Shri Arjun Singh. That as per

the Bipartite Agreement and Desai Award he had acquired

status of regular peon but he was not paid wages salary of

regular scale. The IInd party/management denied all the

above contentions of 1st party. Affidavit of evidence is

3294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

filed by 1st at page No. 21 He has stated that he was working

in bank from 5-12-88 to 31-5-90. His services were terminated

without notice or paying retrenchment compensation. He

had completed 409 days working. In his cross-examination,

1st party says that he was given appointment letter as

peon but he claims ignorance about said document is

produced on record. He denies that he was engaged as

casual labour. He was paid wages Rs.300/- per month. He

denies suggestion that he had worked for 84 days in 1989.

He retreats that he had continuously worked for more than

240 days. He was paid wages under voucher. He denies

suggestion that he was not appointed as regular employee,

wages of regular employee were not paid to him.

7. Management filed affidavit of their witness Shri

Anil Kumar Agrawal at Page 24/1 to 24/2. Management

witness states that workman had not completed 240 days

working during 12 months preceding the date of termination

of 1st party. That provisions of Sastry Award are not

attracted. In his cross-examination, management witness

says that he was not working in Sarafa Bazar branch Gwalior

of IInd party, he was not knowing Branch Manager Shri

Ashok Sharma. That retrenchment compensation was not

paid.

8. 1st party/workman had filed application requesting

IInd party to produce documents (1) dispatch register of

Sarafa Bazar, Lashkar branch, (2) peon book of said period,

(3) Punjab National bank Form No. 186, (4) list of cheques

etc. under application dated 7-6-95. The application was

opposed but those documents are not produced by IInd

party. Although documents are relevant for deciding

whether the 1st party workman had completed 240 days

working during 12 calendar months preceding his

termination. The Bank has not produced those documents.

Therefore the contentions of IInd party that 240 days

working was not completed by 1st party cannot be

accepted. Despite of the pleadings on both side that the

services of employees under IInd party Bank are covered

by Sastry Award, the said award is not produced for perusal.

In view of termination of services, the contentions of 1st

party about his services as regular employee cannot be

accepted. His pleadings are clear that he was paid wages

Rs. 10 to 20/- per day, he was not paid regular salary of

peon prior to his termination from service.

9. From evidence on record, it is clear that

retrenchment compensation was not paid, one months

notice was not issued to the 1st party. As such the

provisions of Section 25-F were not complied with. The

learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi relies on—"Ratio

held in Case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vrs. State of

Bihar in AIR 1997 Supreme Court Cases 3657. Their Lordship

dealing with Section 25-F Schedule 2, Item 3 of ID Act—

Daily wage employees appointed on basis of need the basis

of ned of work termination of their services cannot be

construed to the retrenchment. In above said case,

termination was challenged filing Writ petition in High Court

and not by way of filing an industrial dispute."

The evidence was not adduced as in the present

case, therefore ratio held in above cited case cannot be

beneficially applied to present case. Reliance was also

placed on —

"Ratio held in Case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vrs.

Suresh Kumar Verma in 1996-(2) SLR -321. Their

Lordship held the appointment on daily wages

cannot be a conduit pipe for regular appointments

which would be a back door entry, detrimental to the

efficiency of service and would breed seeds of

nepotism and corruption. It is equally settled law

that even for Class IV employees recruitment

according to rules is a pre condition. Only work

charged employees who perform the duties of

transitory nature are appointed not to a post but are

required to perform the work of transitory and urgent

nature so long as the work exists. One temporary

employee cannot be replaced by another temporary

employee."

Ratio held in the case doesnot cover consequences

of violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. However the ratio is

clear that daily wage employee cannot be reinstated.

"In case of Surendranagar District Panchayat Versus

Dahyabhai Amarsingh in 2005(8) Supreme Court

Cases 750. Their Lordship held that fact must be

proved by workman to claim protection under Section

25-F, 25-B. In present case, the evidence adduced by

1st party about completing 240 days continuous

service during 12 calendar months preceding his

termination is accepted."

Therefore ratio held in above case cannot be applied

to the present case.

10. As services of 1st party were terminated in

violation of Section 25- F of I.D.Act, I record my finding on

Point No. 1 in Negative.

11. Point No. 2—Termination of 1st party workman is

illegal as per my finding on Point No.1, the question arises

is what relief is entitled ? The 1st workman had hardly

worked for about 1 year 6 months as a daily wage employee.

Therefore his reinstatement would not be justified. Payment

of compensation Rs.40,000 would be adequate. In addition,

the 1st party would be entitled to one month's wages in

lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation equivalent

to 15 days wages. Accordingly I record my finding on Point

No.2.

12. In the result, I pass following award—

(1) Action of IInd party terminating services of 1st

party workman Shri Gopal Rao Shinde is not

legal.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3295

(2) IInd party/management is directed to pay

compensation Rs.40,000, one months wages in

lieu of notice, 15 days wages as retrenchment

compensation.

The above amount shall be calculated at the rate of

last wage paid to the 1st party. Amount as per above order

be paid within 30 days from the date of order. In case of

default, the amount shall carry 9 % interest from the date of

award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1298.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

lsUVªy cSad vkWQ

bafM;k

bafM;k 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;] tcyiqj

tcyiqj

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@,yñlhñ@vkjñ&201@92 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@5@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@137@89&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼chñ II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, The 13th June, 2013

S.O. 1298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/LC/R/No.

201/92) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Central Bank of India and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

17.05.2013.

[No. L-12012/137/89-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/201/92

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Ravindra Kumar Sharma,

S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Sharma,

Khedapati Colony,

Gwalior

....Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Jayendragarh, Gwalior

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of May 2013

As per letter dated 29-9-92 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L -12012/

137/89-D. II(A). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Bank of India in terminating the services of

Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 23-3-1983 is justified?

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

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party workman submitted his Statement of

claim at Page 2/1 to 2/4 of the reference. The case of 1st

party workman is that he was appointed as Farrash-cum-

Daftri by the Branch Manager, Mr. Madanlal Gupta of

Central Bank, Madhoganj, Lashkar, Gwalior in March 1982.

He was continued till 10-3-83. His services were terminated

in a written order that his performance in service was quite

satisfactory. He had submitted appeal challenging order of

his termination. He received reply on 13-9-85. He had

initiated conciliation proceeding before ALC(C), Bhopal.

Failure report was submitted to Central Government.

Government had refused to make a reference. In Writ Petition

No. 678/90 directions were given to the Central Govt. for

making reference. In pursuance of said direction, the

reference was made.

3. 1st party workman claims that he had completed

240 days continuous service prior to his termination. He

was terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D. Act. In

his further pleadings, he has contended that he had

completed 240 days continuous service prior to his

termination. He prays for setting aside the termination and

reinstatement in service with full back wages.

4. IInd party management submitted Written

Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/6. The claim of 1st party workman

is denied. It is submitted that the party workman was

working as casual part time farrash only for 149 days during

the period 24-3-82 to 23-3-83. He was not continuously

working intermittently. He has completed 240 days

continuous service during 12 preceding months. That

Central Govt. had refused to make reference. That

cognizance of the matter now by the Hon'ble Tribunal is

bad and deserves to be dismissed as reference is belated.

5. On merits, IInd party management submitted that

workman had not completed 240 days continuous service,

he has worked only for 149 days. He is not covered under

Section 25-B of I.d. Act. Violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D.

Act is denied.

3296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

6. That there is specific recruitment policy applicable

to the IInd party management. The names are invited from

Employment Exchange. After detailed list is received from

Employment Exchange, the capability of the candidates is

assessed after interview. When Local Selection Committee

applies the same incumbents are appointed on the regular

posts. 1st party workman was not appointed following such

procedure. IInd party prays for rejection of the claim.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Central

Bank of India in terminating

the services of Shri Ravinder

Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 23-3-

1983 is justified?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by

workman is entitled to?"

workman is rejected.

REASONS

8. 1st party workman filed affidavit in support of his

claim. On 6-6- 95, he remained absent and failed to make

available for cross- examination by IInd party. As per order

dated 11-4-08, evidence on affidavit was ordered to be not

read in evidence.

9. Management of IInd party filed affidavit of

evidence on 4-9-04. However the witness remained absent

for his cross-examination. The management's evidence was

closed. It is clear from above that both Ist party workman

as well as IInd party management are negligent, not diligent

in leading evidence, making available for cross-examination

of opposite party. The evidence of workman as well as

witness of IInd party cannot be considered for deciding

the matter in dispute. It leads to the conclusion that there

is no legal evidence for deciding the dispute between

parties. Termination of workman is not proved to be illegal

and therefore action of the IInd party management in

terminating services of Ist party workman needs to be

upheld. Accordingly I record my finding on Point No. 1.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

Action of the management of Central Bank of

India in terminating the services of

Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 23-3-1983

is legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman are rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1299.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flaMhdsV 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;] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 266@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@4@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@138@2001&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼chñ II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2013

S.O. 1299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 266/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 02.04.2013.

[No. L-12012/138/2001-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. 266/2011

Shri Bijender Singh,

A-92, A.C. Nagar,

Faridabad

....Workman

Versus

The Asst. General Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

6-Bhagwan Dass Road,

Sarojini House,

New Delhi-110001

....Management

AWARD

A temporay part time sweeper, working at Faridabad

branch, Syndicate Bank (in short the bank), developed

intimacy with one Shri Devender Kumar working at KC

Cinema, Faridabad. He represented to Shri Devender Kumar

that he would get an account opened for him in Faridabad

branch of the bank. On 11.07.1997, Shri Devender Kumar

opened a Saving Bank account at Faridabad branch of the

bank by way of deposit of Rs. 500.00. His account was

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3297

introduced by the sweeper. Thereafter, Shri Devender Kumar

paid a sum of Rs. 100.00, Rs. 200.00, Rs. 250.00, Rs. 250.00,

Rs. 200.00, Rs. 200.00 and Rs.100.00 to the sweeper on

11.07.97, 14.07.97, 14.07.97, 15.07.97, 16.07.97, 17.07.97 and

19.07.97 respectively for getting the same deposited in his

Saving Bank account, referred above. The sweeper did not

deposit the aforesaid sums and misappropriated it. With a

view to make Shri Devender Kumar believe that the aforesaid

sums of money have been deposited in his account, the

sweeper forged counter foils of deposit slips and handed

those slips to Shri Devender Kumar projecting that the

amounts have been deposited in his Saving Bank account.

Later on, Shri Devender Kumar came to know that money,

handed over by him to the sweeper, had not been deposited

in his account. He made a complaint to the bank. Charge

sheet was served on the sweeper. Domestic enquiry was

conducted by the bank and punishment of dismissal from

service was awarded to the sweeper vide order dated

26.07.99. Aggrieved by the said order, the sweeper raised a

demand for reinstatement which demand was not conceded

to. Ultimately, he raised an industrial dispute before the

Conciliation Officer. Since his claim was contested by the

bank, the 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 12012/138/2001-IR(B-II), New Delhi dated 29.11.2001

with following terms:

"Whether action of the management of Syndicate

Bank in ordering dismissal from service of

Shri Bijender Singh vide order dated 26.07.1999 is

legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned

workman is entitled to?"

2. Claim statement was filed by the part time sweeper,

namely, Shri Bijender Singh, pleading therein that he was

working as part-time sweeper with the bank since 25.08.1980.

However, appointment letter was issued in his favour on

07.09.1981. He served the bank sincerely and honestly. No

memo or charge sheet was ever served upon him. But to

his surprise, he was placed under suspension by the bank

on 06.01.98. Prior to placing him under suspension, memo

dated 24.07.97 was served which was replied by him on

12.09.97. He made a request to the bank that copy of charge

sheet may be served upon him in Hindi. He denied the

allegations levelled against him. He was asked to appear

before the Enquiry Officer, without supplying relevant

documents to him. Enquiry was conducted in violation of

principles of natural justice. Enquiry Officer submitted his

report, holding him guilty of the charges. He presents that

signatures on counterfoils of pay-in-slips do not resemble

his signatures. Those counterfoils were not filled in by

him. Stamp of the bank used to remain under lock and key

and it was beyond his reach. Under these circumstances,

findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.

3. Claimant presents that he was a member of

Syndicate Bank Employees Union. He projects that in that

capacity he used to raise grievances of the other employees

and as such, the bank victimised him. Order of dismissal

passed by the Disciplinary Authority, does not

commensurate to the alleged misconduct. According to

him order of dismissal is illegal and unjustified. He claims

reinstatement in service of the bank with continuity and

full back wages.

4. Claim was resisted by the bank pleading the

claimant unauthorizedly misappropriated cash amounting

to Rs. 1300.00 entrusted to him on several occasions by

Shri Devender Kumar for getting the same deposited in

Saving Bank account of the latter. Claimant did not deposit

the amounts, so received, in the account of Shri Devender

Kumar. He misappropriated the money and in order to

mislead the customer, he prepared fake counterfoils and

handed over these counterfoils to Shri Devender Kumar.

5. He affixed "cash receipt" seal of the bank, without

knowledge of the cashier and also manipulated signatures

on the counterfoils, purported to be of authorised officials

of the bank. He handed over those counterfoils to

Shri Devender Kumar. Shri Devender Kumar visited the

bank for withdrawal of money from his account and came

to know that sums of money handed over by him to the

claimant were not deposited in his account. He made a

complaint to the bank. On consideration of full facts,

claimant was placed under suspension. Charge sheet was

served upon him. Domestic enquiry was constituted. Full

and reasonable opportunity was accorded to the claimant

to defend himself. Enquiry Officer submitted his report to

the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority

concurred with the report of the Enquiry Officer and

awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the

claimant.

6. The bank disputes that the claimant was victimised

for his union activities. It presents that the claimant gained

pecuniary advantage by misappropriation of money of a

customer. The bank being a public sector financial

institution, cannot repose confidence in such an employee.

If such an employee is allowed to continue in service of the

bank it would be highly prejudicial to the interest of the

bank. Public will loose faith and confidence in banking

system. Claimant had not only tarnished image of the bank

in the eyes of the general public but also became non-

dependable and unreliable for the bank. Financial

Institution, like the banks are built on foundation of faith

and trust reposed by the public. Considering all these facts,

the bank dismissed the claimant from service and

punishment awarded to him cannot be said to be

disproportionate to his misconduct. Claim put forward may

be dismissed, being devoid of merit, pleads the bank.

7. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

3298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(1)

Whether enquiry conducted by the bank was

just and fair?

(2)

Whether punishment awarded to the claimant

was proportionate to misconduct?

(3)

As in terms of reference.

8. On consideration of facts unfolded by the

claimant, preliminary issue relating to virus of enquiry was

answered in favour of the bank and against the claimant,

vide order dated 08.10.2012.

9. Arguments on proportinonality of punishment

were heard at the bar. Shri B.K. Pal, authorized representative,

advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant. Shri Rajesh

Mahendroo, authorised representative, presented facts on

behalf of the bank. Written submissions were also filed by

Shri Pal. 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:

Issue No.2

10.Prior to introduction of section 11-A of the Act,

adjudicatory powers of the Tribunal were articulated in

Buckingham & Carnatak Company [1951 (2) LLJ 314]. Four

standards were delineated by the Labour Appellate

Tribunal in the above case to render managerial right of

taking disciplinary action vulnerable, namely, (i) where there

is a want of bonafides or (ii) when it is a case of victimization

or unfair labour practice or violation of the principles of

natural justice, or (iii) when there is basic error of facts, or

(iv) when there has been a perverse finding on the materials.

This articulation was adopted by the Apex Court with slight

modification in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited [1958

(1) LLJ 260], without any acknowledgement to the precedent

in Buckingham & Carnatic case (supra), wherein it was

ruled that the power of the management to direct its own

internal administration and discipline was not unlimited

and liable to be interfered with by industrial adjudication

when a dispute arises to see whether termination of services

of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief.

However, it was announced that the jurisdiction of an

Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the managerial

prerogative of taking disciplinary action is not of appellate

nature as the legislature has not chosen to confer such

jurisdiction upon it. Hence Tribunal could not substitute

its own judgement for that of the management. The Court

laid down that in the following circumstances an industrial

adjudicator can interfere with the disciplinary action taken

by the employer: (1) when there is want of good faith, (2)

when there was victimization or unfair labour practice, (3)

when the management had been guilty of a basic error or

violation of the principles of natural justice, or (4) when on

the materials, the finding was completely baseless or

perverse.

11.Enunciation (1) and (2), referred above, are

addressed to the bona fides of the employer in initiating

the action and inflicting the punishment, while postulates

(3) and (4) are addressed to domestic enquiry. Therefore,

an employer is required to act bona fide in initiating

disciplinary action as well as in inflicting the punishment.

In initiating the action, the alleged act of misconduct should

not be a ruse for something else, such as the trade union

activities of the workman or employers dislike of him for

some personal reasons. The action should not be motivated

by vindictiveness or ulterior purpose, so as to smack for

victimization or unfair labour practice. Likewise in the matter

of inflicting punishment, the employer should act fairly. In

case punishment awarded is so shockingly

disproportionate to the act of the misconduct, as no

reasonable man would ever impose that itself may lead to

an inference of malafides, victimization or unfair labour

practice. In holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer must

comply with the rules of natural justice. He must not be a

biased person and give reasonable opportunity to both

sides for being heard. His findings should not be baseless

or perverse.

12.In Ramswarth Sinha (1954 L.A.C. 697) the Labour

Appellate Tribunal recognized the right of the management

to ask for permission to adduce evidence before the Tribunal

to justify its action in a "no enquiry" case. Following that

proposition the Apex Court equated the cases of "defective

enquiry" with "no enquiry" cases and ruled that in either

cases, the Tribunal have jurisdiction to go into the merits

of the case on the basis of evidence adduced before it by

the parties. Reference can be made to the precedent in

Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1965 (2) LLJ 162] where

the employer had held no enquiry at all before the dismissal

and, therefore, adduced evidence to justify its action before

the Tribunal, which decision was upheld. The Apex Court

discarded the plea on behalf of the workman that since no

enquiry at all had been held by the employer, it had no right

to adduce evidence to justify its stand before the Tribunal.

In Ritz Theatre [1962 (II) LLJ 498] it was ruled by the Supreme

Court that the Tribunal would be justified to go to the

merits of the case and decide for itself on the basis of the

evidence adduced whether the charges have indeed been

made out. It announced that it would neither be fair to the

management nor fair to the workman himself in such a case

that the Tribunal should refuse to take the evidence and

thereby drive the management to pass through the whole

process of holding the enquiry all over again. Reference

can also be made to the precedent in Bharat Sugar Mills

Ltd. [1961 (11) LLJ 644].

In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company [1972 (1)

LLJ 180], Apex Court considered the catena of decisions

over the subject and laid down the following principles:

"(1)

If no domestic enquiry had been held by the

management, or if the management makes it

clear that it does not rely upon any domestic

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3299

enquiry that may have been held by it, it is

entitled to straightaway adduce evidence

before the Tribunal justifying its action. The

Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence

so adduced before it, on merits, and give a

decision thereon. In such a case, it is not

necessary for the Tribunal to consider the

validity of the domestic enquiry as the

employer himself does not rely on it.

(2)

If a domestic enquiry had been held, it is open

to the management to rely upon the domestic

enquiry held by it, in the first instance, and

alternatively and without prejudice to its plea

that the enquiry is proper and binding,

simultaneously adduce additional evidence

before the Tribunal justifying its action. In such

a case no inference can be drawn, without

anything more, that the management has given

up the enquiry conducted by it.

(3)

When the management relies on the enquiry

conducted by it, and also simultaneously

adduces evidence before the Tribunal, without

prejudice to its plea that the enquiry

proceedings are proper, it is the duty of the

Tribunal, in the first instance, to consider

whether the enquiry proceedings conducted

by the management, are valid and proper. If

the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry

proceedings have been held properly and are

valid, the question of considering the evidence

adduced before it on merits, no longer survives.

It is only when the holds that the enquiry

proceedings have not been properly held, that

it derives jurisdiction to deal with the merits of

the dispute and in such a case it has to consider

the evidence adduced before it by the

management and decide the matter on the basis

of such evidence.

(4)

When the domestic enquiry has been held by

the management and the management relies

on the same, it is open to the latter to request

the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic

enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for

an opportunity to adduce evidence before the

Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue

is against the management. However, elaborate

and cumbersome the procedure may be, under

such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal

to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary

issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If

its finding on the preliminary issue is in favour

of the management, then no additional

evidence need be cited by the management.

But, if the finding on the preliminary issue is

against the management, the Tribunal will have

to give the employer an opportunity to cite

additional evidence and also give a similar

opportunity to the employee to lead evidence

contra, as the request to adduce evidence had

been made by the management to the Tribunal

during the course of the proceedings and

before the trial has come to an end. When the

preliminary issue is decided against the

management and the latter leads evidence

before the Tribunal, the position, under such

circumstances, will be, that the management is

deprived of the benefit of having the finding

of the domestic tribunal being accepted as

prima facie proof of the alleged misconduct.

On the other hand, the management will have

to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that

the workman is guilty of misconduct and that

the action taken by it is proper. It will not be

just and fair either to the management or to the

workman that the Tribunal should refuse to

take evidence and thereby ask the management

to take a further application, after holding a

proper enquiry, and deprive the workman of

the benefit of the Tribunal itself being satisfied,

on evidence adduced before it, that he was or

was not guilty of the alleged misconduct.

(5)

The management has got a right to attempt to

sustain its order by adducing independent

evidence before the Tribunal. But the

management should avail itself of the said

opportunity by making a suitable request to

the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed.

If no such opportunity has been available of,

or asked for by the management, before the

proceedings are closed, the employer can make

no grievance that the Tribunal did not provide

such an opportunity. The Tribunal will have

before it only the enquiry proceedings and it

has to decide whether the proceedings have

been held properly and the findings recorded

therein are also proper.

(6)

If the employer relies only on the domestic

enquiry and does not simultaneously lead

additional evidence or ask for an opportunity

during the pendency of the proceedings to

adduce such evidence, the duty of the Tribunal

is only to consider the validity of the domestic

enquiry as well ass the finding recorded therein

and decide the matter. If the Tribunal decides

that the domestic enquiry has not been held

properly, it is not its function to invite suo

moto the employer to adduce evidence before

it to justify the action taken by it.

(7)

The above principles apply to the proceedings

before the Tribunal, which have come before it

3300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

either on a reference under Section 10 or by

way of an application under Section 33 of the

Act.

14. Keeping in view the proposition laid by the Apex

Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company (supra),

the Parliament inserted section 11-A in the Act, which came

into force w.e.f. 15th of December,1971. In the statement of

objects and reasons for inserting section 11-A, it was stated:

"In Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and

Another Vs. Their Workmen (AIR 1958 S.C. 130 at

p.138), the Supreme Court, while considering the

Tribunal's power to interfere with the management's

decision to dismiss, discharge or terminate the

services of a workman, has observed that in case of

dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not act

as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment

for that of the management and that the Tribunal will

interfere only when there is want of good faith,

victimization, unfair labour practice, etc., on the part

of the management.

2. The International Labour Organisation, in its

recommendation (No.119) concerning 'Termination of

employment at the initiative of the employer' adopted in

June 1963, has recommended that a worker aggrieved by

the termination of his employment should be entitled to

appeal against the termination among others, to a neutral

body such as an arbitrator, a court, an arbitration committee

or a similar body and that the neutral body concerned should

be empowered to examine the reasons given in the

termination of employment and the other circumstances

relating to the case and to render a decision on the

justification of the termination. The International Labour

Organisation has further recommended that the neutral

body should be empowered (if it finds that the termination

of employment was unjustified) to order that the worker

concerned, unless reinstated with unpaid wages, should

be paid adequate compensation or afforded some other

relief.

3. In accordance with these recommendations, it is

considered that the Tribunal's power in an adjudication

proceeding relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman

should not be limited and that the Tribunal should have

the power, in cases wherever necessary to set aside the

order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of

the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it

thinks fit or give such other reliefs to the workman including

the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or

dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. For

this purpose, a new Section 11-A is proposed to be inserted

in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947........”

15. After insertion of section 11-A, the Apex Court

summed up the law in the case of Firestone Tyre and Rubber

Company [1973 (1) LLJ 278] in the following propositions:

"(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide

upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial

functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal, the

latter has power to see if action of the employer is justified.

(2) Before imposing the punishment, as employer is

expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with

the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and

principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an

empty formality.

(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an

employer, and the finding of misconduct is a plausible

conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said

enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgement

over the decision of the employer as an appellate body.

The interference with the decision of the employer will be

justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry

are perverse or the management is guilty of victimization,

unfair labour practice or mala fide.

(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer

or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the

Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and

validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the

employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is

open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time

justifying his action, and it is open to the employee to

adduce evidence contra.

(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry

is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether

there was a prima facie case. On the other hand, the issue

about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or

discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on

the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself

whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases,

the point about the exercise of managerial functions does

not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the

same footing as no enquiry.

(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the

evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of

the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after

the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be

defective.

(7) It has never been recognized that the Tribunal

should straightaway, without anything more, direct

reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee, once

it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the

said enquiry is found to be defective.

(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the

opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before

the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the

appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the

Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an

opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3301

first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the

management and the employee and to enable the Tribunal

itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct.

(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the

enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence

placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment

imposed cannot, be interfered with by the Tribunal except

in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest

victimization.

(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order

of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated or

paid compensation is, as held by this Court in The

Management of Panitole Tea Estate Vs. The workmen, within

the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal".

16. Jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is

also not confined to the case where punishment is

shockingly disproportionate to the act of the misconduct.

The Tribunal has power of substituting its own measure of

punishment in place of managerial wisdom. Change in legal

position, post introduction of section 11A of the Act has

been effectively summarized in the case of Ambassador

Sky Chef (1996 Lab. I.C. 299) wherein High Court of Bombay

observed that the section gives specifically two fold powers

to an industrial adjudicator : firstly, it is a virtual power of

appeal against the findings of fact made by the Enquiry

Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of the

evidence and conclusion on facts, and secondly, and far

more important, it is the power of re-appraisal of quantum

of punishment. Now no restriction lies on an industrial

adjudicator to interfere with the enquiry only on four

grounds, referred above. However, wide discretionary

powers with the adjudicator are to be exercised in judicial

and judicious manner before it interferes with the order of

misconduct or punishment.

17. With this prelude in mind, factual matrix of the

controversy are to be addressed to for ascertaining

quantum of punishment for misconduct proved against

the claimant. To know the allegations, charge sheet Ex.

MW1/3 is to be looked into, which deciphers allegations

as follows:

"You were working as part time sweeper at our

Faridabad branch. Pending disciplinary action, you

were placed under suspension vide letter

No. ZOD:IRC:SUS:01:97 dated 24.07.1997, for your

alleged fraudulent acts:

Following facts have been reported against you:

Shri Devender Kumar, a soft drink seller at KC Cinema

was an old acquaintance of yours. On 11.07.97, he opened

a Saving Account no. 36895 at Faridabad branch with an

initial deposit of Rs. 500.00, which account was introduced

by you. Since the work place of Shri Devender Kumar was

away from the bank, he filled in the cash deposit slips (OG

73 PS) and handed over the same alongwith cash for deposit

in his aforesaid account, on seven occasions, as under:

Date

Amount (Rs.)

11.07.1997

100.00

14.07.1997

200.00

14.07.1997

250.00

15.07.1997

250.00

16.07.1997

200.00

17.07.1997

200.00

19.07.1997

100.00

TOTAL

1300.00

In token of having deposited the above amounts,

you handed over the counterfoil to Shri Devender Kumar

the next day, after affixing rubber stamp of the bank and

putting signature, in order to make him believe that the

requisite amounts have been deposited in his account under

signatures of an official of the bank. Later on, it came to

light that the amounts were neither deposited in the account

of Shri Devender Kumar nor accounted for in the books of

the bank. On 22.07.97, Shn Devender Kumar visited the

branch for withdrawing cash and enquired for the balance

available in his account. The Saving Bank Counter In-

charge informed him that only an amount of Rs. 500 is

available in his account, the initial deposit made while

opening his account. From records of the bank, it is

observed that on 21.07.97 and 22.07.97, you were on leave.

Shri Devender Kumar confronted you at KC Cinema to

enquire about the amount in cash tendered by him to you

for deposit in his account. On not receiving a satisfactory

response, Shri Devender Kumar lodged a complaint with

the branch for making good the shortfall in his account.

On scrutiny of the counterfoils produced by Shri

Devender Kumar, it is observed that the signatures were

not of the Cash Receipt Cashier but resembled your

signatures/handwriting and the cash receipt stamp in full

has been affixed therein, which is not the general practice

adopted by the regular cashiers.

From the above circumstances, it is apparent that

you misappropriated money of a customer of the bank and

to conceal your fraudulent acts, you adopted fraudulent

means. The following irregularities have been committed

by you:

You misappropriated an amount of Rs.1300.00

tendered by a customer of the branch.

You failed to deposit the amount tendered by

the customer in his account.

Without the knowledge of the receipt cashier

of the branch, you used the cash receipt stamp,

affixed on the counterfoil of the cash receipt

3302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vouchers and put signatures of officials/cashier

in token of having received the amount and

thus defrauded the bank.

Your above acts constitute gross misconduct within

the meaning of Clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement, for

which you are charged for doing acts prejudicial to the

interest of the bank."

18. On above charges, the Enquiry Officer recorded

his report dated 16.04.99 wherein he concluded that all

charges stood proved against the claimant. It would be in

fitness of things to extract conclusions arrived at by the

enquiry officer which are reproduced thus:—

"It has also come unrebutted and undisputed on

record that the account holder on hearing regarding

non-crediting of the amount aggregating to

Rs. 1,300 to his account (MEX-2), which was handed

over by him to Sri Bijender Singh and for which he

was holding counterfoils (MEX-4 to 10), he

immediately on 22.3.97 itself lodged a complaint to

that effect (MEX-13) and once again reiterated the

same on 1.10.97 (MEX-14) that too in the presence of

Mr. Padroo, Manager, Faridabad branch and

requested for settlement of dues.

Further it has come on record unrebutted and

undisputed that the counterfoils (MEX-4 to 10) do

not bear the signatures/initials of the regular cashier

Mr. O.P. Dhawan and the manner and styloe of affixing

the cash receipt seal is not as per the normal practice

(MEX-3, 15 to 17) and the said amounts are not

accounted for in the books of the bank (MEX-2 and 11).”

..........................................................................................

"In the instant case/given circumstances, there is no

reason to disbelieve the version of Shri Devender

Kumar that he has handed over case on seven

different occasions amounting to Rs. 1300.00 to Shri

Bijender Singh for depositing in his Saving Bank

account No. 36895.

Thus basing on the facts deposed by Shri N.

Narayanan, Officer, Vigilance Cell, RI, and duly

supported by various management exhibits and the

analysis given above and in the absence of any

evidence/records produced by the charge sheeted

employee to the contrary, I am compelled to come to

the conclusion that Shri Brijender Singh did receive

cash amounting to Rs.1300.00 on various dates

between 11.07.97 and 19.07.97 from Shri Devender

Kumar, holder of SB Account No. 36895 for depositing

the same in his said account which he failed to deposit

and to cover up he handed over manipulated/forged

counterfoils to the said customer and thus

misappropriated the said amount.

Accordingly, Point No.1, i.e. that he unauthorisedly

accepted cash on various occasions from a customer

of the branch amounting to Rs.1300.00 and

misappropriated it, is answered in affirmative.

In the light of the above discussions my conclusion

and findings on the points and also based on records

and oral evidence/s made available before me, I find

that the management has been able to establish the

charge in the enquiry held. Accordingly, I hold Shri

Brijender Singh guilty of the charge levelled against

him vide charge sheet No. ZOD:IRC:CSW-01:98:CS-

611 dated 05.01.1998."

19. On consideration of the findings recorded by the

Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed Shri

Bijender Singh from service vide order dated 26.07.1999.

Question for consideration comes as to whether there are

any justifications for punishment of dismissal? For an

answer to the proposition, it would be expedient to note

legal principles in that regard. Right of an employer to inflict

punishment of discharge or dismissal is not unfettered.

The punishment imposed must be commensurative with

gravity of the misconduct, proved against the delinquent

workman. Prior to enactment of section 11-A of the Act, it

was not open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order

of punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was

too severe and was not commensurative with the act of

misconduct. In other words, the industrial adjudicator could

not interfere with the punishment as it was not required to

consider propriety or adequacy of punishment or whether

it was excessive or too severe. Apex Court, in this

connection, had, however, laid down in Bengal Bhatdee

Coal Company [1963(1) LLJ 291] that where order of

punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act

of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would

impose in like circumstances, that itself would lead to the

inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which

would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge. But by

enacting the provisions of section 11-A of the Act, the

Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer,

in imposing punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is

now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally

decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of

misconduct, in cases of discharge or dismissal. If the

Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal

is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case,

it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment

and direct reinstatement with back wages, but it has also

the power to imposed certain conditions as it may deem fit

and also to give relief to the workman, including award of

lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.

20. It is established law that imposing punishment

for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing

authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered

with by the Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not required

to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment. But

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3303

where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,

regard being had to the particular conduct and past record,

or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in

like circumstance, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of

such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair

labour practice. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex

Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company

Labour (1965 (1) LLJ 462). Likewise in Management of the

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry

(1971 (II) LLJ 630) the Apex Court ruled that the employer

made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial

matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation

and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be

unwarranted. In Ram Kishan (1996 (1) LLJ 982) the

delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using

abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts

and in the circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held

that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to

the delinquent. It was ruled therein, "when abusive

language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be

understood in the environment in which that person is

situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that

led to the use of abusive language. No straight- jacket

formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the

abusive language in the given circumstances would

warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be

considered on its own facts".

21. In B.M. Patil (1996 (11)LLJ 536), Justice Mohan

Kumar of Karnatka High court observed that in exercise of

discretion, the disciplinary authority should not act like a

robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and

understanding. It was assess each case on its own merit

and each set of fact should be decided with reference to

the evidence recording the allegation, which should be

basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may

be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity

to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of

punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the

bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss

of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets. It was

held that the punishment was too harsh and

disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

22. After insertion of section 11-A of the Act, the

jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with

the Tribunal, who has to see whether punishment imposed

by the employer is commensurative with the gravity of the

act of misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the

misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment

is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is

such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or

dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or

without any terms or conditions as it thinksfit or give any

other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in

lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstance of the

case may warrant. Reference can be made to a precedent in

Sanatak Singh (1984 Lab. I.C.817). The discretion to award

punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or

dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal

can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment

imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to

the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be

made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar (1994 (II)

LLJ 332). Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now

jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of

punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it is

satisfied that the order of discharge of dismissal is not

justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case,

Section 11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers

to the Industrial Tribunal, first is virtually the power of

appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer

in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence

and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost

importance, is the power of reappraisal of quantum of

punishment.

23.Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal

and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is

not untrammelled power. This power has to be exercised

only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge

or dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the

Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one.

It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to

various circumstances like nature of delinquency omitted

by the workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency

on employer's business, besides length of service rendered

by him. Furthermore, the Tribunal has to consider whether

the decision taken by the employer is just or not. Only after

taking into consideration these aspects, the Tribunal can

upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The

quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without

recording specific findings on points referred above. No

indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of

grave misconduct like cheating, fraud, misappropriation of

employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference

cannot be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa

(1995 (1) LLJ 960).

24.In the light of above legal propositions, it would

be considered as to whether punishment awarded to the

claimant does not commensurate to his misconduct? As

projected above, the claimant committed acts of criminal

breach of trust when he received cash amounting to Rs.1300

on various dates between 11.07.97 and 19.07.97 from Shri

Devender Kumar, a customer of the branch, for depositing

in his SB account No.36895 and misappropriated it. He also

committed acts of forgery and using forged document as

genuine when he handed over manipulated/forged

counterfoils to the customer. He handed over those forged

receipts to Shri Devender Kumar to make him believe that

money had been deposited in his account and thus

committed an act of cheating also.

3304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

25. Fraud/cheating is serious misconduct besides,

being a criminal offense. One who commits fraud and makes

his employer liable to pay the amount defrauded to the

customers, not only hoodwinks his employer but customers

also. He puts his employer's reputation to stake in the eyes

of the customers as well as general public. The customer,

who finds himself defrauded, is put to shock and agony.

On the other hand the employer loose faith in such an

employee. An employee who commits criminal breach of

trust, forgery and uses forged document as genuine one

destroys fabric of confidence, reposed in him by his

employer as well as the customer. When such an employee

is found in the service of a banking institution, public may

opt not to bank upon on such an institution. Such an

employee is a black sheep, who may make the institution to

sink. His continuance in service would tarnish the image of

his employer. All these factors are sufficient to conclude

that such an employee looses his right to continue in job.

26. Whether such employee should be awarded

punishment of discharge simplicitier? Punishment of

discharge simplicitier neither operates as stigma nor debars

him from getting retirement benefits. Retirement benefits

are given to an employee for efficient services rendered to

the employer. One who defrauded the employer as well as

the customer cannot be said to have rendered efficient

service. Therefore such an employee cannot put a claim for

retirement benefits. His debase act would make him to

receive ultimate penalty. Therefore I am of the considered

opinion that no case is made out to show that punishment

of dismissal awarded to the claimant was disproportionate

to his misconduct, warranting interference by the Tribunal.

No case of victimization, malafide or unfair labour practice

has been put forward by the claimant, in the matter of award

of punishment to him. All these reasons would make me to

comment that punishment of dismissal awarded to the

claimant commensurate to his misconduct. Issue is,

therefore, answered in favour of the bank and against the

claimant.

Issue No. 3

27.Not even an iota of evidence was brought over

the record by the claimant to question legality of

punishment awarded to him. When there is vacuum of

evidence of malafide, arbitrariness, victimization and

exercise of unfair labour practice on the part of the bank, it

cannot be said that punishment awarded to the claimant

was not justified. There cannot be any reason to inter-

meddle with the punishment of dismissal awarded to the

claimant. Consequently it is announced that punishment

of dismissal awarded to the claimant vide order dated

26.07.1999 withstands standards of legality as well as

justifiability. No interference is called for in the punishment

by this Tribunal. Claim put forward by Shri Bijender Singh

is liable to be brushed aside. Accordingly, his claim is

dismissed. An award is passed in favour of the bank and

against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

government for publication.

Dated : 11-3-2013

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1300.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

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

bykgkckn 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;&II, paMhx<+

paMhx<+

paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 346@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&05&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@236@1996&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th June, 2013

S.O. 1300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. No.

346/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

17-05-2013.

[No. L-12012/236/1996-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 346/2005

Registered on 16.8.2005

Sh. Naresh Batra, Ex. CCC, Flat No.524/1, Modern

House Complex, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh

....Petitioner

Versus

The Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank, Sector 17,

Chandigarh

.....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. B.K. Sharma AR

For the Management

Sh. I.P. Singh Advocate

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3305

AWARD

Passed on 2.5.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/

236/96/ IR(B-11) Dated 22/28.7.1997, 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 this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad

Bank, Chandigarh in dismissing the services of

Sh. Naresh Batra, Clerk-cum-Cashier w.e.f. 20.7.1995

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said

workman is entitled?"

As per claim statement the workman was posted as

Clerk-cum-Cashier in Manooke Branch of respondent. On

29.1.1994 he was charge-sheeted —

For engaging himself in gainful employment

during absence from duty on his transfer to

Rattewal Branch.

To have engaged himself in speculation of

shares during the course of his aforesaid

employment; and

For willfully avoiding the bank's instruction to

join the duties at the Rattewal Branch on his

transfer.

According to the workman the said charges had been

levelled against him on the basis of a certificate dated

10.2.1994 allegedly signed by him hence, on receiving the

charge-sheet the workman while submitting a short defence

statement requested the respondent to supply him a copy

of the said certificate. But the respondent instead of

supplying him the document ordered an inquiry against

him. The inquiry was concluded in one day only and the

Presenting Officer maneuvered the workman to accept the

charges with the promise that he would be let off with

minor penalty if he confesses his guilt, otherwise he will

have to face major penalty in the form of dismissal from

service. The workman was thus made to admit the charges.

On the findings of the Inquiry Officer a show cause notice

was served upon the workman which was duly replied by

the workman but the disciplinary authority without taking

into consideration anything and without application of mind

passed the order discharging the claimant from service.

The appeal of the claimant too failed. According to the

claimant the inquiry was held against the principle of natural

justice. As the alleged certificate dated 10.2.1994 was not

supplied to him despite his demand and his admission had

been obtained by allurement. He has prayed for quashing

the punishment order of discharge from service.

The claim was contested by the management and

written statement was filed. Parties led their evidence. At

the stage of arguments, however it was found that the

claim of the workman is beyond reference. The reference is

about the dismissal from service of the workman while the

claim is about discharge from service. •When the

discrepancy was found out on 12.1.2011 the learned counsel

for the workman requested for time for proceeding further

in the case. Thereafter time and again adjournment was

requested on behalf of workman on the ground that

Corrigendum from the Ministry is awaited but till date no

Corrigendum was received from the Ministry and workman

also did not appear after 1.5.2012. Hence the reference is

being decided by this order.

As stated above the reference is about the dismissal

from service of the workman but as per claim statement the

workman had been discharged from service. Obviously

there is no dispute about the punishment df dismissal from

service between the parties. Obviously it is a case of no

dispute and a 'No dispute' award is passed accordingly.

Hard copy and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1301.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

dksjMkbV QSDVªh] uhyfxjh ,oa vnlZ 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] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

11@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08&06&2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&14012@17@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2013

S.O. 1301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

General Manager, Cordite Factory, Nilgiris and others and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 08.06.2013.

[No. L-14012/17/2011-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

3306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 22nd February, 2013

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 11/2012

(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 Cordite Factory and their Workman)

BETWEEN

Smt. R. Arthi

1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager

2nd Party

Cordite Factory,

1st Respondent

Aravankadu

Nilgiris-643202

M/s Alert Security Services :

2nd Party

No. 106, Sowrimuthu Street

2nd Respondent

Red Fields

Coimbatore-641045

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/

Sri S. Vaidyanathan,

Petitioner

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

Mr. A. Ashok Kumar,

1st Management

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

Set Ex-Parte

2nd Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order L-14012/17/2011-IR(DU) dated

06.02.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of M/s Alert

Security Services, Coimbatore, a Cordite Factory

Hospital Management, Aravankadu in terminating

the services of Smt. R. Arthi w.e.f 13.10.2010 without

following the provisions of Section 25(F) of Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 is justified or not? What relief the

workwomen is entitled to?"

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this

Tribunal numbered it as ID 11/2012 and issued notices to

both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their Claim, Separate Counter

Statements and Reply Statement, as the case may be.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement bereft of

unnecessary details are as follows :

The petitioner joined the services of Cordite Factory

(Hospital) as recruited through M/s Alert Security Services

on 16.02.2008. To deprive employment under the Cordite

Factory the so-called contract labour system was used to

be introduced to get the work done by them despite entire

payment made only by the Cordite Factory. She was required

by the Cordite Factory to work through VIP Enterprises,

Dharma Agency, ASR Constructions and finally M/s Alert

Security Services, R2 as Contractors. With the change of

the Contractors even, employees continued to remain the

same only. It is defeating provisions of labour laws.

Petitioner was employed as a Ward Sahayak at the Cordite

Fectory Hospital, Aravankadu. During her three years of

service there were no adverse remarks against her. Upon

insistence of the Cordite Factory the so-called Contractor.

issued a certificate to make the employees a scapegoat.

The Contract Labour System is a ruse and a camouflage.

Petitioner has undergone in-house training for para-medical

staff, conducted by the Cordite Factory, given only for

permanent employees and not for contract employees. The

entire Attendance Register and Wage Slip are with the

Cordite Factory. On 13.10.2010 Hospital Staff informed that

she was dismissed from service. Her work has been

perennial in nature. During conciliation of the dispute

raised, she was given employment on 17.01.2011 by the

Factory. Orders of dismissal and reinstatement were issued

by the Chief Medical Officer of the Factory, which is not

necessary if she is a contract employee. On the very next

day of reinstatement she was disengaged by the Factory.

Before the Conciliation Officer on 20.04.2011, Sivasankaran,

HOS (Vigilance) and CG representing Cordite Factory on

behalf of the General Manager and the so-called Contractor

agreed to reinstate her. She was given employment on

27.05.2011 for three days and again she was terminated

from service on 28.05.2011, to overcome the defects that

the petitioner could not be terminated and reinstated by

the First Respondent, First Respondent sent letter dated

28.05.2011 to R2 to replace the petitioner. In the separately

maintained Attendance Register and Payment Register by

the Cordite Factory, it started affixing the Rubber Stamp of

M/s Alert Security Service in the Attendance Register

meant for persons engaged by them. Attendance Register

will show that the work performed by the petitioner was

countersigned by the Cordite Factory officials. She is in

possession of the ID Card issued by the Cordite Factory

for three days to work in the Hospital. Contract is sham

and nominal. The entire hospital work was performed by

the petitioner. No Contractor has any separate hospital to

engage the petitioner. Her demand for Experience Certificate

from the Cordite Factory was being responded saying to

get from the Contractors. There is contract of service and

not contract for service. Except R2 no Contractor had valid

registration under Contract Labour Abolition Act First

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3307

Respondent engaged the petitioner in service directly.

Petitioner is an employee of the First Respondent. She

completed 480 days of continuous service in a period of 24

calendar months and is deemed to have attained permanent

status under R1. She was getting salary of Rs. 5,360 per

month at the time of disengagement. No Charge Sheet was

issued to her nor was any enquiry conducted. Non-

compliance of Section-25(F) renders the termination void

abinitio. The same is to be set aside and she is to be

reinstated into service w.e.f. 13.10.2010 with all benefits.

Even if there is a Contract Labour System., for

noncompliance of Section-25F of the ID Act, R1 is liable to

grant the relief in terms of Section-21(4) of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act 1970.

4. Counter Statement averments of the First

Respondent are as follows:

The ID is neither maintainable in law nor on facts

and is to be dismissed in-limini. The first Respondent had

entered into service contract with M/s. ASR Rice Mundy

and Construction represented by Sri Arockiadoss Simon

(ADS), Nilgiris as per supply order dated 07.12.2009 for a

period from 07.12.2009 to 30.12.2010, which was

subsequently short closed on 26.05.2010 due to

unsatisfactory performance of the contract. The terms and

conditions of the service contract the job requirement

involved (a) assisting MO/Ward Sister in attending the

patients (b) cleaning and making beds for patient ensuring

no concealment of any unauthorized articles in bedding of

the patients (c) collecting kits for patients from Ward

Master, etc. upto (k) as described in the Claim Statement.

M/s ADS had deployed the petitioner alongwith 12 others

at the Cordite Factory Hospital. Later came M/s Alert

Security Services as per order dated 23.06.2010 from

23.06.2010 to 31.01.2011. He also engaged the petitioner till

2011. The contract as above was concluded every year

through an open tender. The successful tenderer was at

liberty to employ any person to execute the work. The

Management has had no role in the engagement of the

contract labourers. It only assesses whether the terms and

conditions as set out in the contract are fulfilled or not,

only to the extent of fulfillment of which the payment is

made to the Contractors. Petitioner cannot claim parity with

regular employees of the Respondent. First Respondent

had made hospital service contract with M/s ASR Rice

Mundy and Construction represented by Sri Arockiadoss

Simon, Nilgiris which was subsequently short closed by

letter dated 26.05.2010 due to continuing unsatisfactory

performance of the contract. A contract was further entered

with M/s Alert Security Services, Coimbatore for the work

at CFH for whole job basis to a period of one year. In both

the contracts the petitioner was engaged by the Contractors

to execute the contract and not with the First Respondent.

The only requirement of the First Respondent is that

Contractors have to get the PVR (Police Verification Report)

of the labourers before engaging them in the First

Respondent premises, being a defence installation for

security purposes. The Contractor supervises the work

and disburses wages directly to the contract labourers.

Petitioner is not a Central Government Employee. Petitioner

was governed by service conditions laid down by the

Contractor and not by the service conditions or recruitment

rules applicable to regular employees. First Respondent

ensures payment of minimum wages to the petitioner and

compliance of statutory obligations by Contractors.

Presumptions raised by the petitioner are frivolous and

unconstitutional. Petitioner was under the employment of

various contractors only. The dispute is between petitioner

and R2 having employer-employee relationship interse. She

is workman of M/s Alert Security Services. Section-25 of

the ID Act is applicable only to 2nd Respondent with

respect to the petitioner. As per terms and conditions of

Supply Order, selection/replacement of contract labourers

is the sole responsibility of the Second Respondent. The

claim is to be rejected.

5. Second Respondent's contentions in its counter

statement, briefly read as follows:

Second Respondent is a registered contractor of the

First Respondent and the former took the contract on

01.07.2010. The petitioner and other employees who were

already employed under the First Respondent were asked

to be engaged by Second Respondent by R1. When the

contract was awarded Second Respondent was asked to

absorb the existing employees as they were experienced

and working under the First Respondent, which did not

allow R2 to bring a new hand or to replace the person like

the petitioner. As instructed by R1 petitioner was not given

employment and R2 is not responsible for the removal of

Smt. R. Arthi. R2 was willing to continue her in the First

Respondent but it ultimately declined to provide

employment to her. The claim of the petitioner only against

R2 is to be rejected.

6. Reply Statement averments briefly read as follows :

Second Respondent has filed a counter supporting

the petitioner. As admitted by R1 in the Counter Arthi has

committed misconduct and R1 directed R2 to replace Arthi.

It shows that petitionber was an employee under R1 and

R1 has the final say in the matter of employment and

disciplinary and administrative control over her. It is also

stated by R1 in Counter that petitioner had behaved in a

disrespectful manner. Admittedly, no Charge Sheet was

issued or enquiry conducted She does not know English

language She does not know how to frame the sentence

mentioned in Annexure-C dated 21.04.2011. Reason for R1

terminating her was firstly, one Stella working with her while

was harassed by R1 she interfered. Secondly, petitioner

made an issue of sexual harassment to the petitioner. This

was not initially pleaded in the Claim Statement hoping

that First Respondent and Officers would change for good

3308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

and provide employment to the petitioner. Petitioner was

reinstated on 27.05.2011 and again terminated on 30.05.2011.

She worked on 27th, 28th May and 29th being a Sunday

she was stopped from work from 30.05.2011. R1 produced

the letter dated 28.05.2011 before this,Court for the first

time With the help of Union she has written complaints to

the First Respondent about the sexual harassment towards

her. Letters dated 20.10.2010 and 16.06.2011 were written

about the sexual harassment, but with no action. Copies of

complaints were sent to the General Manager, Chairman

and Ministry of Defence Petitioner has completed para-

medical course producing which certificate the employment

was obtained. She was given in-house straining in Para-

Medical staff given only to the permanent staff of the

Hospital. The Certificate dated 28.01.2009 was issued by

R1. Her Attendance was written in the Attendance Book

and she was asked to sign it countersigned by the Officers

of R1. If the Contractor was present there is no need for the

counter signature. In the Register of Wages though seal of

R2 is affixed, the Register was countersigned by the doctor

of the First Respondent and Dy. Labour Commissioner

(Central). The Muster Roll was also scrutinized by the ALO

(Central). As on 01.12.2009 sanctioned strength of Cordite

Factory was 6 in the case of Ward/Sahayak Male and Female

and there were four persons working. In the remaining two,

the petitioner was employed. Though there was a tender

with M/s Alert Security Services as the successful tenderer,

petitioner was employed in the permanent sanctioned post

by R1. Petitioner had already been employed even before

the advent of Second Respondent. But with no change of

employees, with change of Contractor contract system is

nothing but a camouflage. Court has to pierce the veil and

see the truth. There have only been verbal instructions to

continue the old employees as every time the new contract

employees cannot be trained to do the work. By the time

the training is over the period of contract would expire.

There was no contract employee as per Contract Labour

Act, 1970. Petitioner is now registered under the

Employment Exchange. R1 accepted that the work was

supervised only by the officials of R1. Letter dated

13.10.2010 of R1 directing R2 to terminate the services of

the petitioner on the ground of misconduct is stigma. Based

on the complaint dated 12.10.2010, order dated 13.10.2010

was issued by R1. As many as 20 persons have signed the

complaint. But not a single person has been examined.

Under the RTI Act reply has been given that joint

representation from Government servants have to be viewed

as subversive of discipline. Petitioner is not aware of any

action against the 20 persons who made joint complaint

which is false. Before the representation under Right to

Information Act, CMO(IC) of Cordite Factory Hospital

agreed to take the petitioner under the employment in letter

dated 14.01.2011. R1 has mentioned that petitioner was

Ward Sahayak. It is M. Thakur, CMO, Incharge of Cordite

Factory Hospital, alleged of sexual harassment, who

dismissed petitioner from service not once but twice.

Though she was offered employment w.e.f. 17.01.2011 after

ID was raised, she was made only to stand whole day and

informing not to come for work from 18.01.2011. It is strange

that Sivasankaran who agreed to provide employment before

the Conciliation Officer dated 16.05.2011 has stated in the

Counter that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. She had

also been given Casual Visitors Pass. Slowly R1 was

improving their documents mentioning the petitioner as

contract employee. Attendance and Wage Register would

depict her as direct employee. Register also establishes

petitioner to have had completed 480 days of continuous

service in a period of 24 calendar months under R1 and she

is deemed to have attained permanent status. In certain

other areas of contract work the contract is cancelled

sending out the Contractor and continuing the contract

employees directly supervising the work and paying the

salary. Action of R1 is arbitrary and illegal by utilizing

contract labourers on sanctioned strength in the estimated

strength. Petitioner is not regularized to defeat which

regularization R1 terminated her services. It is also to escape

from complaint of sexual harassment. At the most she can

be considered as Casual Labour under R1. Once the

termination is held illegal she is entitled to regularization.

Her last drawn pay was Rs. 206.80 per day paid monthly by

R1, who insisted her signature in the register said to have

been maintained by R2.

7. Points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the action of the Management of

M/s Alert Security Services, Coimbatore, a

Cordite Factory Hospital Management,

Aravankadu in terminating the services of Smt.

R. Arthi w.e.f. 13.10.2010 without following the

provision of Section-25-F Act is justified or

not?

(ii)

To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?

8. Evidence consists of the oral testimony of WW1

and Ex. W1 to Ex. W14 on the petitioner's side and on the

Management's side MW1 was examined and Ex. M1 to Ex.

M6 marked. Second Respondent after filing a counter

remained consistently absent thereafter and did not take

part in the further proceedings and is set ex-parte.

Points (i) & (ii)

9. Heard both sides. Perused the records,

documents, evidence and written arguments on behalf of

the First Respondent. Both sides keenly argued in terms of

their case in their respective pleadings with reference to

cited decisions. The conspicuous arguments on behalf of

the petitioner include that the petitioner is seen engaged

as a contract worker. She is seen to continue to be engaged

even though contractor changes successively. Her

engagement is to be understood as contract of service

under First Respondent and not contract for service

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3309

through the Second Respondent. Petitioner was working

as Ward Sahayaka. Out of 6 Ward Sahayaks as the

sanctioned strength for the post only 4 posts,were filled

up and two were outsourced. MW1 is seen to admit that

Ward Sahayak is a sanctioned post MW1-Witness for the

Management does not know whether the 2nd Respondent

has registered under the CLRA Act. When in the light of a

common purported complaint against the petitioner lodged,

a misconduct tends to be attributed against her. Ex. M2-

Common Complaint, in its nature and form is erratic as it is

and it is to be viewed with disfavor in a collective manner,

which is subversive of discipline. A direct employee cannot

be converted into a contract employee. Petitioner's

engagement is against sanctioned post. The nature of her

work is continuous. If the post is not a sanctioned one

there is no claim for the relief. Concept of backdoor entry is

out of the realm of public employment. Petitioner acquired

status of permanent employee by having worked more than

480 days within a period of 24 calendar months. The Second

Respondent, the so-called Contractor remained exparte after

filing counter admitting to be registered contractor. But he

has not produced license or certificate of registration as

required by the provisions after going through various

processes commencing with application for license in

prescribed form till the obtaining of the same. Correspondent

duties of the Principal employer and the Licensed

Contractor to maintain prescribed registers in relevant forms

are also highlighted. There is no evidence of any temporary

registration made or any temporary license obtained. There

is also provision for submission of annual return by

Principal Employer to Registering Officer who has duty to

maintain Register of registered contractors. The Tribunal

has the duty to lift the veil to come to know the nature of

the employment whether as direct or under the Contractor.

If it is not a genuine contract for employment and it is a

ruse and a camouflage. The allegation of sexual harassment

towards the petitioner has not been denied by the

Respondent. No enquiry has been held against the

petitioner though allegations of misconduct are discernible

against her. She was not charge sheeted either. There is

violation of Section-25F of the ID Act when she is actually

a casual employee under the First Respondent and while

by reason of her having admittedly worked continuously

for more than 480 days within a period of 24 calendar

months, she is also deemed to have attained permanent

status under the First Respondent. Her termination from

service in violation of Section-25F of ID Act is void abinitio.

She is entitled to be reinstated into service with all benefits.

10.Prominent arguments on behalf of the First

Respondent are that the dispute is between the petitioner

and the Contractor Employer, Second Respondent.

Petitioner is only contractor's employee. R1 has no role

over the engagement of petitioner as contract worker for

the work under the First Respondent or for her termination.

Due to misbehavior of the petitioner with the staff of Cordite

Factory Hospital (CFH), R1 only directed R2 to replace her

by deploying her in any other location. Section-25F of the

ID Act is applicable only to R2. As held by the Supreme

Court in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VS. UNION

OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (2006-12-SCC-233) the

employee taking definte stand as contract worker cannot

take contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was also

workman of the principal employer. The claim is devoid of

merits.

11.On a consideration of the rival contentions I am

led to the conclusion that the petitioner appointed against

a sanctioned post of Ward Sahayaka on contract basis

through the Second Respondent Contractor. It is borne

out by records and evidence that there have been some

unpleasant situations in relation to the petitioner with a

Medical Officer. Though there has emanated a common

complaint against the petitioner regarding the undesirability

of continuing her for the services in the hospital, such a

petition from its nature and content and having regard to

the signatories to them does not sound genuine and may

have been made use of as a cover to send out her from her

engagement as Ward Sahayaka. The crucial question is

whether she has been a contract employee under the Second

Respondent or a direct employee under the First

Respondent. In order to prove that she is under a valid

conrtact for service between the Second Respondent and

First Respondent there has not been any tangible evidence.

Admittedly, her debut to the service in the CF Hospital

under the Cordite Factory initially was not through the

Second Respondent who claims himself to be a registered

contractor which is only a plea without proof. It is pertinent

to note that pleading perse is not proof. The different legal

requirements and formalities for the creation and

continuance of service as a Contractor, do not stand proved

to have been complied with. Evidently she was given

various training by the Cordite Factory Management for

equipping herself to discharge the functions she is put on

with her by way of her engagement in the CF Hospital. It is

nobody' case that for her engagement through the previous

Contractors they had valid license or contract with the

First Respondent for the due engagement of contract

employee in a valid contract for service. While in the case

of previous contractors there is no case that they had

obtained valid license for the purpose, the case of the

Second Respondent is that he has obtained valid licenses

but that is not substantiated. Mere ipse dixit is not enough

to establish such a vital aspect. If the petitioner was a

contract employee it is not for the Management to impart

her training or other practices, coaching, which should

have been the duty and function of the Contractor himself

whose duty is only to provide supply of labour. As to the

nature of the contract of service also there is no evidence.

When with presence of some intermediary contractor she

gains her access, yet it may appear to be a contract

employment to her and accordingly she may hold out herself

3310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

to be so, then again there is nothing to divest her Status as

a direct employee while the contract is still a ruse and a

camouflage. The petitioner, therefore, is apt to be a direct

employee. When engagement of the petitioner supervenes

to be against sanctioned post of Ward Sahayaka, her

continuance as such for longer years, here more than 3

years, the situation relegates to the realm of unfair labour

practice being practiced upon her by the First Respondent

Management in continuing her as badlies. In such a context,

the decision in UMA Devi's case has no application. Back

door entry has no relevance in the areas of public

appointment. It is to be noted that she came in as Ward

Sahayak, a sanctioned post, in which, she, when continues

to be engaged there for more than 3 years, it is only apt to

draw the deeming provision of her having acquired

permanent status. When under a common complaint

discernibly she is being terminated from service it is

stigmatic and the same is not in compliance with Section-

25F of the ID Act. So much so, while there need not be any

hesitation to hold that she is apt to be a direct employee

under the First Respondent and found so in having

terminated her from service without compliance of Section-

25F of the ID Act, the same amounts to retrenchment which

is void abinitio. Therefore she is entitled to be reinstated

into service forthwith with continuity of service and all

attendant benefits including full back wages. Ordered

accordingly.

12.The reference is answered accordingly.

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Smt. R. Arthi

For the 2nd Party/

MW1, Sri N.N.

Management

Narendra

Documents Marked:

From the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

13.10.2010

Dismissal order of the

petitioner

Ex .W2

20.01.2009

Para Medical Staff Training

Certificate

Ex.W3

20.10 2010

Petitioner's Representation

Ex.W4

16.02.2008

First Aid Certificate approved

by Ministry of Health

Ex.W5

08.04.2011

Petitioner's Representation to

1st and 2nd Respondent and

ALC (C)

Ex.W6

18.01.2007

OFD letter pertaining out-

sourcing of deficit sanction

strength

Ex.W7

01.12.2007

Sanction and existing strength

of CFA

Ex.W8

01.12.2009

Sanction and existing strength

of CFA

Ex.W9

08.07.2008

Tender Notice pertaining to

filling up of Sanction Strength

(Ward Sahayaka)

Ex.W10

14.05.2011

Work Order (Ward Sahayaka)

Ex.W11

19.01.2011

Representation under RTI

Ex.W12

24.02.2011

Reply to the representation

under RTI by 1st Respondent

admitting their mistakes

Ex.W13

08.12.2010

ID Act-Conciliation proceeding

Notice by ALC©

Ex.W14

14.01.2011

Reinstatement of the order to

the petitioner by CFA

Management

Ex.W15

16.05.2011

Conciliation proceedings of

ALC (C) portraying agreement

by CFA Management for

reinstatement

Ex .W16 27.05.2011

Pass (Permission for work as

Ward Sahayaka) pertaining to

reinstatement endorsed by

CFA Management

Ex.W17

30.05.2011

Petitioner's representation for

Status Quo

Ex.W18

02.06.2011

Postal A/D endorsed by CFA

Management

Ex.W19

22.07.2011

Muster-Roll for the month of

May 2011 showing that

petitioner had worked on 27th

and 28th of May 2011 endorsed

by CFA ma

Ex. W20 22/07.2011

Wage-Roll for the month of

May 2011 showing that

petitioner had worked on 27th

and 28th of May 2011 endorsed

by CFA Management

Ex.W21

17.12.2010

Circular issued by CFA

Management pertaining to

Minimum Wage of Rs. 206,80

to the petitioner

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3311

Ex.W22

10.05.2010

Circular issued by CFA

Management pertaining to

Minimum Wage

Ex.W23

09.05.2008

Letter from DoPT regarding

regularization

Ex.W24

07.10 2009

Ordnance Factory Board's

letter pertaining Parliamentary

assurance

Contract

Labourers

Ex.W25

04.02.2010

Ordnance Factory Board's

letter pertaining Regularization

Ex.W26

06.04.2010

Ordnance Factory Board's

letter pertaining (Parliamentary

Committee) regarding Contract

Labourers

Ex.W27

30.08.2010

Ordnance Factory Board's

letter pertaining to the

continuity

Contract

Labourers

Ex.W28

04.08.2010

Letter

the

(CFA

Management) 1st Respondent

showing

the

actual

responsibility, welfare and

supervising of Contract

Labourers

Ex.W29

23.04.2012

Transfer Order of Dr. Thakur

CMO/CFH

Ex.W30

10.06.2011

Complaint against Dr. Thakur

CMO/CFH regarding sexual

harassments by petitioner with

evidence

Ex.W31

13.08.2011

Defence Minister's letter

regarding action against Dr.

Thakur CMO/CFA regarding

sexual harassments

Ex.W32

17.11.2011

Ministry of Defence s letter to

the petitioner regarding her

representation to the PM,

DARPAG (Public Grievance),

Ministry of Health

Ex.W33

16.11.2011

Ministry of Defence's/OFB Cell

letter retarding action against

sexual harassment

Ex.W34

28.09.2011

Ministry of Defence's OFB Cell

letter regarding action against

sexual harassment

Ex.W35

26.11 2011

Representation by petitioner to

Ministry of Defence/Defence

Secretary

Ex.36

—

A/D Endorsed by OFB & CF

Management

Ex.W37

29.01.2003

Ordnance Factory Board's

letter pertaining responsibility

of 1st Respondent regarding

Contract Labourers

Ex W38

11.08.2009

RTI

1st

Respondent regarding period

of service of the petitioner

Ex W39

12.01.2010

OFB Board's letter pertaining

responsibility

1st

Respondent

regarding

Contract Labourers

Ex.W40

—

Copy of Attendance (more than

24 calendar months) register

showing from 16.02.2008 to

09.09.2010 worked by petitioner,

maintained by 1st Respondent

(Total 32 months)

Ex.W41

—

Copy of day-wise attendance,

countersigned by the 1st

Respondent from 1st April 2010

to 9th October, 2010 (Totally 7

months) which also portrays

that the petitioner was under

the control of the 1st

Respondent

Ex.W42

—

Copy of Wage Roll of the

petitioner, endorsed by 1st

Respondent

Ex.W43

12.08.2009

Copy of EPF Receipt of the

petitioner endorsed by the 1st

Respondent

Ex.W44

13.07.2011

Dy.

Chief

Labour

Commissioner (C)'s letter

regarding regularization of the

petitioner

Ex.W45

17.06.2011

Ministry of Labour and

Employment's letter regarding

regularization of the petitioner

Ex.W46

28.05.2011

Representation by petitioner

regarding Permanency

Ex.W47

28.05.2011

Representation by petitioner

regarding permanency to the

1st Respondent

Ex.W48

04.06 2011

Postal A/D endorsed by the 1st

Respondent

From the Management side:

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

26.05.2010

Closing of Service Contract of

M/s. Arokiadas Simon

3312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ex. M2

12.10.2010

Request for replacement of the

petitioner by staff of C.F.

Hospital

Ex. M3

13.10.2010

Request for replacement by the

1st Respondent

Ex. M4

21.04.2011

Request for reinstatement into

service by the petitioner to the

2nd Respondent

Ex. M5

28.05.2011

Request to replace the

petitioner

the

1st

Respondent

Ex. M6

31.05.2011

2nd Respondent request to the

petitioner.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1302.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

Mhñ ,eñvkjñlhñ fyfeVsM 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&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

55@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@06@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2013

S.O. 1302.—In pursuance of Secion 2A(2) of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The General Manager, DMRC Ltd. which

was received by the Central Government on 10/06/2013

[No. L-42025/03/2013-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 55/13

Sh. Digvijay Narayan Singh

S/o Sh. Ramadhar Singh,

R/o E-562, Gali No. 9,

West Vinod Nagar,

Delhi-110092.

.....Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

DMRC Limited, Metro Bhawan,

13, Fire Brigade Lane,

Barakhamba Road,

Delhi-110001.

....Management

AWARD

A Station Controller/Train Operator joined Delhi

Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (in short the management) on

01.01.2010. He was confirmed in service on 01.04.2010. He

was placed under suspension on several occasions, viz.

23.11.2010, 24.05.2011, 26.10.2012, 03.11.2012, 03.11.2012 and

finally on 25.02.2013. He was served with charge sheets

dated 01.02.2011, 18.05.2011, 27.05.2011 and 31.10.2012. As

his replies were not found to be satisfactory, domestic

enquiries were constituted from time to time and

punishment of minor penalty of withholding of two

increments without cumulative effect, reduction to lowest

stage in the same time scale of pay were awarded vide

orders dated 05.07.2011, 01.07.2011, 25.06.2012. Finally he

was removed from service vide order dated 28.02.2013, by

the Disciplinary Authority. He raised an industrial dispute

under sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).

2. Arguments were heard at the bar. Sh.H.S.Solanki,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the workman on maintainability of the dispute. My

findings on issues involved in the controversy are as

follows:

3. As record projects, dispute under reference was

raised by the claimant, namely, Shri Digvijay Narain Singh

under sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act. Provisions

of section 2A of the Act contemplates that any dispute or

difference between the workman and his employer

connected with or arising out of discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an

industrial dispute, not withstanding that no other workman

nor any union of workman is party to the dispute.

Language, used in section 2A of the Act, very clearly states

that in order to make a dispute an industrial dispute, it must

be sponsored by a union or a considerable number of

workmen in the establishment of the management. However,

any dispute between a workman and his employer, which

is connected with or arising out of his discharge, dismissal

retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an

industrial dispute.

4. A long line of decisions, 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

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3313

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.

5. Industrial workman has got a very restricted right

to move an industrial court when his service conditions

have been changed to his prejudice during pendancy of an

industrial dispute or he has been dismissed or discharged

during such pendancy, under section 33-A of the Act. He

has a right to recover certain dues from his employer under

section 33(C)(2) of the Act. An individual workman who

had been thrown out of employment had to rely for redress

only through aegis of the union or his co-workers where

there was no union. Sometimes he found it hard to proceed

further or get the union to take up his cause. Besides,

there are industries where so far no union have been

formed. Workers are still, in certain industries, unorganised.

Enactment of section 2A of the Act was taken up by the

Parliament solely with a view to modify the law to raise

industrial disputes relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of the

workmen.

6. Classification between workmen unaided by union

or considerable number workmen and workman whose

cause is espoused by a union or considerable number of

workmen has been made by the legislature, when provisions

of section 2A were brought on the Statute Book. Thus, it is

evident that by way of extension of definition of industrial

dispute relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination of service of the workmen, Legislature provided

remedy to the workmen who is unaided by a union or

considerable number of workmen. Section 2A of the Act

does not destroy the concept of industrial dispute and

collective dispute and such concept still remains as a major

class and in all other provisions of the Act. Consequently,

it is evident that excepting the dispute relating to dispute

of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of services of a workman, a dispute is to be

espoused by the union or considerable number of workmen

to reach the status of an industrial dispute.

7. Even in cases of dispute between a workman and

his employer connected with or arising out of his discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or termination of his service, it has

to pass through the procedure provided in the Act. For

raising a dispute, an employee has to raise a demand on

the employer and thereafter he has to raise the dispute

before the Conciliation Officer, who had to enter in to the

conciliation proceedings. In case conciliation proceedings

fails, the Conciliation Officer submits his report to the

appropriate Government. On consideration of the report,

so submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

Government has to form an opinion that an industrial

disputes exists or is apprehended and refer that dispute to

an industrial adjudicator under sub-clause (c) or (d), as the

case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act.

Procedure, referred above, would take considerable time

and an employee had to wait for the decision of the

appropriate Government, making reference to an industrial

adjudicator for adjudication of the dispute. With a view to

do away with this hardship, Legislature, vide Amendment

Act No.24 of 2010, inserted sub-section (2) and (3) in

section 2A and re-numbered original section as sub-section

(1) in order to enable the workman to approach an industrial

adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute, without it being

referred by the appropriate Government. For sake of

convenience, provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of

section 2A of the Act are reproduced thus:

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section

10, any such workman as is specified in sub-

section (1) may make an application direct to

Labour Court or industrial Tribunal for

adjudication of the dispute referred to therein

after expiry of forty five days from the date he

has made the application to the Conciliation

Officer of the appropriate Government for

conciliation of the dispute and in receipt of such

application, the Labour Court or Tribunal shall

have powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon

the dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it

by the appropriate Government in accordance

with the provisions of this Act and all the

provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to

such adjudication as they apply in relation to

an industrial dispute referred to it by the

appropriate Government.

(3)

The application referred to in sub-section (2)

shall be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal

before the expiry of three years from the date of

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service as specified in sub-

section (1).”

8. Bare perusal of sub-section (3) of section 2A makes

it clear that an application for adjudication of an industrial

dispute, relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination of his service can be moved by an employee

before expiry of three years from the date of his discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service,

as the case may be.

9. Provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the

Act empowers a workman to move an application before

an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute,

after expiry of 45 days from the date he made such

application before the Conciliation Officer. On receipt of

such application, the industrial adjudicator shall have

3314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as if it

were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government,

in accordance with provisions of the Act. Thus, it is evident

that before moving an application before an Industrial

Adjudicator, the workman has to approach the Conciliation

Officer for conciliation of his dispute. In case no settlement

is arrived at or conciliation proceedings goes beyond a

period of 45 days from the date the workman had moved

the application to the Conciliation officer, he may approach

the Industrial Adjudicator for adjudicate of his dispute,

without being referred by the appropriate Government

under the provisions of the Act. Consequently, it is evident

that before approaching an Industrial Adjudicator, workman

whose services have been discharged, dismissed,

retrenched or terminated by his employer, shall have to

approach the Conciliation Officer and wait for expiry of a

period of 45 days, in case no settlement arrived between

them. Obligation to approach the Conciliation Officer and

allow him to enter into conciliation proceedings are

mandatory. It is also obligatory on the workman to wait for

a period of 45 days and only thereafter he can seek

indulgence of an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of

his dispute. In case he opts not to approach the

Conciliation Officer or fails to wait for a period of 45 days

from the date of moving his application, the Industrial

Adjudicator will acquire no jurisdiction to entertain the

dispute.

10.The claimant was removed from service on

28.02.2013, whicle he has filed the dispute before this

Tribunal on 28.03.2013. This fact makes it clear that the

claimant opted not approach the Conciliation Officer, after

termination of his service by the management, not to talk

of expiry of period of 45 days from the date he moved an

application before that forum. Thus, it is evident that the

Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to entertain the

dispute, for want of compliance of the provisions of sub-

section (2) of section 2A of the Act. Claimant filed his claim

statement before this Tribunal, in a hurry. The Tribunal

cannot invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute

under sub section (2) of section 2A of the Act.

11.Since the dispute has been raised at a premature

stage, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. Under

these circumstances, the Tribunal is constrained to brush

aside the claim statement made by Shri Digvijay Narain

Singh. Accordingly, his claim statement is dismissed, being

premature one. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent

to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 26.4.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 twu] 2013

dkñ vkñ

dkñ vkñ 1303.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,Mfeu dkeMsUV]

MqUMkgsjk] xqM+xkao 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 uañ&1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

51@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@06@2013

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2013&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼Mhñ;wñ½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2013

S.O. 1303.—In pursuance of Secion 2A (2) of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The Admn. Commandant, Dundahera,

Gurgaon, which was received by the Central Government

on 10/06/2013.

[F.No. L-42025/03/2013-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI.

I.D. No.51/2011

Shri Rakesh Sio Sh.Jaggu Lal,

Rio ViII: Chachera, P.O.Shirshi,

Distt. Moradabad, U.P. ........Workman

Versus

The Admn. Commandant,

Station Headquarter,

Dundahera, Gurgaon,

Haryana.

........Management

AWARD

Shri Rakesh joined services of Admn. Commandant

(in short the management) on 15-4-1998 as a workman for

carrying out house keeping job in the canteen, at a

consolidated salary of R~.2300.00 per month. His services

were abruptly dispensed with on 8-11-2007. A notice of

demand was served by him on the management on 2-01-

2008. An industrial dispute was raised by the claimant

before Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, New

Delhi, using right available to him under the provisions of

sub-section (2) of section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act), without being referred for

adjudication by the appropriate Government under sub-

section (1) of section 10 of the Act.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3315

2. Vide notification No. A-11016/3/2009-CLS-II, New

Delhi dated 3-4-2013. Additional charge of the post of the

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal

No. II, New Delhi, was assigned to the undersigned by the

appropriate Government and thus, this case reached this

Tribunal. for adjudication.

3. Arguments on maintainability of the dispute are

heard at the bar. None came forward on behalf of the

claimant to advance arguments. Shri Sanjiv Yadav,

authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the management. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follow :

4. As record projects, dispute under reference was

raised by the claimant, namely, Shri Rakesh under sub

section (2) of Section 2A of the Act. Provisions of section

2A of the Act contemplates that any dispute or once

between the workman and his employer connected with or

arising out of disch-arge, dismissal, retrenchchment or

termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute,

not withstanding that no other workman nor any union of

workman is party to the dispute. Language, used in section

2A of the Act, very clearly states that in order to make a

dispute an industrial dispute, it must be sponsored by a

union or a considerable number of workmen in the

establishment of the management. However, any dispute

between a workman and his employer, which is connected

with or arising out of his discharge, dismissal retrenchment

or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute.

5. The term “industrial dispute” has been defined

by sub’-section (k) of section 2 of the Act to mean “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”. The definition of

“industrial dispute” referred above, can be divided into

four parts, viz. (1) 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”.

6. The definition of “industrial dispute” is worded

in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the

meaning given to word “workman” it would seem 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.

Here in the case, the management does not dispute that

the claimant is workman within the meaning of clause(s)

of Section 2 of the Act.

7. A long line of decisions, handed down by the

Apex Court, had established that an individual dispute

could not per se be an industrial dispute, but could come

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 engratted in the Act

by the Amendment Act of 1965 and it has to be read as an

tension 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.

8. Industrial workman has got a very restricted right

to move an industrial court when his service conditions

have been changed to his prejudice during pendancy of

an industrial dispute or he has been dismissed or

discharged during such pendancy, under section 33-A of

the Act. He has a right to recover certain dues from his

employer under section 33(C)(2) of the Act. An individual

workman who had been thrown out of employment had to

rely for redress only through aegis of the union or his co-

workers where there was no union. Sometimes he found it

hard to proceed further or get the union to take up his

cause. Besides, there are industries where so far no union

have been formed. Workers are still, in certain industries,

unorganized. Enactment of section 2A of the Act was taken

up by the Parliament solely with a view to modify the law

to raise industrial disputes relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of the

workmen.

9. Classification between workmen unaided by union

or considerable number workmen and workman whose

cause is espoused by a union or considerable number of

workmen has been made by the legislature, when

provisions of section 2A were brought on the Statute Book.

Thus, it is evident that by way of extension of definition

of industrial dispute relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination of service of the workmen,

Legislature provided remedy to the workmen who is

unaided by a union or considerable number of workmen.

Section 2A of the Act does not destroy the concept of

industrial dispute and collective dispute and such concept

still remains as a major class and in all other provisions of

the Act. Consequently, it is evident that excepting the

dispute relating to dispute of dismissal, discharge,

3316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of a

workman, a dispute is to be espoused by the union or

considerable number of workmen to reach the status of an

industrial dispute.

10. Even in cases of dispute between a workman

and his employer connected with or arising out of his

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of his

service it has to pass through the procedure provided in

the Act. For raising a dispute, an employee has to raise a

demand on the employer and thereafter he has to raise the

dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who had to enter

in to the conciliation proceedings. In case conciliation

proceedings fails, the Conciliation Officer submits his

report to the appropriate Government. On consideration

of the report, so submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the

appropriate Government has to form an opinion that an

industrial disputes exists or is apprehended and refer that

dispute to an industrial adjudicator under sub-clause (c)

or (d), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 10

of the Act. Procedure, referred above, would take

considerable time and an employee had to wait for the

decision of the appropriate Government, making reference

to an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of the dispute.

With a view to do away with this hardship, Legislature,

vide Amendment Act No.24 of 2010, inserted sub-section

(2) and (3) in section 2A and re-numbered original section

as sub section (1) in order to enable the workman to

approach an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of his

dispute, without it being referred by the appropriate

Government. For sake of convenience, provisions of sub-

section (2) and (3) of section 2A of the Act are reproduced

thus:

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section

10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section

(1) may make an application direct to Labour Court

or industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute

referred to therein after expiry of forty five days from

the date he has made the application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government

for conciliation of the dispute and in receipt of such

application, the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have

powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the

dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the

appropriate Government in accordance with the

provisions of this Act and all provisions of this Act

shall apply in relation to such adjudication as they

apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred to

it by the appropriate Government.

(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall

be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the

expiry of three years from the date of discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of

service as specified in sub-section (1).”

11. Bare perusal of sub section (3) of section 2A

makes it clear that an application for adjudication of an

industrial dispute, relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or termination of his service can be moved

by an employee before expiry of three years from the date

of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of service, as the case may be.

12. Provisions of sub section (2) of section 2A of the

Act empowers a workman to move an application before

an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute,

after expiry of 45 days from the date he made such

application before the Conciliation Officer. On receipt of

such application, the industrial adjudicator shall have

powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as if it

were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate

Government, in accordance with provisions of the Act.

Thus, it is evident that before moving an application before

an Industrial Adjudicator, the workman has to approach

the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of his dispute. In

case no settlement is arrived, at or conciliation proceedings

goes beyond a period of 45 days from the date the workman

had moved the application to the Conciliation Officer, he

may approach the Industrial Adjudicator for adjudicate of

his dispute, without being referred by the appropriate

Government under the provisions of the Act.

Consequently, it is evident that before approaching an

Industrial Adjudicator, workman whose services have been

discharged, dismissed, retrenched or terminated by his

employer, shall have to approach the Conciliation Officer

and wait for expiry of a period of 45 days, in case no

settlement arrived between them. Obligation to approach

the Conciliation Officer and allow him to enter into

conciliation proceedings are mandatory. It is also obligatory

on the workman to wait for a period of 45 days and only

thereafter he can seek indulgence of an industrial

adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute. In case he opts

not to approach the Conciliation Officer or fails to wait for

a period of 45 days from the date of moving his application,

the Industrial Adjudicator will acquire no jurisdiction to

entertain the dispute.

13. As emerged out of the claim statement, services

of the claimant was terminated on 8-11-2007. He served

notice of demand dated 2-1-2008. Subsequently, he raised

a dispute before the conciliation officer for redressal of

his grievances. Claimant projects that the Conciliation

Officer entered into conciliation proceedings and

forwarded his failure report to the appropriate Government

on 30-4-2009.

14. Out of facts presented by the claimant, it emerged

over the record that his services were disengaged by the

management on 8-11-2007. Notice of demand was served

on the management on 2-1-2008. Consequently, it is clear

that the claimant projects a case of termination of his

services by the management on 8-11-2007. For approaching

this Tribunal, under provisions of sub-section (2) of section

2A of the Act, limitation of three years from the date of

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination

of service of an employee has been imposed by the

legislature. Thus, it is apparent that the claimant could

have approached this Tribunal under sub-section (2) of

section 2A of the Act till 7-11-2010 only. As is evident,

claim preferred is beyond the period of limitation. Under

these circumstances, this Tribunal cannot invoke its

jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute.

15. Since the dispute has been raised beyond the

period of limitation, the Tribunal cannot entertain it. Under

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3317

these circumstances, the Tribunal is constrained to brush

aside the claim statement, presented by the claimant.

Accordingly, his claim is dismissed, being barred by time.

An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 15-5-2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1304.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flUè

cSad ds izcaèr= ds lac) 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;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

24@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-06-2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&12012@57@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

S.O. 1304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, CHANDIGARH now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/57/2009-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk

17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flUè cSad 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@Je

U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&12012@58@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼chñ&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

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

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2009) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-II,

CHANDIGARH now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/58/2009-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk

17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flUè cSad ds izcaèr=

ds lac) 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;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&2012@59@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼chñ&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

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

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2009) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-II,

CHANDIGARH now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/59/2009-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk

17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flUè cSad 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@Je

U;k;ky;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&12012@60@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

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

publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2009) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-II,

CHANDIGARH now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

3318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

management of PUNJAB & SINDH BANK, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/60/2009-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk

17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flUè cSad ds izcaèr=

ds lac) 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;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&12012@61@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the

Award (Ref. No. ID No.18/2009) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-II, CHANDIGARH now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of PUNJAB &

SINDH BANK, and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 17.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/61/2009-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk

17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flUè cSad ds izcaèr=

ds lac) 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;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&12012@62@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the

Award (Ref. No. ID No. 21/2009) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-II, CHANDIGARH now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of PUNJAB &

SINDH BANK, and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 17.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/62/2009-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk

17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M flUè cSad ds izcaèr=

ds lac) 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;&II] paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2009½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&12012@63@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby publishes the

Award (Ref. No. ID No. 22/2009) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court-II, CHANDIGARH now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of PUNJAB &

SINDH BANK, and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 17.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/63/2009-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer.

Case No. ID No. 16/2009

Registered on 2.12.2009

Sh. Lal Chand S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Yadav DB-1365,

Near A.D. Public School, Dabwa Colony, NIT Faridabad.

Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab and

Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

Extension Counter, Prem Nagar, Karnal, Distt.

Haryana.

Respondents

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3319

ID No. 18/2009

Registered on 2.12.2009

Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. A.L. Sharma, 145-A, Dayal

Singh, Babyal Road, Ambala Cantt.

Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab and

Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

Lead Bank Cell, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

Respondents

ID No. 19/2009

Registered on 2.12.2009

Sh. Charanjit Singh, S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, H.No. 14,

Gol Market, Model Town, Panipat, Haryana

Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab and

Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

Sonepat Distt. Haryana.

Respondents

ID No. 20/2009

Registered on 2.12.2009

Sh. Shiv Kumar, S/o Sh. Agya Ram, C/o S.D. College,

Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab and

Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

Jalmana, Distt. Karnal, Haryana.

Respondents

ID No. 21/2009

Registered on 2.12.2009

Sh. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Gurdial, D-17, Narian

Singh Park, Panipat.

Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab and

Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

Extension Counter, Panipat.

Respondents

ID No. 22/2009

Registered on 2.12.2009

Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Tilak Raj, Street No. 6, Begu

Road, Grewal Basti Sirsa, Haryana.

Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab and

Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

Sirsa Distt. (Haryana).

Respondents

ID No. 24/2009

Registered on 2.12.2009

Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Didar Singh, Village Barnala,

PO. Dhankaar, Distt. Ambala, Haryana.

Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Punjab and

Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

The Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

Jalmana, Haryana.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

—

Sh. Vikram Bajaj Adv.

For the Management

—

Sh. J.S. Sathi Adv.

AWARD

Passed on Feb. 13, 2013

Central Government vide Order No. L-12012/59/2009

(IR(B-II)), L-12012/61/2009 (IR(B-II)), 12012/60/2009 (IR(B-

II)), 12012/58/2009 (IR(B-II)), 12012/62/2009 (IR(B-II)), 12012/

63/2009 (IR(B-II)), 12012/57/2009 (IR(B-II)), all dated

9.11.2009 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following

industrial disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.

3320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

ID No. 16/2009

Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh in terminating

the serivce of Sh. Lal Chand and temporary Peon was in

violation of Section 25F of the ID Act,? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?

ID No. 18/2009

Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh in terminating

the service of Sh. Sunil Kumar a temporary Peon was in

violation of Section 25F of the ID Act? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?

ID No. 19/2009

Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh in terminating

the service of Sh. Charanjit Singh a temporary Peon was in

violation of Section 25F of the ID Act? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?

ID No. 20/2009

Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh in terminating

the service of Sh. Shiv Kumar a temporary Peon was in

violation of Section 25F of the ID Act? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?

ID No. 21/2009

Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh in terminating

the service of Sh. Ramesh Kumar a temporary Peon was in

violation of Section 25F of the ID Act? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?

ID No. 22/2009

Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh in terminating

the service of Sh. Vijay Kumar a temporary Peon was in

violation of Section 25F of the ID Act? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?

ID No. 24/2009

Whether the action of the Zonal Manager, Punjab

and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Chandigarh in terminating

the service of Sh. Balbir Singh a temporary Peon was in

violation of Section 25F of the ID Act? If so, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?

In all the above Industrial disputes common

questions of law and facts are involved hence, they are

being decided by this common award.

According to the claimants they had been appointed

by the respondent-Bank as Peons at various branches.

Claimants Lal Chand of ID No. 16/2009 and Shiv Kumar of

ID No. 20/2009 from 1993, Vijay Kumar of ID No. 22/2009

from 1985, Balbir Singh of ID No. 24/2004 from 1993 and

others Sunil Kumar, Charanjit Singh and Ramesh Kumar of

ID No. 18/2009, 19/2009 and 21/2009 respectively alleges to

be in the continuous employment of the bank from 1998.

During the pendency of certain reference proceedings befor

the Hon'ble CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh a

settlement was arrived at between the management of

Punjab and Sind Bank (in short management) and their

workmen as represented by the All India Punjab and Sind

Bank Staff Organization (in short staff organization) on

16.10.1992. This settlement was subsequently modified and

another settlement dated 13.8.1994. was signed between

the 'management' and the 'staff organization'. On the basis

of these settlements the bank instead of giving regular

appointments to the claimants prepared a panel/list of

temporary peons at Zonal Office level and directed the

branches to engage the services of temporary peons from

the said list. However even before the settlement dated

13.8.1994 some of the claimants had been given appointment

as temporary peons though they were already continuing

as Peon in their respective branches. The claimants worked

continuously as Peon in their respondent-bank with effect

from their date of engagement till their termination in 2002

when they were told by the concerned Branch Manager

that their services were not required. It has been alleged by

the claimants that the post from which they were relieved

in 2002 were permanent posts in the Man Power Planning

Returns of the concerned branch and they were relieved

by the concerned Branch Manager at the instance of Zonal

Manager, Zonal Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh in an

arbitrary manner and in violation of the settlements referred

above. They were not paid any retrenchment compensation

and were not issued any notice, though they had

continuously worked for more than 240 days in the

preceding calendar months as on the date of their relieving

. The claimants thus have alleged the violation of Section

25F of the Act. They have prayed for reinstatement with of

service and back wages.

The claim was contested by the management.

According to the management the claimants had been

engaged intermittently to meet the exigencies without

following the established procedure for making public

appointment. They had been engaged from time to time on

the fixed tenure of 60 days subject to the condition that

their serivces would be of temporary nature and they could

be relieved within the stipulated period without assigning

any reason. After having been relieved from service on

expiry ofthe stipulated period they were engaged afreash

upon their request and some break spanned more than six

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3321

months even. The action of the management does not

amount to retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo) (bb) of

the Act. It was denied that the workmen continued against

permanent vacancy and they had worked continuously

during their engagement. In ID No. 22/2009 regarding Vijay

Kumar it was also pleaded that service at different branches

cannot be clubbed together. It was further pleaded that

practice of making temporary engagement without following

procedure had been severely deprecated hence, it was

decided by the bank to dispense with the services of all the

temporary peons and resultantly services of the temporary

peons/casual workers engaged in all the zones of the bank

were terminated. According to the management the

claimants are not entitled to any relief.

The claimants filed rejoinders to state that they had

been appointed against permanent vacancy and they

continued in service with intermittent arbitrary breaks

introduced by way of unfair labour practice. The provisions

of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act are not attracted to their

case.

In each ID the concerned workman examined himself

and also a retired officer of the bank-Iqbal Singh as his

witness while on behalf of the management B.S. Bhatia

was examined in each case.

As per affidavit of workmen-witness Iqbal Singh the

posts against which workmen had been employed on

temporary basis were permanent posts but the appointment

has been shown as temporary and persons shown to be

employed on temporary basis by showing notional breaks

were being continued by the bank for years together in its

service and those permanent posts were so shown in the

Man Power Planning Returns of the concerned branches.

However their serivces were subsequently terminated to

pre-empt their regularization. In cross-examination he

however, stated that the workmen used to be employed

against temporary post.

Management-witness B.S. Bhatia during cross-

examination stated that the workmen had not been recruited

as per procedure and were in the employment intermittently

and for a specified period varying from 30, 60 and 90 days.

In reply to a question he answered that the record relating

to the attendance and payment of wages to the workmen is

maintained in the branch office. He admitted that a panel of

the temporary peons had been prepared and the names of

the workmen were in the panel. He was unable to say

whether the workmen completed 240 days of service in a

year or not. As per his statement Man Power Planning

Returns of the branch office relating to the period of the

employment of the claimants is not required to be maintained

at the branch office hence, it is not available in the branch

and Zonal Office. In view of this statement of the

management-witness the claimant moved an application

on 18.4.2011 for a direction to management to produce

Branch Manager along with certain records inter alia the

record pertaining to the number of days for which the

workmen were engaged by the branch. Despite the

sufficient time given to the management the management

neither filed any reply to the application nor produced the

documents. Vide order dated 31.10.2011 the application of

the claimant was allowed and the management was directed

to produce the record mentioned in the application on the

next date but the management did not comply the order

and did not produce the record.

I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants

and perused the case law cited by the learned counsel for

the parties. I also went through the evidence on record.

It is important to note that the reference is about the

violation of Section 25F of the Act in termination of the

service of the claimants. Claimants are claiming their

reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.

They are not demanding regularization.

The learned counsel for the claimants argued that

the claimants have been in the employment of the

management since long. They are in the panel of temporary

peons but in 2002 they were relieved on various dates and

though they had worked for more than 240 days in 12

calendar months preceding the date of their termination,

yet provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not complied

with the management did not produce the relevant record

despite the order of the Tribunal hence, adverse inference

should be drawn against the management.

The management did not deny the employment of

the claimants but its plea is that they had been engaged

intermittently to meet the exignecies without following the

established procedure for making public appointment. They

had been engaged on a fixed tenure of 60 days or 90 days

subject to the condition that their services would be of

temporary nature and they could be relieved within the

stipulated period without assigning any reasons and after

having been relieved from service on expiry of the stipulated

period they were engaged afresh upon their request. The

action of the management does not amount to

retrenchement and comes within the exception provided in

Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act.

The first question is whether termination of the

services of the claimants is covered by Section 2 (oo) (bb)

of the Act. Some of the claimants have filed their

appointment letters. In ID No. 18 of 2009, Annexure W1 to

W3 of the claim statement, in ID No. 20 of 2009 Annexure

W4 and W5 of the claim statement and in ID No. 24/2009

Annexure W3 of the claim statement are the appointment

letters of claimant Sunil Kumar, Shiv Kumar and Balbir Singh

respectively.

3322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

The appointment letter shows that these claimants

had been engaged for 30 or 60 dyas at a time; but the

practice of the management becomes clear from the

evidence of workmen-witness Iqbal Singh and also from

the some of the documents available on the record of some

IDs. Workmen-witness Iqbal Singh is a retired officer in

Junior Management Scale I of the Bank. He served the

management for about 36 years. He has deposed in his

affidavit that claimants have been shown to have been

employed on temporary basis by showing notional breaks

and they continued for years together in service. Annexure

W6 of the claim statement in ID No. 16/2009 and Annexure

W7 and W8 of the claim statement in ID No. 21/2009

corroborate the statement of Iqbal Singh. These are the

letters from the Zonal Office Haryana of Punjab and Sind

Bank to the concerned Branch Manager. In these letters

the concerned Branch Managers have been advised to re-

engage the service of the concerned claimant for another

60 days after completion of 60 days service and after giving

break of two working days. It is also mentioned in the

letters that the Branch Manager may continue this process

in future also. It is thus clear from the evidence on record

that the break in the service of the workman was of artificial

nature. As was observed by a Division Bench of Allahabad

High Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla Vs. Vice-Chancellor

Allahabad University 1987 LAB. IC 1607 sub-clause (bb) is

in the nature of the exception to Section 2 (oo) and has to

be construed strictly and in favour of the workmen, as the

entire object of the Act is to secure a just and fair deal to

them. The nature of employment must be judged by the

nature of duties performed by the workman and not on the

basis of the letter issued by the employer. Section 2(oo)

(bb) cannot be extended to cases where the job continues

and the employee's work is also satisfactory, but periodical

renewals are made to avoid regular status to the workman,

as it would be an unfair labour practice.' It was also observed

that if contractual employment is resorted to as a mechanism

to frustrate the claim of the employee to become regular or

permanent against the job which continues or the nature

of duties is such that the colour of a contractual agreement

is given to take it out from Section 2(oo) (bb) then such

agreement cannot be regarded as fair or bona fide.

Similarly the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court

in Balbir Singh Vs. Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank

Limited (1990) 1 LLJ 443 pointed out that Clause (bb) of

Section 2 being in the nature of an exception cannot be

given a meaning which will nullify or curtail the ambit of

the principal clause, because it is not intended to be an

outlet for unscrupulous employers to shunt out workmen

in the garb of non-renewal of their contracts, even if the

work subsist.

Regarding Vijay Kumar of ID No. 22/2009 the

management has taken a plea that service in different

branches cannot be clubbed together for ascertaining the

length of service. It is important to note that the claimant

Vijay Kumar has alleged in his claim statement that he was

in the employment of the bank since 1985 and he had been

appointed at Sirsa and was terminated also from that branch.

The manangement plea is not specific. It has not been

specifically pleaded that the workman Vijay Kumar had

worked at different branches and what were those branches.

Hence the management plea being vague cannot be

accepted that the concerned workman Vijay Kumar remained

employed at different branches during his period of

employment. It is important to note that in his statement

during cross-examination the workman has alleged his

employment in January 1996.

The claimants have been employed as temporary

peons. The nature of duties of a peon is of continuous

nature. The letters Annexure W6 of the claim statement of

ID No. 16/2009, Annexure W1 to W3 and W8 in ID No. 18/

2009, Annexure W4 and W5 in ID No. 20/2009 Annexure

W7 and W8 in ID No. 21/2009 and Annexure W3 in ID No.

24/2009 shows that related claimant Lal Chand from 1998,

Sunil Kumar from 1989, Shiv Kumar from 1993, Ramesh

Kumar from 1998 and Balbir Singh from 1993 were in the

employment of bank. The length of service of the claimants

shows that their job was of continuous nature and was not

seasonal or casual. Hence the management's plea that it

was a contractual employment cannot be accepted.

Obviously the termination of the services of ther claimants

in 2002 is retrenchment and is not covered by Clause (bb)

of Section 2 (oo) of the Act.

Undisputedly the services of the claimants were

terminated without notice, notice pay or retrenchment

compensation as provided in Section 25F of the Act.

Management's plea that the termination was not

retrenchment has already been repealed above. The

question therefore comes for consideration whether the

claimants are entitled to the protection of Section 25F of

the Act. They are entitled to the protection of the said

provision if they have been in continuous service for not

less than one year. As per definition clause contained in

Section 25B of the Act a workman shall be deemed to be in

continuous service for a period of one year if he during a

period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his

termination has worked for not less than 240 days. Though

claimants in the present cases have claimed their

continuous employment from the date of engagement till

the termination of their services, but they have specifically

pleaded also that they had continuously worked for more

than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding their

termination. Their working for 240 days in the preceding 12

calendar months has not been specifically denied by the

management in its written statement. In this regard it is

also important that through an application dated 18.4.2011

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3323

the workmen had summoned inter alia the record pertaining

to the numbers of days for which the claimants were

engaged by the concerned branch. As stated above the

application was allowed on 31.10.2011 but the management

did not produce the record. The inevitable interference is

that if the record had been produced by the management it

would have supported the claimants' case. Under the

circumstances it cannot be denied that the claimants have

been in continuous services for not less than one year

before their retrenchement hence, they were entitled to the

protection of Section 25F of the Act.

It is now well settled that the termination of the

service in violation of Section 25F of the Act is void ab

initio and non-est.

The claimants therefore are entitled to reinstatement

with continuity of service but I do not find them entitled to

back wages. I have gone through the case law cited by the

counsel for the claimants regarding the back wages.

The learned counsel has cited—

1. 2012 (2) SCT 263

2. 2012 LAB. IC 860

3. JT 2002 (2) SC 587

4. 2005 (4) SCT 390

But the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Manager

Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh 2005 III LLJ 4 has

held "There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination

of services was in violation of Section 25F of the Act, entire

back wages should be awarded. A host of factors like the

manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e.

whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or

inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature

of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily

wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special

qualification required for the job, and the like should be

weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award

of back wages. One of the important factors, which has to

be taken into consideration is the length of service, which

the workman had rendered with the empoloyer. If the

workman has rendered a considerable period of service

and his services are wrongfully terminated he may be

awarded full or partial back wages keeping the view the

fact that at his age and the qualification possessed by him

he may not be in a position to get another employment.

However, where the total length of service rendered by a

workman is very small, the award of back wages for the

complete priod, i.e. from the date of termination till the date

of the award, which our experience shows is often quite

large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another important

factor, which requires to be taken into consideration, is the

nature of employment. A regular service of permanent

character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily

wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a

calendar year."

In the case in hand there is no evidence to show that

the claimants had been appointed after proper

advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from

the Employment Exchange. Though it is true that their names

find place in the panel of temporary peons and some of

them have filed their appointment letter also but that cannot

be accepted as proof of appointment of the claimants in

due process for recruitment. It is clear from the record that

their appointment was temporary.

From the cross-examination of claimants it appears

that Lal Chand of ID NO. 16/2009 has been earning his

livelihood by selling vegetables and has been earning Rs.

2500 to 3000 per month, Sunil Kumar of ID No. 18/2009 by

serving at a shop is earning Rs. 3600 per month, Charanjit

Singh of ID No. 19/2009 by doing the job of night watchman

has been earning Rs. 2000 to 3000 per month, Shiv Kumar

of ID No. 20/2009 working as salesman has been earning

Rs. 2800 to 3000, Ramesh Kumar of ID No. 21/2009 by

running a tea stall has been earning Rs. 4000 to 5000 per

month, Vijay Kumar of ID No. 22/2009 has been supplying

bread and earning Rs. 3500 to 40000 per month and Balbir

Singh of ID No. 24/2009 is getting Rs. 3000 to 3500 per

month by serving as chowkidar. The appointment letters

Annexure W1 to W3 available on the record of ID No .18/

2009, Annexure W4 and W5 on the record of ID No. 20/

2009 and Annexure W3 of ID No. 24/2009 shows that the

workman had been employed at a salary of Rs. 815 per

month plus DA. Clearly the claimants were gainfully

employed after their disengagement. Under the

circumstances I do not find them entitled to back wages.

On the basis of the above going discussion the

references are decided in favour of the claimants. The

management is directed to take the claimants on duty within

one month from the date of publication of award. Let two

copies of the award be sent to the Central Government and

one copy each to District Judge Chandigarh, Karnal

(Haryana), Ambala Cantt. (Haryana), Sonepat (Haryana),

Panipat (Haryana), Sirsa (Haryana) and Jalmana (Haryana)

for information and further necessary action. One copy

each of the award be placed on the record of ID No. 16/

2009, 18/2009. 19/2009, 20/2009, 21/2009, 22/2009 and 24/

2009.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ

dkñvkñ 1305.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uo eaxywj iÙku

U;kl ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

3324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] caxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñvkjñ

12@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15@06@2013

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[lañ ,y&45011@01@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

S.O. 1305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CR 12/2005) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of New Mangalore Port Trust, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 15.06.2013.

[No. L-45011/01/2004-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Date: 4th June 2013

PRESENT : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

C R NO. 12/2005

I Party

The Gen. Secy., NMP Staff Assn., Nr. NMPT Admn.

Bldg. Panambur, Mangalore-10.

The Gen. Secy., NMPDWU, Market Bldg, Panambur,

Mangalore-10.

The Gen. Secy., KDGWU, Opp. AO Bldg., Panambur,

Mangalore-10.

Party II

The Chairman, New Mangalore Port Trust,

Panambur, Mangalore-575 010

APPEARANCES :

I Party

Shri D R V Bhat/Muralidhara

Advocate

II Party

Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-45011/1/

2004-IR(B-II) dated 17.01.2005 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur, Mangalore in

denying overtime allowance at double the rate to

Class III and IV employees, drawing above Rs. 5,500

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workmen

are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in

CR 12/2005 when the notices were issued to both the sides

the I Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as II Party entered their

appearance through their respective advocates and I Party

Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed Claim Statements on 04.07.2005 and

29.07.2005 and II Party filed their Counter Statement on

28.11.2005 respectively.

3. In the claim statements filed by the I Party Nos. 1,

2 and 3 which are almost similar, it is claimed the

New Mangalore Port Trust is a Major Port constituted under

the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and the relevant rules there

under which was originally run by the Government of India,

Department of Surface Transport and that it has got two

categories of employees i.e., employees working on

Administrative Side and the Employees working in Port

and Dock side and as the II Party denied the Over Time

Allowance at double the hourly rate to Administrative and

Port Employees drawing basic pay of Rs.5,550 and above,

whereas the Dock Workers irrespective of their basic pay

getting their Over Time Allowance at double the hourly

rate and as this Over Time Allowance at double the hourly

rate being arbitrarily denied to the workers at Port and

Administrative side drawing basic of Rs.5,550 and above

per month this is clear case of discrimination brought about

by the management in between its employees. It is further

claimed the payment of Over Time Allowance has a

reference in the wage revision committee recommendations

in Port and Dock workers at the Major Ports in January

1977 irrespective of their nature of work under clause 8.39

of the settlement and that subsequently the settlement

was entered into between the II Party Management and

five major federations and also the I Party Union and various

claims of the workmen under various heads before the Chief

Labour Commissioner (C), New Delhi in respect of Industrial

Dispute raised by the five federations in respect of an

Industrial Dispute raised by the five federations operating

in Major Ports and Dock Labour Boards such as Bombay,

Calcutta, Madras, Vishakapatnam, Cochin, Mormu Goa,

Kandla, Paradip, Tuticorin, New Mangalore and

Jawaharlal Nehru Port over payment of wages, revision

of wages and other allowances and as per Para 27 of the

said settlement it is evident that 24 points have been

sanctioned in Annexure-I and that some of them have

been covered by the way of the said settlement and

others which have not been covered under the National

Level and Local level will be discussed at the concerned

level in the event of non settlement, the concerned

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3325

issue will be referred for adjudication as acceptable to the

parties. Therefore, the claim of the I Party workmen to

enhance the payment of Over Time Allowance to the Port

and Administrative side drawing the basic pay of Rs. 5550

and above to double the hourly rate from single hourly rate

to bring parity and equality in between the employees

working in Port and Administrative side irrespective of the

pay drawn by them is legitimate and genuine. It is also

claimed since there was no parity in payment of double

Overtime allowance between the employees drawing the

basic pay below Rs. 5550 p.m. and above Rs. 5550 p.m., the

Union straightaway entered into a dialogue with the

management to settle the said difference and disparity in

payment of over time allowance and categorising them into

two categories based on the Basic Pay of the Employees

and as the management illegally refused to concede to the

local legal demand from the workmen they had no other

option but to resort to use them weapon of go slow and

stopping the production activities, which affected the

functioning of the Port, the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(C), Hubli at the instance of the management intervened

and after several rounds of talk and detailed discussions

resolved that "In the event if the Overtime benefit at double

the hourly rate is paid to the employee working in other

ports specifically in the nearby Mormugao Port the II party

management agreed to extend similar benefits to its

employees also" and with this proposal the management

and union representatives agreed to resolve the main

demand raised by the four trade unions on payment of

Overtime allowance at double the hourly rates as is being

paid to Class III and IV employees of the Mormugoa port

and it was also agreed that a team comprising of one

representative of all the four unions each with Deputy

Conservator, One Finance Officer and Law Officer shall go

to the Mormugao Port and shall ascertain the position

regarding the payment of overtime allowance and the terms

and conditions including the manning pattern under which

this is paid and accordingly a team of representatives

consisting of three union representatives as well as

management and other representatives i.e. Deputy

Conservator, Accounts Officer and Assistant Law Officer

went to Mormugao Port on 15.11.1999 and on inspection

and vertification found that an order was passed on

04.08.1967 by virtue of which the overtime allowance was

being paid at double the hourly rate based on the basic

pay plus other allowances including the HRA for the work

done in excess of 9 hrs. a day or 48 hrs. a week irrespective

of the scale of pay or basic wages and the team collecting

the said order returned and the union insisted the II Party

to implement the similar payment pattern of overtime

allowance but surpringly the management did not

implement the similar payment pattern of Overtime

Allowance and thereby illegally denied the legal claim. It is

further claimed subsequently once again a wage settlement

was entered into between the II Party management and

five federations on 02.08.2000 effective from 01.01.1997

provisionally and infact effectively from 01.01.1998 and as

per Clause 19 of the said settlement if any employee is

asked by the management to work beyond the prescribed

hours, Overtime Allowance will be paid as per the relevant

laws governing the payment of this allowance and full

payment will not be denied but inspite of it the management

did not bother to pay the Overtime Allowance at full rate to

the Dock, Port and Administrative employees drawing basic

pay of Rs. 5550 and above and being aggrieved by the

same Unions served a strike notice on the management on

06.05.2003 with several other demands and in that regard

though the demands were discussed before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (C), Bangalore the issue of Overtime

allowance was sidelined by the management under the

guise that the provisions of Minimum Wages Act are not

applicable to it and the workmen are not entitled for

Overtime Allowance at double the hoursly rate, as such

the I Party Union constrained to raise an Industrial Dispute

in this regard before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(C), Managalore and as he submitted failure report it resulted

in this reference by the Central Government for adjudication.

It is further claimed that there is no reason for the II Party

management to deny the Overtime Allowance to its

employees whose Basic Pay is Rs. 5550 and above and it is

clear case of discrimination and they are entitle for double

the hourly wage.

4. The II Party in its Counter Statement opposed this

claim contending that the persons working as Registered

Cargo Handling Workers are being governed by the

provisions for New Mangalore Port Cargo Handling workers

(Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1990 and the

settlement concluded by the workers union and the

management regarding their service conditions from time

to time they are not coming under the schedule of the

employees of the board prepared every year under Section

23 of Major Port Trust Act, 1963 as such the rules relating

tot he scheduled of employees of the port are not

applicable to the Cargo Handling Workers working under

the scheme as such there is no discrimination. It is also

contended Clause 8.39 referred by the I Party Union is

pertaining to the Wage Revision Committee's

recommendation of 1977 and not of the settlement referred

by the union same is not applicable and their claim to

enhance the overtime allowance from single to double the

hourly rate is not teneable under the relevant rules. It is

also contended the I Party Union is represented by the All

India Port and Dock Workers' Federation which is a

signatory to the settlement dated 06.12.1994 on Wage

Revision of Port and Dock Workers' of India wherein

Annexure-IV, Item No. 7 deals with the demand for payment

of Overtime Allowance at double the ordinary rate wages

without any ceiling limit is shown as unsettled and named

as local and if the issues are not settled at local level

discussion such issues may be referred for arbitration or

adjudication as acceptable to the parties and this issue

3326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

was being discucssed with the workers union and the

existing rate of overtime allowance was found to be correct

and in accordance with the terms of earlier settlement as

such the said issue was not referred to arbitration of

adjudication by them. It is futher contended the Assistance

Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli had intervened to resolve

certain Industrial Disputes i.e. stoppage of work by section

of marine staff of the port for introducing changes in

manning scales for operations of tugs, launches and

engagement of private parties by MPRL to provide mooring

services for berthing oil tankers at virtual Jetty and

consequential suspension of erring employees as such it

has nothing to do with the demand of overtime allowance

at double the hourly rate though this item was added later

at the time of concillation and the I Party Union has

conveniently quoted only a portion of the settlement and

that too by changing its contents suiting its requirements,

whereas, Clause 4 of the settlement dated 04.11.1999 referred

to by the the I Party Union reads as follows "Both

management and union representatives agree to resolve

the main demand by the four unions i.e. Payment of overtime

allowance at double rate as is being paid to the Class III

and IV of the Mormugao Port. A team comprising

representatives of all the four unions with Deputy

Conservator, One Accounts Officer and Law Officer will go

to Goa and ascertain the terms and conditions including

manning pattern under which way this is paid and thereafter

this issue will be discussed and settled expeditiously" and

accordingly a team visited Mormugao Port Trust but there

was no agreement to pay overtime allowance at double the

hoursly rate if such payment is existing in Mormugao Port

Trust. It is further contended the contention of the I Party

workman that according to Clause 19 of the settlement

dated 02.08.2000 the workmen irrespective of the basic pay

are entitle to get the overtime allowance at double the hourly

rate as is being paid to Dock, Port and Administrative

employees working at various other ports are totally

incorrect but it provide for payment of Overtime Allowance

to employees who are asked to work beyond the prescribed

working hours as per the prevalling laws governing the

payment of said allowance and full payment would not

denied i.e., overtime allowance payment shall be regulated

in accordance with the relevant laws governing the payment

of said allowance and it shall be paid in full and that its

payment of Overtime Allowance to its employees is in

accordance with the Clause 19 of wage settlement dated

02.11.2000 both in letter and spirit and it do not amount to

discrimination and they are not entitle for double the hourly

rate as claimed.

5. After completion of the pleading when the II Party

was called upon to adduce evidence to justify its action in

denying overtime allowance at double the hoursly rate to

Class III and IV employees drawing wages above

Rs. 5550 the learned advocate appearing for the II Party

examined Jeevan Prakash, Assistant Law Officer as MW

1and got exhibited extract of clause 5 from its schedule of

employees as on 01.04.2004 and reply received by Chairman,

NMPT, Mangalore from the Managing Director, Indian Ports

Association dated 06.05.2004 as Ex M-1 and Ex M-2. Inter

alia, the learned advocate appearing for I Party No. 1 while

filling the affidavit of Subash Katil, General Secretary,

New Mangalore Port Staff Association examining him in

oath as WW 1 got exhibited Ex W-3 to Ex W-21 the detailed

description of which are narrated in the annexure and he

had also got exhibited Ex W-1 and Ex W-2 the detailed

description of which are narrated in the annexure in the

cross-examination of MW 1, whereas, the learned counsel

appearing for 1 Party No. 2 and 3 while filling the affidavit

to Vinay Prasad Ahsirwad, General Secretary, New Mangalore

Port and Dock Workers Union examining him on oath as

WW 2 got exhibited Photostat copies of two settlment

dated 06.12.1994 and 02.08.2000 as Ex W-22 series.

6. With the above pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence brought on record by both the sides, the

arguments addressed by learned advocates were heard.

7. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by the parties in

the light of the arguments addressed by the learned

advocates. I have arrived at conclusion the action of the

management of New Managlore Port Trust, Panambur,

Managalore in denying overtime allowance at double the

rate of Class III and IV Employees, drawing salary above

Rs. 5,500 is not legal and justified and they are entitled to

Overtime Allowance at double the rate for the following

reasons:

REASONS

8. The learned advocate appearing for the II Party in

his arguments addressed that New Managalore Port Trust

being a autonomous body/board constituted under the

Major Port Trust, 1963 allowances are paid as per Para No.

5 (a) (ii) of the schedule of employees extract of which is

produced at Ex. M-1, as such they cannot claim overtime

allowance par with Cargo Handling workers as such their

claim is not legal and justified. He also urged that these

two unions raising the dispute were being not parties to

the settlement such demand/reference and as they also

failed to produce any evidence their union being majority

union to represent in settlement they have no locus standi

to raise such dispute. Inter alia, it is argued be the learned

advocate apearing for I Party No. 1 that as per Para 27 of

memorandum of settlement dated 06.12.1994 copy of which

is produced at Ex. W-22 the points are not covered under

the said settlement they have to be settled at the local

levels and in the event of same could not be resoved such

issues can be referred for adjudication, or arbitration as

acceptable to the parties this dispute raised by the aggrieved

at the local level and consequent to its failure the reference

by the competent government is just and proper and this

has to be adjudicated by this tribunal. Since in the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3327

memorandum of settlement dated 06.12.1994 the copy of

which is produced at Ex. W-22 under clause 27 as urged by

learned advocate appearing for I Party No. 1 the points not

covered in the settlement the details of which are mentioned

in the Annexure-IV to the settlement are required to be

settled locally and in the event they could not be settled

amicably they have to be referred for adjudication or

arbitration as acceptable to this parties, the workmen

aggrieved in respect of the over time allowance were entitle

to raise the issue locally and on its refusal to settlement,

they have every right to get it adjudicated by way of

reference from the competent government as such only

becuase in the schedule of employees the management

restricted the Overtime Allowance to single hourly rate to

employees drawing basic pay of Rs. 5550 and above it

cannot be said that this is not a subject matter to be

adjudicated in a legally made reference by the competent

government. Absoloutely no reasons are coming forth

either in the settlment itself or in the claim statement or

evidence adduced by the management through MW 1 for

making such a difference/discrimination between the

employees drawing basic pay below and above Rs. 5550.

Absoloutely no evidence is adduced this difference/

discrimination is made subject to a settlement arrived at

between the management and the union. Though MW 1

denied the suggestion Ex M-1 schedule of employees is

not based upon any settlement between the management

and the union he having failed to produce any settlement

in that regard it is not possible to accept that the terms and

conditions under Ex M-1 being the result of settlement

between the managment and the union. Since as per Para

19 of the memorandum of settlement dated 02.08.2000

relating to overtime allowance if any employee is asked by

the management to work beyond prescribed working hours

overtime allowance has to be paid as per the relevant law

governing and full payment will not be denied and Section

59 of factories act provides for payment of double the hourly

wages for overtime work and as per Ex W-6 the NMPT

workshop Panambur is registered under the Factories Act

the II Party is not legal and justified in restricting this

allowance to single hourly to the employees drawing the

salary/wages more than Rs. 5550. As already adverted to

by me above neither in the schedule of employees nor in

the counter statement nor in the evidence of MW1

justification/reasons for such discrmination being

illustrated, I have arrived at conclusion the action of the

management of New Mangalore Port Trust, Panambur,

Mangalore in denying overtime allowance at double the

rate to Class III and IV Employees, drawing Rs. 5,500 and

above is not legal and justified and that they are also entitle

for double the rate. In the result, I Pass the following Order:

ORDER

The reference is allowing holding that the action of

the managment in denying overtime allowance at double

the rate to Class III and IV Employees, drawing above

Rs. 5,500 is not legal and justified and that they are also

entitle for double the rate as paid to its Dock workers.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE - I

List of witnesses:

MW 1 - Sh. Jeevan Prakash

WW1 - Sh. Subash Katil

WW2 - Sh. Vinay Prasad Ashirwad

Documents exhibited on behalf of the Management:

Ex M-1

Extract of clause 5 from its schedule of

employees as on 01.04.2004

Ex M-2

Reply recieved by Chairman, NMPT,

Managalore from the Managing Director,

Indian Ports Association dated

06.05.2004

Ducuments exhibited on behalf of the I Party:

Ex W-1

Wage Revision Committee Report of

January 1977

Ex W-2

Wage Settlement dated 09.12.1994

between the Union, Federation and

Management

Ex W-3

Settlement of wage revision, retirement

benefits and conditions of service of Port

and Dock Workers at the Major Ports

w.e.f. 01.01.1997

Ex W-4

Memorandum of Settlement dated

11.01.1990 of New Mangalore Port Cargo

Handling Workers (Regulation of

Employment) Scheme - 1990

Ex W-5

Extract of Factories Act 1948 - Section 59

Ex W-6

Renewal of Licence of the II Party

management dated 22.02.2007 issued by

Senior Assistant Director of Factories &

Boiler, Division - II

Ex W-7

Copy of Licence and Registration issued

by the Factories and Boilers for running

of Port Trust Auto Repairs and Service

Station

Ex W-8

Copy of licence and registraion issued

by the Factories and Boilers for running

of Port Trust Workshop dated 04.01.2000

Ex W-9

Memorandum of Settlement dated

04.11.1999 between the management of

New Mangalore Port Trust and

Representatives of Four Registered

Trade Unions.

3328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Ex W-10

Minutes of meeting held in the chamber

of Deputy Conservator of Morgugao

Port Trust with Officers of NMPT and

Members of Trade Unions on 15.11.1999

regarding payment of double OT to

Marine Operatinal Staff

Ex W-11

Payment of Overtime allowance to staff

of Mormugao Port Trust dated 4.8.1967

Ex W-12

Letter of Indian Port Association dated

15.11.2000

Ex W-13

Copy of Schedule of Employees of JNPT

Ex W-14

Copy of Schedule of Employees of

Paradip Port

Ex W-15

Copy of Schedule of Employees of

Mormugao Port

Ex W-16

Copy of Schedule of Employees of Vizag

Port

Ex W-17

Copy of Schedule of Employees of

Chennai Port

Ex W-18

Copy of Schedule of Employees of

Kandla

Ex W-19

Copy of terms of settlement pertaining

to the dispute of Cochin Port Trust

Ex W-20

Report of Failure of Concilliation of the

Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Ernakulam, Kochi

Ex W-21

Copy of the Award passed by the CGIT-

cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam, Kochi

dated 08.11.2006 regarding the payment

of overtime allowance at double hourly

rate

Ex W-22

Copy of Settlement dated 06.12.1994 and

02.08.2000

ubZ fnYyh] 17 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1306.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947

¼1974 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj dsujk 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;] casxywj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh vkj u.

14@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkjh dks

15&6&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@90@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2013

S.O. 1306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CR No.

14/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, BANGALORE now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of CANARA BANK and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 15.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/90/2008-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE

Dated : 18th March 2013

PRESENT : Shri S N Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 14/2009

I Party

II Party

Sh. N. Ramesha,

The Deputy General Manager,

S/o R Nagaraja Rao,

Canara Bank, Bangalore Rural Circle

D No. 860, Kolar District,

Office, No. 86, III Floor, Spencers

Kalyanpur-563 151

Towers, M G Road,

Bangalore-560 001

APPEARANCES

I Party

Shri M Raka Rao

Authorised Representative

II Party

Shri T R K Prasad

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section

(2A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/90/2008-

IR(B-II) dated 03.03.2009 for adjudication on the following

schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Canara

Bank, Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office,

Bangalore Rural, M G Road, Bangalore, Karnataka

in imposing the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement on Shri N Ramesha, Ex sub-staff, Canara

Bank, Kylanpur Branch, Kolar District, Karnataka

vide Order No. BLCR/DAC/4418/E 37-07 Dated

30-7-2007 of the Disciplinary Authority is justified

and legal. What relief the workmen is entitled to?"

2. Pursuant to the notices issued to Sh. N Ramesh

(hereinafater referred as I Party workman) and the Deputy

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3329

General Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore Rural Circle

Office (hereinafter referred as II Party workman), the

I Party workman appeared through Sh. M Rama Rao, General

Secretary, DDBEA, whereas the II Party appeared through

Sh. T R K Prasad, advocate and filed their Claim and

Counter Statement respectively. Having regard to certain

allegations made in the claim statement the Domestic

Enquiry was not being fair and proper while framing a

Preliminary Issue as to.

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the

II Party against the I Party is fair and proper?"

After receiving the evidence of the Enquiry Officer

for the II Party as MW 1 and exhibiting Ex M-1 to Ex M-23

and evidence of the I Party and his Defence Representative

in the Domestic Enquiry as WW 1 and WW 2 respectively

and exhibiting 32 documents as Ex W-1 to Ex W-32, after

hearing the arguments by order dated 18.8.2011 the

Preliminary Issue came to be answered in ther Affirmative

holding the Domestic Enquiry being fair and proper, the

I Party was called upon to lead evidence on Victimization

and unemployment i.e., being not gainfully employed after

his compulsory retirement from the II Party Bank he filed

his affidavit and examined himself on oath as WW 1 (V).

Thereafter when the matter was posted for arguments the

I Party filed his written arguments whereas II Party counsel

addressed oral arguments.

3. The brief facts leading to this Reference and Award

may be stated as under.

4. While the I Party was serving as Sub-staff at

Kyalanpur Branch of the II Party, on two of its customers

namely Sh. M Chandrappa and Sh. K M Ramakrishna filing

complaints which are produced at exhibit MEx-I and MEx-14

respectively in the Domestic Enquiry alleging that the

I Party while demanding certain money to take care of

sanctioning of loan asked for by them, received part of it,

the II Party Bank while getting the said complaints

investgated through Sh. H. Mustaq Ahmed who is

examined as MW 5 in the Domestic Enquiry, after keeping

the I party under suspension w.e.f. 05.07.2006 served the

Charge Sheet dated 21.10.2006 as under which is marked

as Ex M-1 while recording the evidence on issue of the

fairness of the Domestic Enquiry.

"You are working as sub-staff at our Kyalanur branch

since 17.7.2003 and placed under suspension with

effect from 5.7.06 AOH.

On receipt of a complaint dated 25.12.05 by our

Kyalanur Branch from one Sri Chandrappa alleging certain

malpractices on your part, at our Kyalanpur branch an

investigation was conducted into the matter and the same

revealed the following.

Sri Chandrappa had applied for Housing Loan of

Rs. 4 lakhs at our Kyalanur branch. In this connection you

had demanded Rs. 10000/- as commission from Sri

Chandrappa for getting the said loan sanctioned and Rs.

2000/- was paid by him to you as advance and Housing

loan of Rs. 4 lakhs was sanctioned to Sri Chandrappa who

availed Rs. 41000/- on 15.1.2006.

While discussing the matter with Sri Chandrappa by

the Investigating Officer, he expressed displeasure and

dissatisfaction about your activities in the branch, who

also had stated that in the event of Bank not taking any

action against you, the customers would be forced to take

stren action against you.

Subsequently, you paid back Rs. 2000/- to

Sri Chandrappa and brought pressure on him to take back

the complaint who accordingly gave his complaint

withdrawal letter, due to force on 20.2.06. It is also reported

by Sri Chandrappa that you had humiliated him when he

approached the Branch Manager directly for getting his

Housing Loan sanctioned to him independently.

It was also revealed during investigation that the

said branch has received a similar complaint letter from

another borrower Sri K M Ramakrishna getting a loan to

him and also stating that he had given Rs. 5000/- to you

for the said purpose, but there was no further action on

your part in getting the loan sanctioned to him, and that

is why he had given a complaint to the branch.

Subsequently Sri Ramakrishna also had withdrawn

his complaint who in his statement dated 30.5.06 given to

the Investigating Officer confirmed having withdrawn his

complaint as you repaid him Rs. 5000/- also requesting

him through one of his friends to withdraw the complaint

against him.

An explanation was called for from you regarding

the matter by Staff Section (W), Circle Office, Bangalore

vide BLC: SSW: 10372:EP:MISC:2006 dt. 29.3.2006 and the

reply submitted by you vide your letter dt. 15.4.2006 is

neither convicing nor satisfactory.

By accepting illegal gratification from the customer

of our Bank, you have committed "GROSS MISCONDUCT'

as per Chapter XI, Regulation 3, Clause (f) of Canara Bank

Service Code.

All your above actions being prejudicial to the

interest of the Bank you have also committed 'GROSS

MISCONDUCT' within the meaning of Chapter XI,

Regulation (3), clause (m) of Canara Bank service Code.

Sd/-

Deputy General Manager

5. The II Party being not satisifed with the reply

given by the I Party dated 18.12.2006/MEx-5 ordered for

holding the Domestic Enquiry appointing Sh. R.

Guruprasad as Enquiry Officer and Sh. P Shivaramu as

Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer while observing

3330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the formalities of the preliminary hearing and receiving

the evidence of Sri M. K. Lakshman Rao, Investigating

Officer, Sri Anantharamu K. N., Manager, Sri Ramakrishna

K. M., Complained Customer, Sri M. Chandrappa,

Complained Customer and Sri H. R. Mushtaq Ahmed,

Investigating Officer as MWs 1 to 5 respectively and

exhibiting 19 documents as MEx-1 to MEx-19 the detailed

description of which are narrated in the annexure, as the

I Part did not lead the evidence of himself or any other

witnesses after receiving the written submissions of the

Presenting Officer and affording sufficient opportunity to

the I Party and his Defence Representaive to file the

written brief since the same was not received, he filed his

Enquiry Report on 19.4.2007 holding the charge as proved.

Then the Disciplinary Authority while forwarding the copy

of the Enquriy Report after affording the opportunity of

hearing passed the punishment dated 30.07.2007 imposing

Compulsory Retirement and there after an appeal to the

Appellate Authority, Appellate Authority affording

opportunity of hearaing confirmed the order of the

Disciplinary Authority and rejected the Appeal. Then

the I Party raised conciliation proceedings before the

ALC(C) and on his submission of failure report dated

24.10.2008 the Central Government made this reference for

adjudication on the above schedule.

6. Since the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the

II Party against the I Party has been held as fair and proper

by order dated 08.08.2011 the issues now remains for my

consideration are:

Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer

holding the charge as proved as perverse

necessitating the interference of this Court?

If not, whether the punishment imposed for

the misconduct proved on the part of the

I Party is excessive and requires to be modified?

What order?

7. On appreciation of the charge levelled against the

I Party with the evidence produced for the management in

Domestic Enquiry with the arguments put forward before

me my finding on Point No. 1 and 2 are in the negative and

Point No. 3 is as per the final order for the following reasons:

REASONS

8. The I Party in his written arguments running into

14 pages made no attempt to demonstrate the finding of

the Enquiry Officer being either baseless, against the

evidence placed before him or in any manner perverse. He

simply narrated the story without referring the evidence

on record. Inter alia, the learned advocate appearing for

the II Party while taking me through the evidence of the

two customers who complained against the I Party of

demanding and receiving bribe to help them in the process

of loan asked by them examined as MWs 3 and 4 in the

Domestic Enquiry and referring to the complaints and the

letter of withdrawal of complaints given by them marked

in their evidence as MEx-6 and MEx-15 respectively and

their cross-examination by the Defence Representative

vehemently urged that nothing has been elicited in their

cross-examination to discredit their evidence and even a

suggestion denying their evidence regarding the demand

of bribe made by the him and payment made by them as

well as they submitting the withdrawal letters on his

persuasion and return of the amount received from them

urged that no fault could be found with the finding of the

Enquiry Officer charge being proved. He further

submitting that though the I Party was not a loan

sanctioning authority being a employee in the branch

having made the customers to believe that he would take

care of sanction of loan to them demanding bribe and

receiving part of the amount demanded by him being

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank in whom the

customers loose faith the punishment of Compulsory

Retirement is infact a lenient view taken by the II Party

for which grave minconduct the punishment of dismissal

could have been imposed. Thus, he supported the finding

of the Enquiry Officer as well as the punishment imposed

by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate

Authority and urged to reject the reference.

9. When the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II

Party against the I Party is found fair and proper it was for

the I Party to demonstrate that the finding of the Enquiry

Officer is either not based on the evidence placed before

him or it is in any manner perverse, but as already adverted

to by me above no such effort has been made by the I

Party. On the other hand as urged on behalf of the II Party

though the customers of the Bank who gave complaints

against the I Party alleging demand of bribe to take care of

sanction of loan demanded by them and receipt of part of

such demand as well as later approaching them with their

well wishers returning the amount received from them

pressurizing them to withdraw their respective complaints

though categorically confirmed by them the same being

not disturbed in their cross-examination and even a

suggestion denying the demand of bribe and receiving

part of such demand and later approaching them with

their well-wishers returing the amount persuading them to

withdraw their complaints being made to them there was

no reasons for the Enquiry Officer to hold that the charge

levelled against the I Party being not proved. In other

words on the unshattered evidence brought on record by

the management the Enquiry Officer in my opinion did

not commit any error in holding that charge being

proved. Under the circumstances, I too find no reasons to

hold the finding of the Enquiry Officer charge being proved

as perverse. Accordingly, my finding on Point No. 1 is in

the Negative.

10. Coming to the Point No. 2 though as tried to be

made by him the I Party in the cross-examination of the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3331

management witnesses there cannot be any dispute that

he was not the authority to sanction the loan to the

customers approaching the II Party bank with a request

for loan but that in itself is no ground either to absolve

him from the charge or to take any lenient view other than

the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld

by the Appellate Authority. The I Party was though not a

loan sanctioning authority in the Bank being its employee

demanding bribe from the customers making them to

believe that he would take care of sanction of the loan

asked for by them and in furtherance of such demand

receiving a part of it highly damaging to the image of the

bank in the eyes of the public/customers and it is an act

unbecoming of a bank official. For the minconduct proved

against the I Party of demanding bribe from the customers

to get their loan sanctioned and receiving part of such

demand in my view the Disciplinary Authority taking into

account other circumstances has taken a lenient view in

imposing the punishment of Compulsory Retirement for

which he would have even imposed a puninshment of

Dismissal. Under the circumstances, I also find no reason

to say that the punishment of Compulsory Retirement

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the

Appellae Authority being unreasonable or excessive.

Accordingly while answering Point No. 2 in the Negative,

I Pass the following Order:

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

the management of Canara Bank, Disciplinary Action Cell,

Circle Office, Bangalore Rural, M. G. Road, Bangalore

Karnataka in imposing the Punish of Compulsory

Retirement on Shri N. Ramehsa, Ex-Sub-Staff, Canara Bank,

Kylanur Branch, Kolar district, Karnataka vide Order No.

BLCR/DAC/4418/E 37-07 dated 30/7/207 of the Disciplinary

Authority is justified and legal and that the I Pary is not

entitle for any reliefs.

(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected

and signed by me on 18th March, 2013)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

Documents exhibited by II Party in Domestic

Enquiry:

MEx-1

Copy of complaint dated 25.12.2005 given

by Sh. M. Chandrappa

MEx-2

Letter addressed to Dy. Gen. Manager from

Regional Manager dated 08.02.2006

MEx-3

Investigation Report dated 08.02.2006

MEx-4

Letter dated 01.02.2006 addressed to Asst.

Gen. Manager

MEx-5

Letter dated 06.03.2006 addressed to Dy.

General Manager

MEx-6

Letter of Sh. Chandrappa dated 05.03.2005

addressed to Asstt. General Manager

MEx-7

Letter of Sh. K.N. Anathanramu dated

05.02.2006 addressed to Asst. General

Manager

MEx-8

Letter of I Party dated 04.03.2006 addressed

to Asst. General Manager

MEx-9

Letter from Asst. General manager dated

29.03.2006 addressed to I Party

MEx-10

Letter of I Party dated 15.04.2006 addressed

to Asst. General Manager

MEx-11

Loan Pass sheet in respect of Sh. M.

Chandrappa

MEx-12

Pass Sheet of S. B. Account No. 10050 of

Sh. M. Chandrappa

MEx-13

Letter Addressed

Sh.

K.N.

Anantharamu dated 04.05.2006 to the

Manager, SSW, Co

MEx-14

Letter Addressed by Sh. K.M.

Ramakrishna to the Customer Service

Section

MEx-15

Letter Addressed by Sh. K.M.

Ramakrishna to the Customer Service

Section dated 06.04.06

MEx-16

Letter Addressed by Sh. K.M.

Ramakrishna to Sh. Musthaq Ahmed

MEx-17

Letter Addressed by Sh. M. Chandrappa

to the Customer Section dated 28.02.2005

MEx-18

Letter Addressed by Sh. M. Chandrappa

to Sh. Musthaq Ahmed dated 04.05.2006

MEx-19

Investigation Report of Sh. H.R Mushtaq

Ahmed dated 03.06.2006.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1307.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj iatkc ,aM fla?k 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; paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

329@2d 2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 17&6&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

[la. ,y&12012@69@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II)]

3332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2013

S.O. 1307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 329/2K5)

of the Central Government Industrial -Tribunal/Labour

Court-II CHANDIGARH now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of PUNJAB & SIND BANK and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 17.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/69/98-IR (B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIEAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,CHANDIGARH.

PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, PRESIDING OFFICER.

CASE No. I.D.329/2K5

Registered on 25-09-2009

Sh. Tej Pal Singh Sethi C/o Sh. H.C. Arora, H.No.

2299, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

....Applicant

Versus

The Assistant General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank,

Z.O.. Model Town, Jalandhar-144001

....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the worman

Sh. Vikram Bajaj, Adovocate

For the Management

Sh. J.S. Sathi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 4.4.2013

Central Government vide Notification No.L-12012/

69/98-IR (B-II) Dated 04-12-1998 read with corrigendum

Dated 08-07-99, by exercising its power 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 this Tribunal:—

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab

and Sind Bank represented by the Asstt. General

Manager, P.S.B. Zonal Office, Model Town, Jalandhar

in imposing the punishment of dismissal from

services upon Sh. Tej Pal Singh Sethi, Ex-Clerk-cum-

Cashier w.e.f. 16.11.93 is just legal? If not, what relief

the workman is entitled to?"

Vide award dated 12.11.2010 this Tribunal had

answered the reference against the management and in

favour of the workman. The order of dismissal from service

passed against the workman had been set aside and his

reinstatement with consequential benefits had been

ordered. In a writ petition the award appears to have been

upheld but in Letters Patent Appeal No. 25 of 2012 the

Hon'ble High Court set aside the award of this Tribunal as

well as the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge and the matter

was remitted to this Court certain direction.

The workman has raised industrial dispute stating

that vide Charge-Sheet dated 16.11.1993 the Chief Manager

of Punjab and Sink Bank, G.T. Road, Jalandhar (hereinafter

referred to as Bank) purportedly in exercise of powers of

disciplinary authority charged him under four heads namely;

(1) Absence without leave, over staying the sanctioned

leave without sufficient grounds (2) Willful in subordination

or disobedience of unlawful and reasonable order of the

management or superiors; (3) Habitual doing of minor

misconduct amounting to major misconduct and (4) Doing

an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross

negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the

bank in serious loss. On 25.02.1995 the Chief Manager

issued a Show Cause Notice proposing punishment of

dismissal from bank service on all the charges. On a written

representation and personal hearing on 20-03-1995 the Chief

Manager reduced the punishment of dismissal to stoppage

of increment for six months for charge no. 1 but for the

remaining three charges, the punishment of dismissal was

confirmed. The appeal of the workman against the order of

dismissal also failed. It has been stated by the workman

that the Charge-sheet was an amalgamation of minor and

major misconducts. Charge No. 1 was a minor misconduct,

while the remaining three charges pertain to major

misconduct. Single Charge-Sheet for major and minor

misconduct is against the order dated 16.10.1992 of the

Chairman and Managing Director of the bank. According

to the workman by issuing single Charge-sheet for major

and minor misconduct the bank has deprived him of his

right to appeal and the appointment of Enquiry Officer

about the charge of minor misconduct is against the Bi-

partite settlement dated 31.10.1979 read with C.M.D. Order

dated 16.10.1992. Workman has further stated that for the

main charge the punishment of stoppage of increment for

a period of six months was imposed. The punishment of

dismissal for the remaining charges which were merely off-

shoots of the main charge is arbitrary and

disproportionate. The charge of habitual minor misconduct

was erroneous. The disciplinary as well as appellate

authority also failed to appreciate that the overstaying the

sanctioned leave by the workman was due to sufficient

and reasonable grounds. There was no intention on his

part to disobey the instructions of the superiors and he did

not commit any misconduct in this regard. The management

had demanded from him the additional certificate from

Civil Surgeon and the same was provided by him. Therefore,

the irregularity, if any stands rectified. The punishment of

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3333

dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate and

unduly harsh. The workman has prayed for setting aside

the order of dismissal and for his reinstatement with all

consequential benefits including back wages and seniority.

Respondent contested the claim. In its written

statement it was stated that minor misconduct by its

recurrence and refusal to abide by lawful instructions

issued by the authorities' amounts to major misconduct.

The bank acted in accordance with law and the action taken

by it against the workman is not assailable on any alleged

grounds. The authority competent to take disciplinary

action in respect of major misconduct was legally competent

to take action in the minor misconduct also. The Medical

Certificate produced by the workman at later stage did not

cover the period of his unauthorized absence and it cannot

condone the misconduct or disobeying the lawful

instructions of the competent authority. The banks' action

in dismissal of workman from bank service was perfectly in

consonance with the proved misconduct. Workman is not

entitled to any relief.

The workman filed a rejoinder to the written

statement of the respondent.

It is clear from the claim statement that the workman

had never questioned the fairness of the inquiry. Then

learned Presiding Officer however somehow fixed the case

for hearing on the issue whether the inquiry was held proper

or not. Perhaps on this account management considered

necessary to file a supplementary written statement dated

6.12.2004 pleading that in case the Court comes to the

conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper

for any reason whatsoever the management may be given

an apportunity to produce evidence on merits to prove the

charges before the Court.

The parties filed the written arguments not only on

the fairness of inquiry but on the entire case and the award

dated 12.11.2010 had been passed after considering the

written arguments of the parties.

The Hon'ble High Court in PA No. 25 of 2012

considering the plea of the management in the

supplementary written statement directed this Tribunal to

provide an opportunity to the management to justify the

order of the termination of the services of the workman and

thereafter taken a decision in accordance with law.

Accordingly the management was provided an opportunity

for leading evidence and the management filed the affidavit

of an examined Jaswinder, Singh Manager Punjab and Sind

Bank, Zonal Officer, Jalandhar. Certain documents were

also filed along with affidavit. In rebuttal the workman

examined himself and filed certain papers. The affidavit of

the workman and of one management witness Balkar Singh

Khakh were already on record.

I have the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the written arguments filed earlier and also the evidence

on the record.

Fairness of inquiry means that inquiry should be

held according to the rules of natural justice. The rule of

natural justice require that the workman proceeded against

should be informed clearly of the charge levelled against

him witness should be examined in his presence in respect

of the charges; these workman should be given a fair

apportunity to examine witness including himself in

support of his defence; and the Inquiry Officer should

record its findings based on the evidence. Here in the case

the workman has not alleged that he has not been informed

about the charges levelled against him; witnesses were

not examined in his presence, he was not given an

opportunity to examine witnesses or to produce himself in

support of his defence. Hence the fairness of the inquiry is

not in question.

As management witness Jaswinder Singh has stated

in his affidavit , the workman had been charge-sheeted on

the following charges:—

Willful insubordination or disobedience of any

lawful and reasonable orders of the

management or of superiors under clause

19.5(e) of the Bipartite Settlement which

amounts to gross misconduct.

Habitual doing of any act which amounts to

minor misconduct, under clause 19.5(f) of the

Bipartite Settlement, amounting to major

misconduct.

Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the

bank or gross negligence or negligence

involving or likely to involve the bank in

serious loss.

Absence without leave or overstaying

sanctioned lave without sufficient grounds.

Workman was found guilty on all the charges by the

Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority passed the

order of dismissal in respect of each of the first three

charges. For the 4th charge his increment was stopped for

six months. The punishment awarded on the fourth charge

is not in question. The issues involved now in the case

are:—

Whether the charge No. 1, 2 and 3 are proved

against the workman and the action of the

management in imposing the punishment of

dismissal from service on the workman is just

and legal?

To what relief is the workman entitled to?

My findings on the issues are as follows:—

FINDINGS

Issue No. 1

The charge regarding allegation No. 1 was as follow

"further on being advised by Manager Extension Counter

3334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

LKC vide Telgram dated 20.7.1993 to appear before CMO

for medical examination, you instead appearing before CMO

simply wrote to Branch Manager vide your letter dated

22.7.1993 that since you have already submitted a medical

certificate from a competent doctor the same does not

attract replacement thereof from CMO, thus, wilful

disobeying the lawful and reasonable orders of the

management and your superiors."

While the charge regarding allegation No. 4 was-

"You applied for one day leave i.e. for 2.7.1993 on the ground

of sickness of wife but remained unauthorizedly absent

thereafter. You did not report for duty inspite of B/O's letter

dated 7.7.1993, Registered letter dated 15.7.1993 but instead

you submitted one month's leave application dated

12.7.1993 submitting Medical Certificate as evidence of

your own sickness."

From the language of this charge it is clear that the

workman had submitted one month's leave application

dated 12.7.1993 along with medical certificate. Management

witness Jaswinder Singh MW1 has also stated in his

affidavit that the workman had submitted leave application

dated 12.7.1993 w.e.f. 3.7.1993 to 3.8.1993 alongwith medical

certificate issued by a private medical Practioner Dr. V.K.

Vasudev. The alleged medical certificate was issued on

3.7.1993. in respect of the medical condition of the workman

whereby the doctor had advised absence from duty for

one month w.e.f. 3.7.1993. The witness has further stated

that since the workman had obtained leave on 2.7.1993 on

the ground of sickness of his wife but now he was alleging

his own sickness hence the management became

suspicious and the Manager in-charge sent telegram to

the workman on 21.7.1993 asking the workman to get himself

medically examined from CMO Jalandhar and submit

medical certificate in three days. But instead of obeying

the lawful orders of the bank the workman wrote back

letter dated 22.7.1993 telling the bank that the certificate

submitted by him does not attract replacement thereof from

CMO. It was considered disobedience of the lawful and

reasonable order of the management. Quoting the

provisions of Bipartite Settlement pertaining to sick leave

management witness has referred para 32 which says:—

"32. All sick leaves shall be granted on production of

medical certificate acceptable to the bank."

It was argued that the bank acted well within its

jurisdiction derived under the provisions of the Bipartite

Settlement in asking the workman to produce medical

certificate of his illness from CMO Jalandhar but the

workman stoutly refused and willfully disobeyed the lawful

and reasonable orders of the bank/superiors.

While the argument of the workman counsel is that

the Bipartite Settlement does not specify the medical

practitioner whose medical certificate would be acceptable

to the bank and the insistence of the bank to get medical

certificate from CMO is not according to the provisions of

the Bipartite Settlement. The referred para of the Bipartite

Settlement does not authorize the management to reject

the medical certificate produced by an employee arbitrarily

and asking him for production of a medical certificate of a

Medical Officer of the choice of the management.

It is important to note that the medical certificate

produced by the workman was from a qualified doctor Dr.

V. K. Vasudev who is 'M.S.' and it is on the letter pad of one

'Lajwanti Hospital' Jalandhar. According to the certificate

whose copies (ten in number) were produced by workman

during his cross-examination shows that he had been

suffering from 'AC Lumbar Disc Syndrome.' It is also

important to note and as the management witness also in

his cross-examination has stated that the workman had

been sent to CMO for examination by Inquiry Officer also

on 31.8.1994. The Management himself did not bother to

inquire from the CMO Office about the medical examination

of the workman. The workman however has produced the

copy of medical certificate of Civil Surgeon Jalandhar dated

11.3.1994 (paper No. 197) in which it has been certified that

the workman had been diagnosed as a case of acute PIVD

and he had been advised for Lumbar attraction and rest for

three weeks.

The medical certificates shows the genuineness of

the sickness of the workman. I agree with the learned

counsel for the workman that since there is no provision in

the Bipartite Settlement for directing the workman to appear

before the CMO for medical examination, hence, his non-

appearance before the CMO does not amount to

misconduct. The counsel for workman has cited

management of the Northern Railway Coop. Credit Society

Ltd., Jodhpur Versus Industrial Tribunal Jodhpur AIR 1967

SC 1182 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in

the absence of any rule workman could very well feel

justified in relying on certificates obtained by him from

Registered Medical Practitioner even though he might only

be a Vaid practicing Ayurvedic medicines. The charge of

disobedience of orders which were not enforceable in rule

could neither be the basis of any order of dismissal to any

inference that the workman by merely being pretending to

be sick.

I am therefore of the view that the workman cannot

be held guilty of insubordination or disobedience of orders.

The second charge for which the wokman has been

held guilty and awarded a punishment of dismissal is

"Habitual doing of any act which amount to minor

Misconduct" (as per charge-sheet dated 16-11-1993 Ex. W-

3). Regarding this the Enquiry Officer in his report of finding

Ex. W-8 has said that "The C.S.C. repeatedly submitted

leave application along with Medical Certificate of "Lajwant

Hospital" from the Doctors' of his choice marked as 1, 3, 4,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3335

5, inspite of bank's official order marked as Ex. MX-5. In the

light of above para 19.5(f) habitual doing of any act, which

amounts to minor misconduct is proved."

It was argued on behalf of management that habitual

doing of any act of minor misconduct amounts to major

misconduct. The learned counsel for workman has

submitted in his arguments that simply remaining absent

continuously for some period does not amount to habitual

minor misconduct. As submitted by the learned counsel

the clause 19.5 (f) reads as under:—

"19.5(f) Habitual doing of an act which amounts to

minor misconduct as defined below:—

Habitual means course of action taken or persisted

in nothwithstanding that at least on three previous

occasions censure or warning had been administered or

adverse remarks have been entered against him."

It is clear that to constitute a major misconduct the

minor misconduct must relate to previsous three occasions

Continuous absence for certain period does not mean that

everyday a workman remained absent will constitute a

separate misconduct. Further the workman must have been

censured/warned or earned an adverse remarks.

Obvisiously the related charge also is not made out.

The next charge against the workman is of "doing

any prejudicial to the bank or gross negligence or

negligence involving the bank in serious loss" (as per

charge-sheet dated 16.11.1993 Ex. W-3). For this charge

also the workman was held guilty and punished by

dismissal.

Regarding this charge the argument of the learned

counsel for workman is that since the workman was not

attending to his duties, there was no question of doing

anything prejudicial to the bank or of the any negligence

likely to involve the bank is serious loss. The misconduct

can be attributable only against an employee who is on

duty and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that

by neglecting to be on duty the provisions of the Bi-partite

Settlement was violated by the workman is funny. The

argument of the management on the other hand is that

when an employee does not attend the duty it is bound to

affect the efficiency and working of the institution and

such conduct on the part of an employees constitute

misconduct.

I do not agree with the argument of the management.

Accepting this argument would mean that an employee

cannnot avail any type of leave, because during the leave

period he will not attend this duties and that will affect the

efficiency and working of the bank. The learned counsel

for workman is right in arguing that misconduct involving

negligence can be attributed to an employee who is on

duty.

It will be noted that all the three charges for which

the workman was awarded the punishment of dismissal

stemmed from a monor misconduct. The management has

made a hill out of a mole. The management cannot said to

be fair towards the workman. There is nothing on record to

show that the service of the workman was not satisfactory.

It appears that management twisted and moulded the facts

of a minor mosconduct to make several cases of major

misconduct to get rid of the workman. The workman has

been shown the doors without any justification. He is not

guilty of the charges dicussed above and punishment

awarded to him is not only harsh or disproportionate but

unwarranted. It is, therefore, held that the action of

management of Punjab and Sind Bank represented by the

Assistant General Manager, Zonal Office, Model Town,

Jalandhar in imposing the punishment of dismissal from

service upon the workman is totally unjust and illegal. Issue

No. 1 is decided in favour of the workman.

Issue No. 2

There is nothing on record to show, nor does the

management allege that the workman is a type of person

whose presence is undesireable or is not conducive to the

discipline or the business of the bank or the bank has lost

confidence in him. I, therefore, find the workman entitled to

reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Accordingly,

the reference is answered against the management and in

favour of the workman. The order of dismissal from service

passed against the workman is set aside and he is reinstated

with all the consequential benefits including back wages,

seniority and consideration for further promotion. The

management is directed to comply with the award within a

month of receiving a copy of the award. Let two copies of

award after due compliance be sent to the Central

Government and one copy to District Judge Jalandhar for

information and for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1308.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj nsuk cSad ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh.th.vkbZ.Vh.1@62 vkWQ

2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

06&06&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y&12011@50@2004&vkbZ.vkj. ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2013

S.O. 1308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-1/62 of 2004)

3336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

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 DEENA BANK, and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 06.06.2013.

[No. L-12011/50/2004-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE-I

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

Present : JUSTICE G.S.SARRAF, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/62 OF 2004

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management

of Deena Bank

And

Their workman (Prakash M. Tawde)

APPEARANCES :

For the Dena Banki : Ms. Nandini Menon, Adv.

For the Dena bank

: Mr. M. B. Anchan, Adv.

Employees Union

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 11th day of March, 2013

AWARD PART-I

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government

in excerise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The

terms of the reference given in the schedule are as follows:

Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, Dena Bank, Thane Region, Mumbai in dismissing

Shri Prakash M. Tawde, Cleaner-cum-Sepoy, Sativali Branch,

from the Bank's services with immediate effect without

notice vide memorandum dated 9th October, 1999 is

justified, proper and in proportionate to the alleged charges

of misconduct? If not what relief the affected workman is

entitled and from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter?

2. According to the statement of claim filed by Dena

Bank Employees Union, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as

the Union) the workman Prakash M.Tawde, Cleaner-cum-

Sepoy at Sativali branch of the Dena Bank (hereinafter

referred to as the Bank) was suspended from service by an

order dt. 15.9.1997 and subsequently he was issued

chargesheet dt. 12.5.1998 for the alleged misconduct of not

taking proper care while putting the rubber stamp of the

branch on the blank forms of a draft book containing 50

leaves and thereby losing 7 DD froms which resulted in

monetary loss to the Bank. The workman was found guilty

after enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority after giving the

workman personal hearing dismissed the workman from

service by order dt. 9.10.1999. Two drafts were enchased

on 9.7.1997 issued from the Kalina Branch at the Service

Branch of the Bank at Ahmedabad for Rs. 18,25,000/- It is

not known what made the Kalina Branch to issue two DDs

from the stationery of the Sativali Branch. The loss of the

7DD froms came to light when Assistant General Manager,

Thane Region inspected the Sativali Branch on 22.7.1997.

Since the workman was absent from 22.7.1997 the Branch

Manager suspected him and filed a police complaint and

FIR. The Branch Manager under whose custody the DD

forms were kept was also chargesheeted. However, he was

not dismissed and he was only transferred to another

branch. The persons who issued the DDs at Kalina Branch

from the stationery meant for the Sativali Branch were not

issued show cause notice or chargesheet. The workman

was honourable acquitted by the Criminal Court. The

charges against the workman are baseless and the enquiry

held on the those charges was, therefore, vitiated. In the

chargesheet dt. 12.5.1998 it is stated that DD leaves bearing

no. DB/D 280054 and DB/D 280055 for Rs. 9,75,000 and

Rs. 9,65,000 respectively were subsequently and

fraudulently used to withdraw the amount from the Service

Branch, Ahmedabad. However, by corrigendum dt. 21.5.1998

it is stated that 2 DD leaves bearing no. DB/D 28005 and

DB/D 280012 were subsequently and fraudulently used to

withdraw from the Service Branch, Ahmedabad Rs. 9,50,000

and Rs. 8,75,000/- respectively causing the Bank financial

loss. There is thus variation not only in DD form numbers

but also in amounts. The suspension order also does not

spell out the DD nos. and the amounts. The Branch

Manager of the Sativali Branch is responsible for the loss

of 7 DD forms. The Branch Manager during the enquiry

stated that all the staff members had access to the draft

book then why the workman only was issued chargesheet.

The Enquiry Officer based his conclusion on the statement

of the Branch Manager Mr. Shah. Shah was an interested

party and the 7 DD forms were lost from his custody. Had

the Branch Manager been honest he would have

complained to the Bank and the police on 12.6.1997 itself

when it came to light that 7 DD forms were missing but he

lodged the police complaint on 31.7.1997 and lodged FIR

on 4.9.1997. The workman did not give any confessional

statement before the police. According to the statement of

claim the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman

is very harsh and it is disproportionate to the alleged

misconduct. The workman is unemployed from the date of

his suspension. He tried his best to get a suitable job but

could not get since his dismissal is a blot on his career. It

has, therefore, been prayed that the workman should be

reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of

service.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3337

3. According to the written statment the workman

joined the service of the Bank as a Cleaner-cum-Sepoy on

12.3.1985 and at the material time he was posted at the

Sativali Branch of the Bank as sub-staff. The past service

record of the workman was not satisfactory. The workman

was instructed by the Branch Manager to put the branch

stamp on the blank forms of a DD book containing 100

leaves. However, the workman did not exercise adequate

precautions which led to loss of seven blank forms. Out of

the seven blank forms two blank demand draft forms were

subsequently fraudulently used to withdraw from the

Service Branch at Ahmedabad, an amount of Rs. 9,50,000

and Rs. 8,75,000/- causing financial loss to the Bank. The

Bank, therefore, suspended the workman w.e.f. 15.9.1997.

The Bank then issued a chargesheet on 12.5.1998 and a

corrigendum on 21.5.1998 against the workman pointing

out that the said act constituted gross misconduct in terms

of para 19(5)(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dt. 19.10.1966 as

modified from time to time. The workman was charged with

dointg acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and acts

of gross negligence involving/likely to involve the Bank in

serious loss. The workman refused to submit his reply to

the chargesheet and the corrigendum to the said

chargesheet. The Bank commenced a departmental enquiry

against the workman. The Branch Manager also lodged a

complaint at the Manikpur police station. The workman

was, however, acquitted by judgement and order dt.

13.12.2002. The judgement should have no effect on the

departmental proceedings. The standard of proof required

in a criminal case is that the offence should be proved

beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the enquiry only

preponderence of probabilities is to be seen. The Bank

appointed R.P. Bhatt as the Enquiry Officer. The workman

was permitted to be defended by a defence representative.

The workman was furnished with all papers and documents

that the Bank relied upon. The Enquiry Officer permitted

the workman to cross examine witnesses of the Bank. Full

opportunity was given to the workman to produce evidence

in support of his defence. The enquiry was held in

compliance of the principles of natural jusitice. The Enquiry

Officer held the workman guilty. The workman was

furnished with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer.

The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the

Enquiry Officer and proposed the punishment of dismissal.

The workman alongwith his defence representative

appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 4.10.1999

and made submissions against the proposed punishment.

However, the Disciplinary Authority by order dt. 9.10.1999

imposed on the workman the punishment of dismissal from

the Bank's service with immediate effect without notice.

According to the written statement the punishment

imposed on the workman is fair and proper taking into

consideration the gravity and seriousness of the

misconduct proved against him. This is not a fit case for

the Tribunal to exercise power under Section 11-A of the

Act. The Bank has, therefore, prayed that the reference be

answered against the workman.

4. Following issues have been framed:

(1)

Whether the enquiry is just and fair?

(2)

Whether there is any violation of principles

of natural justice?

(3)

Whether the findings of the enquiry were

perverse?

(4)

Whether the punishment awarded to the

workman is harsh and disproportionate?

(5)

To what relief if any, is the workman is entitled?

5. The Union has filed affidavit of the workman who

has been cross-examined by learned counsel for the Bank.

The Bank has filed an affidavit of Enquiry Officer, R.P. Bhatt,

who has been cross examined by learned counsel for the

Union.

6. Heard Mr. Anchan on behalf of the Union and

Ms. Nandini Menon on behalf of the Bank.

Issues Nos. 1 to 3:

The workman has stated in his

cross examination:

I was represented by a defence nominee in the enquiry

proceedings. I was not furnished copies of enquiry

proceedings on the dates of hearing. I did not complaint

before anyone regarding this. My Union also did not lodge

any complaint regarding this. I received a copy of the

enquiry report. I was given full opportunity to cross examine

the Bank's witnesses. I was given opportunity to lead

evidence in defence. A written submission was made on

behalf of me before the Enquiry Officer. I did not file any

application before the Enquiry Officer to summon any

document or witness in my defence. I receivd the order of

my punishment which is M-1. I did not file any appeal

against the punishment order.

The workman has stated in his cross examination

that the Diciplinary Authority did not grant personal hearing

to him before awarding punishment put this is contrary to

what has been stated in the statement of claim where it is

stated that the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the

workman after giving the workman a personal hearing.

The Enquiry Officer R.P. Bhat has stated in his

affidavit:

I say that on the basis of documents produced and

evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry, I was of

the considered opinion that Shri Tawde was guilty of the

misconduct of doint act/s prejudicial to the interests of the

Bank and gross negligence involving/likely to involve the

Bank in serious loss.

On the basis of the evidence available on the record

I am of the opinion that the enquiry held against the

workman is fair and proper and there is no violation of

3338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

principles of natural justice. There is nothing on the record

to suggest that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

perverse.

Issues nos. 1 to 3 are, therefore, decided against the

workman and in favour of the Bank.

Award Part-1 is passed accordingly.

The Reference be fixed for hearing on remaining

issues on 14.3.2013.

JUSTICE G. S. SA RRAF, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-II

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

MUMBAI

PRESENT : JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-1/62 of 2004

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of

Dena Bank

And

Their workman (Prakash M. Tawde)

APPEARANCES:

For the Dena Bank

Ms. Nandini Menon,

Adv.

For the Dena Bank Employees :

Mr. M.B. Anchan, Adv.

Union

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 15the day of March, 2013

AWARD PART-II

This is a reference made by the Central Government

in exercise of its powers under clause(d) of sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) The

terms of the reference given in the schedule are as follows:

Whether the action of the management of Regional

Manager, Dena Bank, Thane Region, Mumbai in

dismissing Shri Prakash M. Tawde, Cleaner-cum-

Sepoy, Sativali Branch, from the Bank's services with

immediate effect without notice vide memorandum

dated 9th October, 1999 is justified, proper and in

proportionate the alleged charges of misconduct? If

not, what relief the affected workman is entitled and

from which date and what other directions are

necessary in the matter?

It is not necessary to narrate the facts here because

the facts have been stated in detail in the Award Part-I

passed by this Tribunal on 11.3.2013.

Following are the Issues:

(1)

Whether the enquiry is just and fair?

(2)

Whether there is any violation of principles of

natural justice?

(3)

Whether the findings of the enquiry were

perverse?

(4)

Whether the punishment awarded to the

workman is harsh and disproportionate?

(5)

To what relief, if any, is the workman is entitled?

Issues nos. 1 to 3 have been decided against the

workman.

The parties have not led any evidence with respect

to Issues No. 4 and 5.

Heard rival submissions on Issues nos. 4 and 5.

ISSUE NO. 4: The charge against the workman is

that while putting branch stamp on the blank forms of a

draft book containing fifty leaves he did not take proper

care as a result of which the seven blank forms were lost

out of which two blank forms were subsequently

fraudulently used to withdraw from the Service Branch,

Ahmedabad Rs. 9,50,000 and Rs. 8,75,000 respectively

causing the loss to the Bank.

There is no charge of any dishonest intention or

unlawful gain. Obviously there is no bad intention on the

part of the workman. It appears that because of the

negligence of the concerned persons in the Bank the two

blank forms were fraudulently used to withdraw Rs. 9,50,000

and 8,75,000.

On going through the record and considering the

rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties

I am of the view that in this background, the dismissal of

the workman for an act of negligence is an excessive

punishment and not commensurate with the charge of

misconduct levelled against him. It is true that the workman

has been found guilty of negligence but this is not, in my

opinion, sufficient to warrant the punishment of dismissal.

In the facts and circumstances of the matter I am of

the opinion that punishment awarded to the workman is

very harsh and shockingly disproportionate and, therefore,

depriving the workman 60 per cent of his back wages will

be a punishment commensurate with the misconduct proved

against him.

Issues no. 4 is decided as above.

ISSUE NO. 5: The Bank is directed to reinstate the

workman within two months from today with 40 per cent of

his back wages.

Award Part-II is passed accordingly.

Justice G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3339

ubZ fnYyh] 18 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1309-

1309-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj flaMhdsV cSad ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñthñvkbZñVhñ1@14 vkQ

2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06.

06.2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&12012@110@2011&vkbZñvkjñ ¼ch&II½]

'kh'k jke] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2013

S.O.1309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.

CGIT-1/14 of 2012) 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 Syndicate Bank, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 06.06.2013.

[No. L-12012/110/2011-IR(B-II)]

SHEESH RAM, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

MUMBAI

PRESENT : JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding

Officer

Reference No. CGIT-1/14 of 2012

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of

Syndicate Bank

And

Their workman (Hemant L. Kale)

APPEARANCES:

For the Syndicate Bank

: Ms. R.N. Shah, Adv.

For the Workman

: Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni, Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 3rd day of May, 2013

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government

in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The

terms of the reference given in the schedule are as follows:

Whether the action of the management of Syndicate

Bank in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service

upon Sh. Hemant L. Kale, Ex-Special Assistant vide Order

dated 7.3.1990 and not reinstating into services of the bank

inspite of an acquittal from the CBI Court is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?

According to the statement of claim the workman

Hemant L. Kale, was appointed in the Syndicate Bank

(hereinafter referred to as the Bank) w.e.f. 25.8.1971. He

was working as a clerk in the Bank. He was issued a

chargesheet dtd. 13.7.1987 interalia alleging that while

working as a Special Assistant at Khandala Branch between

22.8.1983 and 18.3.1985 he allowed his wife Smt. Sumati

Hemant Kale to avail a farm loan of Rs. 20,000 on 10.5.1984

sanctioned by P.K.B. Mishra, the then Manager knowingly

that his wife was not eligible to avail the said loan in

asmuchas she did not own or possess any agricultural

land and he made fictitious entries in the farm loan register

showing repayment. He gave his reply dtd. 1.9.1987.

Accordingly to the statement of claim the enquiry

conducted against him was not fair and proper for the

simple reason that he was suspended pending enquiry on

18.3.1985. The entire enquiry held against him is against

the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. Copies of

documents were not given to him till the conclusion of the

enquiry. The Enquiry Officer did not consider the evidence

on record. The Disciplinary Authority issued order of

termination on 21.12.1989 dismissing him from service. He

preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. On the

complaint of the Bank, C.B.I. filed a case against him. The

Special Judge acquitted him. He acted under the wrong

assumption that unless the C.B.I. Court acquitted him he

could not demand reinstatement. He has, therefore, prayed

that the delay in raising the dispute be condoned. After the

judgement of the C.B.I. Court he filed an application before

the Bank on 21.7.2010 which was rejected by the Bank on

13.9.2010. Thereafter he raised his demand in December

2010. According to the Statement of claim the enquiry is

not fair and proper, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

perverse and the punishment is shockingly

disproportionate. After his dismissal he tried to secure

alternative job but he could not succeed. It has, therefore,

been prayed that his termination be held illegal and void ab

initio and the Bank be directed to pay full back wages

together with all other consequential benefits from the date

of his termination till 31.1.2012 (date of superannuation).

Accordingly to the written statement filed by the

Bank the dispute has been raised after more than 20 years

from the date of dismissal of the workman and, therefore,

the reference is not maintainable. It suffers from inordinate

gross delay and laches. According to the written statement

the charges proved against the workman are very serious

in nature. Full opportunity was given to the workman to

defend himself. The Enquiry Officer gave findings on the

basis of material available on the record. The Disciplinary

3340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer after

going through the enquiry proceedings. Appellate

Authority rejected the appeal filed by the workman. The

workman was tried along with P.K.B. Mishra (ex-employee

of the Bank) P.K.B. Mishra, after his acquittal, vide Writ

Petition No. 1929/2011 sought his reinstatement with back

wages. The said petition was dismissed by the Bombay

High Court vide order dt. 21.2.2012. The present reference

is liable to be dismissed on the basis of the above

judgement. The Bank has, therefore, prayed that the

reference be rejected.

Following Issued have been framed:

Whether the enquiry held against the workman

is not fair and proper?

1A.

Whether reference is not maintable on account

of undue delay?

Whether the findings given by the Enquiry

Officer are perverse?

Whether the action of the Syndicate Bank in

imposing the punishment of dismissal from

service upon the workman Hemant L. Kale vide

order dt. 7.3.1990 and not reinstating inspite of

the acquittal from the C.B.I. Board is legal and

justified?

Relief?

As per the order sheet dated 14.1.2013 Issue No. 1-A

is purely legal and, therefre, it has to be decided first.

Heard Mr. Shah, learned advocate on behalf of the

Bank and Mr. Kulkarni on behalf of the workman.

ISSUE NO.1-A: The workman was issued

chargesheet in July 1987 and the Enquiry Officer submitted

his report in November 1989. The Disciplinary Authority

awarded the punishment in March 1990 and the appeal

against the order of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary

Authority was rejected in June 1990. Learned Counsel for

the workman has stated that the workman raised the dispute

in December 2010 after the workman was acquitted by

judgement dtd. 5.6.2010 passed by Special Judge (Under

Prevention of Corruption Act) Pune in the case of C.B.I. vs.

P.K.B. Mishra and others (Special case no. 11 of 1993).

Thus there is delay of more than twenty years in raising

the dispute.

The workman was prosecuted alongwith P.K.B.

Mishra and another. P.K.B. Mishra was also an employee

of the Bank and after his acquittal he filed a writ petition

no. 1929 of 2011 in the Bombay High Court challenging his

dismissal. The Bombay High Court held that the result of

criminal prosecution on the same charges as levelled in the

chargesheet did not have any impact on the departmental

equiry because the degree of proof required in departmental

enquiry and criminal trial was different and the degree of

satisfaction required was also different. The Bombay High

Court further held that acquittal in criminal prosecution

was no reason to re-open the departmental proceedings

which concluded twenty years back.

The case of P.K.B. Mishra and the case of the

workman are similar and, therefore, it is difficult for me to

take a different view in the matter.

Law does not prescribe any time limit for raising the

dispute but a dispute which is stale cannot be the subject

matter of reference under Section 10-A of the Act. If an

employee allows the matter to become stale and approaches

the Tribunal belatedly then the employer is at a great

disadvantage to effectively contest or counter the claim.

Therefore, even if no period of limitation is prescribed any

belated challenge is liable to be dismissed on the ground

of delay and laches.

It is, therefore, held that the reference is not

maintainable on account of undue delay.

Issue no. 1-A is decided against the workman.

Since Issue no. 1-A is decided against the workman,

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk.1310.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj lfdZy esUVhusal eSustj] fjykbUl uSdj fyad izkñ fyñ]

Hkksiky 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k lh.th.vkbZ.Vh.,y.lh@vkj@79@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12&06&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40012@96@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½

]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O.1310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/79/2007) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the Circle

Maintenance Manager, Relience Next Link (P) Ltd. Bhopal

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/96/2006-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3341

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/79/2007

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Rambhuwam Sharma,

S/o Shri Hiralal Sharma

Village Bhanti Post-Sagra Distt.

Rewa (MP)

. . .Workman

Versus

The Circle Maintenance Manager,

Reliance Next Link (P) Ltd.,

Circle Headquarter,

Reliance Infocom,

Mansaowar Complex,

Hoshangabad Road,

In front of NJP Bhawan, Habibganj,

Bhopal

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of April, 2013

1. As per letter dated 14-8-2007 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

96/2006-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether Shri Rambhuwan Sharma is a workman as

per the provision of I.D. Act, 1947 and if he is a

workman, whether the action of Circle Maintenance

Manager, M/s. Reliance Next Link (P) Ltd., Bhopal in

terminating the services w.e.f 25-3-2006 is justified?

If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted his statement of

claim at Page 3/1 to 3/4. The case of 1st party workman is

that initially he was appointed as F.E.O. on vacant post

after following prescribed procedure for appointment. His

appointment was made on production as per order dated

12-6-02 for period of six months. Looking to his honesty

and sincerity, he was confirmed vide order dated 1-7-2003.

That he is well qualified for the post of FEO and he is

having diploma in T.E.R. Class-I. That he was employed in

the management's industry to do technical work. He was

not doing supervisory or managerial work. He is covered

as workman under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act.

3. That 1st party workman further submits that he

has continuously worked from 7-10-2002 to 25-3-2006. He

had completed 240 days continuous service during each

of the year as provided under Section 25-B of I.D. Act.

That his services were terminated from 25-3-06 without

assigning reasons. No permission was obtained from

appropriate Government. The department of IInd part is

covered as Industry under Section 25(1) of I.D. Act. That

his termination amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)

of I.D. Act. That management failed to comply 25(N) of I.D.

Act. That mandatory provisions of Section 25-G, H are not

complied. Rule-77, 78 Industrial Dispute Rules 1957 are not

complied. 1st party workman further submits that his

services are terminated by victimization. He is unemployed

after termination of his service. He prays for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

4. IInd party management filed Written Statement at

page 8/1 to 8/2. the case of IInd party is that 1st party is

covered under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. That workman was

appointed on the post of FEO 2nd level which is a

supervisory post. The workman was drawing salary more

than Rs. 1600 per month. He was working in managerial

and administrative capacity. His duties are of supervisory

nature. The appointment letter dated 12-6-02 are accepted

by workman. His services are covered by the conditions in

appointment order. It is contended that the employee is

not a workman under I.D. Act. The reference is not tenable.

It is further contended that the dispensing of service of 1st

party is not legal. His services were dispensed as per terms

and conditions in the appointment order. While dispensing

his services, the employee was given payment of 3 months

in lieu of notice. The workman willingly accepted amount

without protest. Violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D. Act and

Rule 77, 78 under I.D. Rule is denied. IInd party prays for

rejection of the relief claimed by workman.

5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder contending that

he is covered as workman under I.D. Act. That he was

employed to do technical work, maintenance and servicing

of Generator set, Air Conditioner, and L T Panel and SMPS,

equipments etc. He was not doing supervisory or managerial

work. The allegations of IInd party in that regard are denied.

It is reiterated that IInd party is covered under Section

25(1) of I.D. Act. His services are terminated in violation of

mandatory provisions.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the IInd party

Industry is governed by

In Negative

Chapter V-B of I.D. Act and

provisions of Section 25-K

are applicable to it?

(ii) Whether it is proved that Ist

In Affirmative

party employee is workman

under Section 2(s) of I.D.

Act.

3342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

(iii) Whether the termination of

services of Ist party

In Affirmative

workman Rambhuwan

Sharma w.e.f. 25-3-06 is

illegal?

(iv) If so, to what relief the

Workman is entitled to

workman is entitled?

reinstatement with

50% back wages.

REASONS

7. Ist party workman is challenging his termination

from service on grounds that his services are terminated in

violation of Section 25-L, N of I.D. Act. However his

pleadings and evidence is silent that more than 100

employees were working in the establishment of the IInd

party.

Section 25-K in Chapter V-B of I.D. Act provides.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to an industrial

establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal

character or in which work is performed only intermittently)

in which not less than one hundred workmen were employed

on an average per working day for the preceding twelve

months.

Section 25-L defines “Industrial establishment"

means—

(i)

A factory as defined in clause (m) of Section 2

of the Factories Act, 1948;

(ii)

A mine as defined in clause (j) of sub-section

(1) of section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952;

(iii)

A plantion as defined in clause (f) of Section 2

of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951;

The pleadings and evidence of Ist party workman

are silent whether the industry run by IInd party falls in

any of those categories therefore provisions of Chapter V-

B or Section 25 (K & L) are not applicable. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.

8. Point No. 2—The parties are in controversy

whether the Ist Party employee is covered under Section

2(s) of I.D. Act. Workman pleads that he was not doing

managerial or supervisory duties. He was appointed only

for technical work. In his affidavit of evidence also, he has

stated those facts in para-3 of his affidavit. In his cross-

examination, he admits appointment letter P-1. The

appointment letter Exhibit P-1 provides duties in clause

VII. Any of his duty do not indicate that he had powers to

make any appointment, grant leave, write CRs etc. The

evidence in cross-examination of management's witness

Shri V.K. Shukla clearly shows that Ist party workman has

no authority to sanction leave of any employees. That the

contractor workers called vendors were working under his

control. Any employee of Reliance Next Link (P) Ltd. were

not working under him. He was not supervising work of

employee of reliance i.e. IInd party. Learned counsel for Ist

party workman Mr. Verma submitted that Ist party employee

is covered as workman.

9. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relies

on ratio held in

Case of All India Reserve Bank Employees

Association and another versus Reserve Bank of India and

another reported in AIR 1966 SC. 305. Their Lordship held

the word "Supervise" and its derivatives are not of precise

impart. The word must often be construed in the light of

the context, for unless controlled, they cover an easily

simple oversight and direction as manual work coupled

with a power of inspection and superintendence of the

manual work of others.

The question whether a particular workman is a

supervisor within or wihtout the definition of workman is

ultimately one of fact, at best one of mixed fact and law.

The question will really depend upon the nature of the

industry the type of work in which he is engaged the

organizational set up of the particular unit of industry and

like factor.

Their Lordship considered there is a power of

assigning duties and distribution of work there is

supervision. Mere checking of the work of others is not

enough because this checking is a part of accounting and

not of supervision.

In present case, the evidence of Ist party workman

has stated that he was engaged for doing technical work.

The conditions in the appointment order Exhibit M-1 do

not indicate any supervisory or managerial duties assigned

to the workman though he was receiving salary more than

Rs. 1600 per month. The evidence in cross-examination of

management's witness clearly shows that any employee of

Reliance Next (P) Ltd. was not working under Ist party

workman. Therefore there is no question of supervisory

duties performed by workman. For above reasons, I held

that the Ist party employee is workman under Section 2(s)

of I.D. Act. I therefore answer Issue No. 2 in Affirmative.

10.Issue No. 3.— The question is whether the

termination of services of Ist party workman is illegal in

violation of Section 25-F Rule 77,78 of I.D. Act. The

termination order Exhibit M-1 shows that on termination of

Ist party workman about 3 months pay of Rs. 9039/- was

offered to be paid on production of No Due Certificate.

The workman in his cross-examination admits that he had

received said amount. Learned counsel for Ist party Mr.

Verma submits that amount of retrenchment compensation

is necessary to be paid before termination of service. That

mere offer to pay such amount at the time of termination is

not legal. The retrenchment of employee on offer to pay

the amount is not legal. In support of his argument, learned

counsel relies on ratio held in—

Case of Pramod Jha and others Versus State of Bihar

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3343

and others held in AIR 2003-SC-1872. Their Lordship of the

Apex Court held Section 25-F No where speaks of the

retrenchment compensation being paid or tendered to the

worker along with one month's notice. On the contrary

clause(b) expressly provides for the payment of

compensation being made at the time of retrenchment and

by implication it would be permissible to pay the same

before retrenchment. Payment of tender of compensation

after the time when the retrenchment has taken effect would

vitiate the retrenchment and non-compliance with the

mandatory provision which has a beneficial purpose and a

public policy behind would result in nullifying the

retrenchment. Moreover, compliance with clauses (a) and

(b) of Section 25-F strictly as per the requirement of the

provision is mandatory. However, compliance with clause

Though learned counsel for IInd party Shri

Shrivastava argued that the amount was offered to be paid

was shown in the order of termination. The amount was to

be obtained after submitting No Due Certificate. The

management's witness in his cross-examination has

admitted that No Due Certificate could be obtained only

after termination of services. That amount offered in

termination order is apparent after the termination of Ist

party employee. It clearly vitiate the retrenchment. At the

time of his retrenchment, no list of employees working in

the establishment of IInd party was displayed. The evidence

of Ist party employee that other employee is engaged in

his place remained unchallenged. Management witness has

not started anything about it. Thus it is apparent that the

retrenchment of Ist party workman is illegal for violation of

Section 25-F, H of I.D. Act. For above reasions, I record my

finding in Point No. 3 in Negative.

11.Issue No. 4:—The question is to what relief the

workman is entitled. Learned counsel for employee Shri

Verma submits that retrenchment is held vitiated. Ist party

workman is entitled to retrenchment with full back wages.

In reply, counsel for IInd party Shri Shrivastava pointed

out that Ist party workman was serving in Military, he is

receiving pension. Workman admitted in his cross-

examination that he is receiving pension, he was in military

service for several year. Considering these aspects, Ist party

workman is not entitled to reinstatement with full back

wages, rather it would be appropriate to allow reinstatement

with 50% back wages. Accordingly I record my finding in

Issue No. 4.

12.In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

Ist party employee Ram Bhuwan Sharma is

covered as workman under Section 2(s) of I.D.

Act.

(2)

Action of IInd party management i.e. Circle

Maintenance Manager of M/S Reliance Next

Link (P) Ltd. Bhopal in terminating services of

Ist party workman from 25.03.2006 is illegal.

(3)

IInd party management is directed to reinstate

the workman Shri Ram Bhuwan Sharma with

50% back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1311-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj izkstDV eSustj]

[kknh xzke m|ksx vk;ksx] f'k;ksj 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh-

th-vkbZ-Vh-@,y-lh-@vkj-@299@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 12-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y&42011@24@1999&vkbZ.vkj. ¼Mh.;w.½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/21299/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial dispute between the Project Manager, Khadi

Gramodyog Aayog, Sehore and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 12.06.2013

[No. L-42011/24/1999-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/299/99

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Harish Kumar Raikwar,

C/o General Secrtary,

Kendriy Pooni Samyantra Shramik Sangh.

Sehore (MP)

......Workman

Versus

Project Manager,

Kendriya Pooni Samyantra Khadi

Gramodyog Aayog,

Sehore (MP)

......Management

3344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of April 2013

1. As per letter dated 13-9-99 by the Government of

India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-42011/

24/99/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Project

Manager, Kendriya Pooni Samyantra Khadi

Gramodyog Commission, in stopping the annual

increment of Shri Harish Kumar Ramkawar on the

basis of the enquiry conducted by an outsider

Advocate who is neither an Govt. official nor a Deptt.

Officer is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he

is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notice were issued to

the parties. Ist party failed to submit Statement of Claim. Ist

party is proceeded exparte on 19-1-2011 as the workman

failed to submit statement of claim after repeated notice

issued to him.

3. IInd party management also failed to file Written

Statement.

4. As the Ist party workman not filed Statement of

Claim and IInd party management has not filed Written

Statement, the reference is disposed off as there appears

no dispute between the parties.

5. As such No Dispute Award is passed.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1312-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj phQ tjuy

eSustj] fMikVZeSUV vkQ Vsyhdke ,oa vnZl ds izca/kra= ds lac)

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

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkjh vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-@,y-lh-@vkj-

@149@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

la. ,y.&40012@153@2001&vkbZ. vkj. ¼Mh.;w.½

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/149/2001) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the Chief

General Manager, Deptt. of Telecom and others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12.06.2013

[No. L-40012/153/2001-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/149/2001

Presiding Officer: SHRI R. B. PATLE,

Shri Gafur Khan,

S/o Shri Sardar Khan,

Vill: Ukavata,

PO Ukavata,

Tehsil Shahapur,

Shajapur Distt.

.....Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, M.P. Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

The T.D.E.,

Rajgarh, At: Biaora,

Raigarh

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of April, 2013

1. As per letter dated 7-9-2001 by the Government

of India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/

153/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of TDE,

Biaora in terminating the services of Shri Gafur Khan

S/o Shri Sardar Khan w.e.f. 31.12.1995 is justified? if

not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notice were issued to

the parties. Ist party failed to submit his Statement of Claim.

Ist party is proceeded exparte as per order dated 1-12-2006.

3. IInd party was directed to file its Written Statement.

Exparte Written Statement is submitted by management on

15-3-2011. IInd party denied that workman had worked on

its establishment. It is contended that the reference is not

tenable as workman did not worked with the management.

There is no question of his regularization. There is also no

question of termination of his services in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act, It is contended that no question

arises of completing 240 days service. IInd party prayed

for rejection of claim.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3345

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the management of TDE,

Biaora in terminating the services of Shri Gafur Khan S/o

Shri Sardar Khan w.e.f. 31-12-1995 is justified?

In Affirmative

(ii)If so, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

REASONS

5. In party workman is challenging legality of his

termination. However he failed to submit his statement of

claim or adducing evidence. The management submitted

Written Statement and denied that the Ist party workman

worked anytime on its establishment. The affidavit of IInd

party management of witness Ramjani Khan is filed. The

said witness has not been cross-examined. Ist party

workman did not participate in the proceeding. Witness of

the management has stated that workman never worked on

establishment of the IInd party. His evidence remained

unchallenged. As Ist party workman failed to adduce any

evidence to substantiate his claim, it cannot be said that

the action of termination of services of Ist party workman

is legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No.

1 in Affirmative.

6. Point No. 2-Wrokman is not entitled to any relief

as prayed by him.

7. In the result, the award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of TDE, Biaora

in terminating the services of Shri Gafur Khan

S/o Shri Sardar Khan w.e.f. 31-12-1995 is legal.

(2)

Reliefs prayed by workman are rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1313-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj phQ tjuy eSustj] fMikVZeSUV vkQ Vsyhdke ,oa

vnZl 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k lh.th.vkbZ.Vh.@,y.lh.@vkj.@11@2001½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12.06.2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y.&40012@386@2000&vkbZ.vkj. ¼Mh.;w.½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/11/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

dispute between the Chief General Manager, Deptt. of

Telecom and others and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 12.06.2013

[No. L-40012/386/2000-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM -LABOUR -COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/11/2001

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Manish Dubey,

S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Dubey,

Near Gopal Dal Mill, Hospit,

Guna

. . .Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

Distt. Engineer (Phones),

Guna

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of April, 2013

1. As per letter dated 17-11-2000 by the Government

of India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-40012/386/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to :

"Whether the action of the management of Distt.

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating the services

of Shri Manish Dubey s/o Shiv Prasad Dubey w.e.f.

1-2-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notice have been issued

to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 4/1 to 4.4. The case of Ist party workman is

that he was appointed from December 1992 in General Cadre

by IInd party management. That workman was doing work

of various natures assigned to him by the management. He

was continued in service till 1-2-98 without any break. He

had completed 240 days continuous service during each

of the calendar years. He claims to have acquired status of

workman under Section 25-B of I.D. Act. that from 1-2-98,

he was prevented from work, his services were terminated

3346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

orally without notice, without retrenchment compensation,

seniority list of employees was not displayed.

3. Ist party workman submits that he was denied

equal wages for equal work. His services were not

regularized. Inspite of repeated efforts, he was not permitted

to work, termination of his services is in violation of

provisions of I.D. Act, Section 25-F is not complied. The

service are terminated without enquiry or according hearing.

That IInd party has violated Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act

and Rule 77 of I.D. Act, Ist party workman prays for setting

aside his termination. He also prays for reinstatement with

back wages.

4. IInd party failed Written Statement at page 6/1 to

6/3. IInd party denied the claim of Ist party workman. It is

contented that the Ist party workman was not appointed

on any post in Telecom deptt. since December 1992. The

contentions of Ist party workman are false. That the

department of IInd party engages casual labours for petty

works. The services of such employees are terminated after

completion of work. It doesnot amount to retrenchment

since 1985. IInd party has totally stopped muster roll. That

workman was not in the record of his working which requires

verification.

5. IInd party submits that Ist party workman has not

completed 240 days continuous service. The provision of

Section 25-B of I.D. Act are not applicable. That Ist party

workman is not entitled to regularization of services as

prayed by him. The management cannot engage any

person without work. Rather it is contention of IInd party

that Ist party workman was never appointed, neither he

has been retrenched. The local officer as per requirement

engaged labor time to time. Therefore there is no question

of prohibiting workman from his duties or termination of

his duties. It is further contended that few labour were

engaged by local officers for some paid works after

completion of work service of such labours were

automatically terminated. Payment of labours also given

as per work on unnoted in the department in violation of

Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act is denied. It is denied that

workman had completed 240 days service during any of

the calender year. Appointment of casual labours has been

banned since 31-3-1985 in the department. That it is

contended that since 1998, workman were engaged on

contract basis through tender. As per the terms and

conditions of tender, the tenderer supplied the workman if

department needs to complete the specific work. On such

contentions IInd party denied violation of any of the

statutory provisions and prays for rejection of the relief

prayed by the Ist party workman.

6 Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8

of the record. The contentions in Written Statement of IInd

party are denied. It is submitted that the total

discontinuation of muster roll in department of IInd party

is beyond his comprehension. He reiterates that from

December 1992 he was continuously working with the

department of IInd party. He had completed 6 years

continuous service, he had completed 240 days working

during each of the calender year. He has reiterated violation

of statutory provisions that the provisions of I.D. Act and

prayed for reinstatement with back wages.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the termination

In Negative

of Ist party workman

Shri Manish Dubey

S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Dubey

by management w.e.f. 1.2.98

is legal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Its party workman is

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to compen-

sation Rs. 1,50,000 and

retrenchment compen-

sation, notice pay as

per final orders.

REASONS

8. Ist party workman is challenging his oral

termination from 1-2-98. He alleges violation of Section

25-F, G & HQ and Rule 77 of I.D. Act. He had worked 240

days continuously during each of the calendar years. IInd

party denied all those contentions. Rather it is contended

that Ist party workman was never appointed on any post,

there is no question of termination or violation of provision

of I.D. Act.

9. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence.

He has stated on oath that he was appointed on 21-12-92

and he was in continuous employment of IInd party without

any break. He had completed 240 days continuous service

during each of calendar year. His services were orally

terminated from 1-2-98. He was not given notice nor paid

retrenchment compensation. In his cross-examinaiton, Ist

party workman has denied that he was working as daily

wage labour. He claims that he was working on monthly

basis. Ist party workman is absolutely not cross-examined

about his appointment on 21-12-92 or his service

discontinued from 1-2-98. In his cross-examination, the

statement that he had completed 240 days is not challenged.

His evidence that he was not given notice, he was not

given retrenchment compensation and violation of Section

25-F, G & H is also not challenged in the cross-examination.

10. Evidence of management's witness Shri Vasant

Kumar Pateria on affidavit, he says that the workman was

never appointed, no appointment letter was given. In para-

4 of his affidavit, he states on oath the employees doing

the work was of casual nature as per exigency. That the

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3347

work of laying cable is discontinued, electronic exchanges

are established and therefore workman are not required.

That the employees were engaged as per exigencies in

post. The workman has not completed 240 days continuous

service in any of the calendar year.

11. In his cross-examination, management's witness

says that he has stated in his affidavit, information received

is as per record and not as per personal knowledge received

by him. That he had seen payment voucher, muster roll,

work order. On its basis, he had filed affidavit of evidence,

he has seen those documents around 1997 but did not

recollect exact year. The documents seen by him are not

produced on record. That he had seen the record in April

2010. He claims ignorance for which period the Ist party

workman has filed the proceeding. That he had seen

payment voucher for the period 1992 to 1996. That he was

working at Sagar during 1992 to1998, he was not working

at Guna during the said period. That he had not seen record

of engaging casual labours. The management's witness is

changing his version at different stages when he has seen

the record about payment voucher, work order etc. how

those documents are not produced. It is clear from his

evidence that the best evidence is withheld from court for

the reasons unknown. The management witness in his

further cross-examination has stated that during his tenure,

the casual labour was not taken on the muster roll. The

practice not maintaining muster roll despite engaging casual

labour, not maintaining vouchers itself is device to avoid

the provisions of I.D. Act. The document Exhibit W-2 copy

of reply filed before ALC shows that casual labours were

engaged and wages were paid, their services were

discontinued after completion of work. The documents are

contrary to contentions of IInd party that workman was

never engaged.

12. Though management has pleaded that casual

workers were engaged from 1998, no documents are

produced on record as to which of the contractor was

engaged, whether such contractor had obtained licence

for providing workman to the department as provided under

Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act. During course of

argument, it was heavily in dispute whether the workman

had completed 240 days continuous service. Workman has

filed application No. 9 for production of document i.e. muster

roll, payment voucher etc. The said application was

opposed by management and ultimately rejected after

hearing the parties. The rejection of application doesnot

relieve IInd party management from producing best

evidence in his custody. Parties cannot be terminated to

withhold any evidence. The evidence of Ist party workman

is tested on probabilities with the evidence of management's

witness. The evidence of workman that he was appointed

in 1992 and continued till 1-2-98 is not challenged. It is not

also challenged that he has worked 240 days service during

each of the calendar year. The said part of the evidence of

Ist party workman has remained unchallenged and therefore

I donot find any reason to disbelieve said evidence. So far

as evidence of witness of IInd party, he has seen record of

payment voucher, muster roll, work order but has not

produced such record and therefore his evidence appears

to be not reliable. He is suppressing relevant records from

Court. For above resons, I have no hesitation to hold that

the workman has completed 240 days continuous service

during each of the calendar year, no notice was issued for

termination of his service, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation, Seniority list of the employees working in

IInd party was not displayed at the time of termination of

Ist party workman. Thus the services of Ist party workman

are terminated in violation of Section 25-F G & H of I.D.

Act. The termination of services of workman is therefore

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding on Point No.

1 in Negative.

13. Point No. 2- The question is to what relief the Ist

party workman is entitled. His evidence in cross-

examination shows that his name was not sponsored from

employment exchange. he was not received any interview

call. Any procedure for his appointment was not followed.

The evidence of witness of management that the work has

completely changed, the digital telephone exchanges are

installed are not challenged in his cross-examination, his

evidence that casual workers are not required for laying

cables also remained unchallenged. Keeping those aspects

in view, I proceed to deal with the citations relied by the

counsel for parties.

14. Learned counsel for workman relies on —

"Ratio held in Case of Shri Anoop Sharma Versus

Executive Engineer, Public Health Divison No. 1,

Panipat (Haryana) reported in 2010-SCC-497. Their

Lordship in the above cited case confirmed order of

reinstatement filed by Labour Court for violation of

Section 25-F (a) and (b) of I.D. Act. As the

management has failed to prove compliance of clause

(a) and (b) of Section 25-F, delay in sending DD after

about three months to termination was not explained

by the employer.

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

ratio cannot be beneficially applied to the present case at

hand for the reasons that the reinstatement was directed

for violation of Section 25-F Clause a & b of I.D. Act. There

was no pleading about initial engagement was not legal.

The contention was Ist time raised before the Hon'ble High

Court. In the present case, Ist party workman has been

cross-examined on the point he was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange, he had not received interview calls

for his appointment.

Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of Shri

Ramesh Kumar versus State of Haryana reported in 2010-12

Supreme Court Cases 543. Their Lordship of the Apex Court

upheld Labour Court's direction for reinstatement with

continuity of service but with concession of workman to

3348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

forgo back wages. Their Lordship held in case of

termination, what is required to be seen is whether he has

completed 240 days of service in preceding 12 months or

not. If he has then the service cannot be terminated without

giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms of

Section 25-F. Though appointment on Public post cannot

made in contravention of recruitment rules and

constitutional scheme of employment, contention that initial

appointment of appellant was contrary to recruitment rules

and constitutional scheme of employment was not raised

either before Labour Court or High Court at the first

instance.

The ration held in the case doesnot fully support the

claim of Ist party workman for reinstatement with back

wages.

In case of ratio held in case between Maharashtra

State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,

Amravati and another versus Sanjay Krishnarao Shrungare,

Amravati reported in 2008 II CLR-301. Their Lordship

observed on examination of record, the Divison Bench held

that while there is no doubt that the burden did not lie on

the appellants to disprove that the respondents had worked

for 240 days, if the appellants were in possession of some

evidence in respect of the services rendered by the

respondents, there is no reason why it should not have

tendered such evidence. If the appellant chose to keep

from the Court the best evidence it had in respect of

respondents employment, the appellant must blame itself.

The ratio held in the case is not dealing with the

point of reinstatement or granting back wages if the

termination is found illegal.

In case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd

and Vinod Kumar Sharma in 2011-IV-LLJ-292 SC. Their

Lordship held High Court is not entitled to interfere with

the finding of fact recorded by Labour Court. It is held

correct that the employer resorted to subterfuge to avoid

liabilities under various labour statutes by showing that

the concerned workman are not their employees but are

employees of a contractor or that they are merely daily

wage or short term or casual employees when in fact they

are doing the work of regular employees.

15. Learned counsel for IInd party management Shri

Khare relies on-

Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3815/10 by supreme

Court of India. In para-7 of the judgement, his Lordship

observed it is true that the earlier view of this Court

articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position

that if the terminaiton of an employee was found to be

illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would

ordinarily follow. However in recent past, there has been a

shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of

reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may

be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even

though the termination of an employee is in contravention

of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of

reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice."

The facts of present case shows that the digital

telephone exchanges are installed, duites of laying cable is

not available. The workman was not appointed after

following procedure for recruitment therefore his services

cannot be regularized as held in case of Secretary, State of

Karnataka and other versus Umadevi and others reported

in 2006-4-SCC-1 relied by learned counsel for IInd party.

The ratio held in said case is absorption, regularization or

permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual,

daily wage or adhoc employees appointed/recruited and

continued for long in public employment dehors the

constitutional scheme of public employment are not entitled

to the benefit of regularization. Hon'ble Apex Court held in

such cases, High Court may not be justified in interim

directions.

16. Considering the evidence on record as Ist party

workman was not appointed following prescribed

procedure for recruitment, the work after installation of

digital telephone exchange, work of laying cable is not

available. In my considered view, workman is not entitled

to reinstatement with back wages. As held by his Lordship

in Civil Appeal No. 3815/2010, compensation in liew of

reinstatement would be the appropriate relief. Ist party

workman has completed 6 years service. He is entitled for

retrenchment compensation 15 days for each year

continuous service i.e. total 90 days and one month's notice

in lieu of notice. Accordingly I record my finding on Point

No. 2.

17. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Distt.

Engineer (Phones), Guna is terminating the

services of Manish Dubey, S/o Shri Shivprasad

Dubey w.e.f. 1-2-98 is illegal.

(2)

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 1,50,000/- wages for 30 days in lieu of notice

and wages for 90 days towards retrenchment

compensation.

The above amount shall be paid at the rate of wages

paid to the Ist party workman at the time of his termination

of his services. Amount as per above order be paid within

six weeks. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from date of order to its

realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1314-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3349

ljdkj phQ tujy eSustj] fMikVZesUV vkWQ Vsyhdke ,oa vnlZ ds

izcaèra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqcaè esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh.th.vkbZ.Vh.,y.lh.vkj.10@2001½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12.06.2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la.,y.&40012@387@2000&vkbZ.vkj. ¼Mh.;w. ]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O.1314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/10/2001) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Chief

General Manager, Deptt. of Telecom and others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 12.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/387/2000-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR- COURT,

JABALPUR

NO/CGIT/LC/R/10/2001

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Rameshwar Dayal Shrivastava,

S/o Shri K.N. Shrivastava,

Opposite Middle School, Kolupura,

Guna

. . .Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhople (MP)

Distt. Engineer (Phones),

. . .Managements

AWARD

Passed on 26th day of April 2013

1. As per letter dated 17-11-2000 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section -10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L- 40012/387/2000/

IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Distt.

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri

Rameshwar Dayal Shrivastava, S/o Shri Kailash

Narayan Shrivastava w.e.f. 21-2--98 is jsutified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices have been issued

to the parties. 1st party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 4/1 to 4/4. The case of Ist party workman is

that he was appointed from December 1992 in General Cadre

by IInd party management. That workman was doing work

of various natures assigned to him by the management. He

was continued in service till 21-2-98 without any break. He

had completed 240days continuous service during each of

the calendar years. He claims to have acquired status of

workman under Section 25-B of I.D.Act. that from 21-2-98,

he was prevented from work, his services were terminated

orally without notice, without retrenchment compensation,

seniority list of employees was not displayed.

3. Ist party workman submits that he was denied

equal wages for equal work. His services were not

regularized. Inspite of repeated efforts, he was not permitted

to work, termination of his services is in violation of

provisions of I.D.Act. Section 25-F is not complied. The

services are terminated without enquiry or according

hearing. That IInd party has violated Section 25-F, G & H

of I.D. Act and Rule 77 of I.D. Act. Ist party workman prays

for setting aside his termination. He also prays for

reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to 6/

3. IInd party denied the claim of 1st party workman. It is

contented that the Ist party workman was not appointed

on any post in Telecom deptt. since December 1992. The

contentions of 1st party workman are false. That the

department of IInd party engages casual labours for petty

works. The services of such employees are terminated after

completion of work. It doesnot amount to retrenchment

since 1985. IInd party has totally stopped muster roll. That

workman was not in the record of his working which requires

verification.

5. IInd party submits that Ist party workman has not

completed 240 days continuous service. The provisions of

Section 25-B of I.D. Act are not applicable. That Ist party

workman is not entitled to regularization of services as

prayed by him. The management cannot engage any

person without work. Rather it is contention of IInd party

that Ist party workman was never appointed, neither he

has been retrenched. The local officer as per requirement

engaged labour time to time. Therefore there is no question

of prohibiting workman from his duties or termination of

his duties. It is further contended that few labour were

engaged by local officers for some paid works after

completion of work service of such labours were

automatically terminated. Payment of labours also given

as per work on unnoted in the department in violation of

Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act is denied. It is denied that

workman had completed 240 days service during any of

3350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

the calendar year. Appointment of casual labours has been

banned since 31-3-1985 in the department. That it is

contended that since 1998, workman were engaged on

contract basis through tender. As per the terms and

conditions of tender, the tenderer supplied the workman if

department needs to complete the specific work. On such

contentions IInd party denied violation of any of the

statutory provisions and prays for rejection of the relief

prayed the Ist party workman.

6. 1st party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8 of

the record. The contentions in Written Statement of IInd

party are denied. It is submitted that the total

discontinuation of must roll in department of IInd party is

beyond his comprehension. He reiterates that from

December 1992 he was continuously working with the

department of IInd party. He had completed 6 years

continuous service, he had completed 240 days working

during each of the calendar year. He has reiterated violation

of statutory provisions that the provisions of I.D. Act and

prayed for reinstatement with back wages.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the termination

In Negative

of Ist party workman Shri

Rameshwar Dayal

Shrivastava, S/o Kailash

Narayan Shrivastava by

management w.e.f. 21-2-98

is legal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Ist party workman is entitled to

workman is entitled to?"

compensation Rs.1,50,000 and

retrenchment compensation,

notice pay as per final orders.

REASONS

8. Ist party workman is challenging his oral

termination from 21-2-98. He alleges violation of Section

25-F, G & H and Rule 77 of I.D.Act. He had worked 240

days continuously during each of the calendar years. IInd

party denied all those contentions. Rather it is contended

that Ist party workman was never appointed on any post,

there is no question of termination or violation of provisions

of I.D. Act.

9. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence.

He has stated on oath that he was appointed on 21-12-92

and he was in continuous employment of IInd party without

any break. He had completed 240 days continuous service

during each of calendar year. His services were orally

terminated from 21-2-98. He was not given notice nor paid

retrenchment compensation. In his cross-examination, he

has stated that he was working on daily wages, no

appointment order was given to him, his name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He had not

received interview letter. He was doing cleaning work in

switch room. He denies that he was working under

contractor. Ist party workman is absolutely not cross-

examined about his appointment on 21-12-92 or his service

discontinued from 21-2- 98. In his cross-examination, the

statement that he had completed 240 days is not challenged.

His evidence that he was not given notice, he was not

given retrenchment compensation and violation of Section

25-F, G & H is also not challenged in the cross-examination.

10. Evidence of management's witness Shri Vasant

Kumar Pateria on affidavit, he says that the workman was

never appointed, no appointment letter was given. In para-

4 of his affidavit, he states on oath the employees doing

the work was of casual nature as per exigency. That the

work of laying cable is discontinued, electronic exchanges

are established and therefore workman are not required.

That the employees were engaged as per exigencies in

post. The workman has not completed 240 days continuous

service in any of the calendar year.

11. In his cross-examination, management's witness

says that he has stated in his affidavit, information received

is as per record and not as per personal knowledge received

by him. That he had seen payment voucher, muster roll,

work order. On its basis, he had filed affidavit of evidence,

he has seen those documents around 1997 but did not

recollect exact year. The documents seen by him are not

produced on record. That he had seen the record in April

2010. He claims ignorance for which period the Ist party

workman has filed the prodeeding. That he had seen

payment voucher for the period 1992 to 1996. That he was

working at Sagar during 1992 to 1998, he was not working

at Guna during the said period. That he had not seen record

of engaging casual labours. The management's witness is

changing his version at different stages when he has seen

the record about payment voucher, work order etc., how

those documents are not produced. It is clear from his

evidence that the best evidence is withheld from court for

the reasons unknown. The management witness in his

further cross-examination has stated that during his tenure,

the casual labour was not taken on the muster roll. The

practice not maintaining muster roll despite engaging casual

labour, not maintaining vouchers itself is device to avoid

the provisions of I.D. Act. The document Exhibit W-2 copy

of reply filed before ALC shows that casual labours were

engaged and wages were paid, their services were

discontinued after completion of work. The documents are

contrary to contentions of IInd party that workman was

never engaged.

12. Though management has pleaded that casual

workers were engaged from 1998, no documents are

produced on record as to which of the contractor was

engaged, whether such contractor had obtained licence

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3351

for providing workman to the department as provided under

Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act. During course of

argument, it was heavily in dispute whether the workman

had completed 240 days continuous service. Workman has

filed application No. 9 for production of documents i.e.

muster roll, payment voucher etc. The said application was

opposed by management and ultimately rejected after

hearing the parties. The rejection of application does not

relieve IInd party management from producing best

evidence in his custody. Parties cannot be terminated to

withhold any evidence. The evidence of Ist party workman

is tested on probabilities with the evidence of management's

witness. The evidence of workman that he was appointed

in 1992 and continued till 21-2-98 is not challenged. It is not

also challenged that he has worked 240 days service during

each of the calendar year. The said part of the evidence of

Ist party workman has remained unchallenged and therefore

I do not find any reason to disbelieve said evidence. So far

as evidence of witness of IInd party, he has seen the record

of payment voucher, muster roll, work order but has not

produced such record and therefore his evidence appears

to be not reliable. He is suppressing relevant records from

Court . For above reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that

the workman has completed 240 days continuous service

during each of the calendar year, no notice was issued for

termination of his service, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation, Seniority list of the employees working in

IInd party was not displayed at the time of termination of

Ist party workman. Thus the services of Ist party workman

are terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D.

Act. The termination of services of workman is therefore

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding on Point

No.1 in Negative.

13. Point No.2. The question is to what relief the Ist

party workman is entitled. His evidence in cross-

examination shows that his name was not sponsored from

employment exchange. He has not received any interview

call. Any procedure for his appointment was not followed.

The evidence of witness of management that the work has

completely changed, the digital telephone exchanges are

installed are not challenged in his cross-examination. His

evidence that casual workers are not required for laying

cables also remained unchallenged. Keeping those aspects

in view, I proceed to deal with the citations relied by the

counsel for parties.

14. Learned counsel for workman relies on —

"Ratio held in Case of Shri Anoop Sharma Versus

Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1,

Panipat (Haryana) reported in 2010-5-SCC-497. Their

Lordship in the above cited case confirmed order of

reinstatement filed by Labour Court for violation of

Section 25-F (a) and (b) of I.D. Act. As the

management has failed to prove compliance of clause

(a) and (b) of Section 25-F, delay in sending DD after

about three months of termination was not explained

by the employer.

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

ratio cannot be beneficially applied to the present case at

hand for the reasons that the reinstatement was directed

for violation of Section 25-F Clause A & B of I.D. Act.

There was no pleading about initial engagement was not

legal. The contention was Ist time raised before the Hon'ble

High Court. In the present case, 1st party workman has

been cross- examined on the point he was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange, he had not received

interview calls for his appointment.

Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of Shri

Ramesh Kumar versus State of Haryana reported in 2010-2

Supreme Court Cases 543. Their Lordship of the Apex Court

upheld Labour Court's direction for reinstatement with

continuity of service but with concession of workman to

forgo back wages. Their Lordship held in case of

termination, what is required to be seen is whether he has

completed 240 days of service in preceding 12 months or

not. If he has then the service cannot be terminated without

giving notice or compensation in lieu of it in terms of

Section 25-F. Though appointment on Public post cannot

made in contravention of recruitment rules and

constitutional scheme of employment, contention that initial

appointment of appellant was contrary to recruitment rules

and constitutional scheme of employment was not raised

either before Labour Court or High Court at the first

instance.

The ratio held in the case doesnot fully support the

claim of 1st party workman for reinstatement with back

wages.

In case of ratio held in case between Maharashtra

State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,

Amravati and another versus Sanjay Krishnarao Shrungare,

Amravati reported in 2008 II CLR-301. Their Lordship

observed on examination of record, the Division Bench

held that while there is no doubt that the burden did not lie

on the appellants to disprove that the respondents had

worked for 240 days, if the appellants were in possession

of some evidence in respect of the services rendered by

the respondents, there is no reason why it should not have

tendered such evidence. If the appellant chose to keep

from the Court the best evidence it had in respect of

respondents employment, the appellant must blame itself.

The ratio held in the case is not dealing with the

point of reinstatement or granting back wages if the

termination is found illegal.

In case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S.Ltd

and Vinod Kumar Sharma in 2011-IV-LLJ-292 SC. Their

Lordship held High Court is not entitled to interfere with

the finding of fact recorded by Labour Court. It is held

correct that the employer resorted to subterfuge to avoid

3352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

liabilities under various labour statutes by showing that

the concerned workman are not their employees but are

employees of a contractor or that they are merely daily

wage or short term or casual employees when in fact they

are doing the work of regular employees.

15. Learned counsel for IInd party management Shri

Khare relies on—

Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3815/10 by supreme

Court of India. In para-7 of the judgment, his Lordship

observed it is true that the earlier view of this Court

articulated in many decisions reflected the legal

position that if the termination of an employee was

found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with

full back wages would ordinarily follow. However in

recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position

and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently

taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement

with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly

inappropriate in a given fact situation even though

the termination of an employee is in contravention

of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead

of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of

justice."

The facts of present case shows that the digital

telephone exchanges are installed, duties of laying cable is

not available. The workman was not appointed after

following procedure for recruitment therefore his services

cannot be regularized as held in case of Secretary, State of

Karnataka and others versus Umadevi and others reported

in 2006-4- SCC-1 relied by learned counsel for IInd party.

The ratio held in said case is absorption, regularization or

permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual,

daily wage or adhoc employees appointed/recruited and

continued for long in public employment dehors the

constitutional scheme of public employment are not entitled

to the benefit of regularization. Hon'ble Apex Court held in

such cases, High Court may not be justified in interim

directions.

16. Considering the evidence on record as Ist party

workman was not appointed following prescribed

procedure for recruitment, the work after installation of

digital telephone exchange, work of laying cable is not

available. In my considered view, workman is not entitled

to reinstatement with back wages. As held by his Lordship

in Civil Appeal No. 3815/2010, compensation in lieu of

reinstatement would be the appropriate relief. Ist party

workman has completed 6 years service. He is entitled for

retrenchment compensation 15 days for each year

continuous service i.e. total 90 days and one month's notice

in lieu of notice. Accordingly, I record my finding on Point

No.2.

17. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1)

The action of the management of Distt.

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating the

services of Shri Rameshwar Dayal Shrivastava,

S/o Kailash Narayan Shrivastava w.e.f.

21-2-98 is illegal.

(2)

Ilnd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs.1,50,000 wages for 30 days in lieu of notice

and wages for 90 days towards retrenchment

compensation.

The above amount shall be paid at the rate of wages

paid to the Ist party workman at the time of his termination

of his services. Amount as per above order be paid within

six weeks. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from date of order to its

realization.

R .B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1315

1315

1315.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj phQ tjuy eSustj] fMikVZeSUV vkQ VsyhdkWe ,oa

vnlZ ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

lh.th. vkbZ.Vh@,y.lh.@vkj.@9@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12.06.2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la. ,y&40012@388@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O.1315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1997) the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/9/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecom and others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 12.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/388/2000-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/9/2001

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Ramkumar Shrivastava,

S/o Shri K.N.Shrivastava,

H/o Salim Chacha,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3353

Shivaji Nagar,

Guna

.....Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road, MP Circle,

Bhopal (MP)

Distt. Engineer (Phones),

Guna

.....Managements

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of April 2013

As per letter dated 17-11-2000 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-40012/388/2000-IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to :

"Whether the action of the management of Distt.

Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Ramkumar

Shrivastava, S/o Kailash Narayan Shrivastava w.e.f.

21-2-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices have been issued

to the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of

claim at Page 4/1 to 4/4. The case of Ist party workman is

that he was appointed from December 1992 in General Cadre

by IInd party management. That workman was doing work

of various natures assigned to him by the management. He

was continued in service till 21-2-98 without any break. He

had completed 240 days continuous service during each

of the calendar years. He claims to have acquired status of

workman under Section 25-B of I.D.Act, that from 21-2-98,

he was prevented from work, his services were terminated

orally without notice, without retrenchment compensation,

seniority list of employees was not displayed.

3. Ist party workman submits that he was denied

equal wages for equal work. His services were not

regularized. In spite of repeated efforts, he was not

permitted to work, termination of his services is in violation

of provisions of I.D.Act. Section 25-F is not complied. The

services are terminated without enquiry or according

hearing. That IInd party has violated Section 25-F, G & H

of I.D.Act and Rule 77 of I.D.Act. Ist party workman prays

for setting aside his termination. He also prays for

reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 6/1 to

6/3. IInd party denied the claim of 1st party workman. It is

contented that the Ist party workman was not appointed

on any post in Telecom Deptt. since December 1992. The

contentions of 1st party workman are false. That the

department of IInd party engages casual labours for petty

works. The services of such employees are terminated after

completion of work. It doesnot amount to retrenchment

since 1985. IInd party has totally stopped muster roll. That

workman was not in the record of his working which requires

verification.

5. IInd party submits that Ist party workman has not

completed 240 days continuous service. The provisions of

Section 25-B of I.D.Act are not applicable. That Ist party

workman is not entitled to regularization of services as

prayed by him. The management cannot engage any

person without work. Rather it is contention of IInd party

that Ist party workman was never appointed, neither he

has been retrenched. The local officer engage casual

employees as per exigencies. There is no question of

prohibiting workman from his duties or termination of his

duties. It is further contended that few labour were engaged

by local officers for some paid works after completion of

work service of such labours were automatically terminated.

Payment of labours also given as per work on unnoted in

the department in violation of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D.

Act is denied. It is denied that workman had completed 240

days service during any of the calendar year. Appointment

of casual labours has been banned since 31-3-1985 in the

department. That it is contended that since 1998, workman

were engaged on contract basis through tender. As per the

terms and conditions of tender, the tenderer supplied the

workman if department needs to complete the specific work.

On such contentions IInd party denied violation of any of

the statutory provisions and prays for rejection of the relief

prayed by the Ist party workman.

6. Ist party workman submitted rejoinder at Page 8 of

the record. The contentions in Written Statement of IInd

party are denied. It is submitted that the total

discontinuation of must roll in department of IInd party is

beyond his comprehension. He reiterates that form

December 1992 he was continuously working with the

department of IInd party. He had completed 6 years

continuous service, he had completed 240 days working

during each of the calendar year. He has reiterated violation

of statutory provisions that the provisions of I.D.Act and

prayed for reinstatement with back wages.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the termination

of Ist party workman Shri

In Negative

Ramkumar Shrivastava, S/o

Kailash Narayan Shrivastava

by management w.e.f.

21-2-98 is legal?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Ist party workman is entitled to

workman is entitled to?"

compensation Rs.1,50,000 and

retrenchment compensation,

notice pay as per final orders.

3354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

REASONS

8. Ist party workman is challenging his oral

termination from 21-2-98. He alleges violation of Section

25-F , G & H and Rule 77 of I.D.Act. He had worked 240

days continuously during each of the calendar years . IInd

party denied all those contentions. Rather it is contended

that Ist party workman was never appointed on any post,

there is no question of termination or violation of provisions

of I.D.Act.

9. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence.

He has stated on oath that he was appointed on 21-12-92

and he was in continuous employment of IInd party without

any break. He had completed 240 days continuous service

during each of calendar year. His services were orally

terminated from 21-2-98. He was not given notice nor paid

retrenchment compensation. In his cross-examination, he

has stated that he was working on daily wages, no

appointment order was given to him, his name was not

sponsored through Employment Exchange. He had not

received interview letter. He was doing cleaning work in

switch room. He denies that he was working under

contractor. Ist party workman is absolutely not cross-

examined about his appointment on 21-12-92 or his service

discontinued from 21-2-98. In his cross-examination, the

statement that he had completed 240 days is not challenged.

His evidence that he was not given notice, he was not

given retrenchment compensation and violation of Section

25-F , G & H is also not challenged in the cross-examination.

10. Evidence of management's witness Shri Vasant

Kumar Pateria on affidavit, he says that the workman was

never appointed, no appointment letter was given. In para-

4 of his affidavit, he states on oath the employees doing

the work was of casual nature as per exigency. That the

work of laying cable is discontinued, electronic exchanges

are established and therefore workman are not required.

That the employees were engaged as per exigencies in

post. The workman has not completed 240 days continuous

service in any of the calendar year.

11. In his cross-examination, management's witness

says that he has stated in his affidavit, information received

is as per record and not as per personal knowledge received

by him. That he had seen payment voucher, muster roll,

work order. On its basis, he had filed affidavit of evidence,

he has seen those documents around 1997 but did not

recollect exact year. The documents seen by him are not

produced on record. That he had seen the record in April

2010. He claims ignorance for which period the Ist party

workman has filed the proceeding. That he had seen

payment voucher for the period 1992 to 1996. That he was

working at Sagar during 1992 to 1998, he was not working

at Guna during the said period. That he had not seen record

of engaging casual labors. The management's witness is

changing his version at different stages when he has seen

the record about payment voucher, work order etc. , how

those documents are not produced. It is clear from his

evidence that the best evidence is withheld from court for

the reasons unknown.

12. Though management has pleaded that casual

workers were engaged from 1998, no documents are

produced on record as to which of the contractor was

engaged, whether such contractor had obtained licence

for providing workman to the department as provided under

Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act. During course of

argument, it was heavily in dispute whether the workman

had completed 240 days continuous service. Workman

has filed application No. 9 for production of documents i.e.

muster roll, payment voucher etc. The said application was

opposed by management and ultimately rejected after

hearing the parties. The rejection of application doesnot

relieve IInd party management from producing best

evidence in his custody. Parties cannot be terminated to

withhold any evidence. The evidence of Ist party workman

is tested on probabilities with the evidence of management's

witness. The evidence of workman that he was appointed

in 1992 and continued till 21-2-98 is not challenged. It is not

also challenged that he has worked 240 days service during

each of the calendar year. The said part of the evidence of

Ist party workman has remained unchallenged and therefore

I donot find any reason to disbelieve said evidence. So far

as evidence of witness of IInd party, he has seen the record

of payment voucher, muster roll, work order but has not

produced such record and therefore his evidence appears

to be not reliable. He is suppressing relevant records from

Court. For above reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that

the workman has completed 240 days continuous service

during each of the calendar year, no notice was issued for

termination of his service, he was not paid retrenchment

compensation, Seniority list of the employees working in

IInd party was not displayed at the time of termination of

Ist party workman. Thus the services of 1st party workman

are terminated in violation of Section 25-F G & H of I.D.

Act. The termination of services of workman is therefore

illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding on Point

No.1 in Negative.

13. Point No. 2- The question is to what relief the Ist

party workman is entitled. His evidence in cross-

examination shows that his name was not sponsored from

employment exchange. He has not received any interview

call. Any procedure for his appointment was not followed.

The evidence of witness of management that the work has

completely changed, the digital telephone exchanges are

installed are not challenged in his cross-examination. his

evidence that casual workers are not required for laying

cables also remained unchallenged. Keeping those aspects

in view, I proceed to deal with the citations relied by the

counsel for parties.

14. Learned counsel for workman relies on —

"Ratio held in Case of Shri Anoop Sharma Versus

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3355

Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1,

Panipat (Haryana) reported in 2010-5-SCC-497. Their

Lordship in the above cited case confirmed order of

reinstatement filed by Labour Court for violation of

Section 25-F (a) and (b) of I.D. Act.As the

management has failed to prove compliance of clause

(a) and (b) of Section 25-F, delay in sending DD after

about three months of termination was not explained

by the employer.

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

ratio cannot be beneficially applied to the present case at

hand for the reasons that the reinstatement was directed

for violation of Section 25-F Clause a & b of I.D. Act. There

was no pleading about initial engagement was not legal.

The contention was Ist time raised before the Hon'ble High

Court. In the present case, Ist party workman has been

cross- examined on the point he was not sponsored through

Employment Exchange, he had not received interview calls

for his appointment.

Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of Shri

Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana reported in

2010-12 Supreme Court Cases 543. Their Lordship of the

Apex Court upheld Labour Court's direction for

reinstatement with continuity of service but with

concession of workman to forgo back wages. Their Lordship

held in case of termination, what is required to be seen is

whether he has completed 240 days of service in preceding

12 months or not. If he has then the service cannot be

terminated without giving notice or compensation in lieu

of it in terms of Section 25-F . Though appointment on

Public post cannot made in ontravention of recruitment

rules and constitutional scheme of employment, contention

that initial appointment of appellant was contrary to

recruitment rules and constitutional scheme of employment

was not raised either before Labour Court or High Court at

the first instance.

The ratio held in the case doesnot fully support the

claim of Ist party workman for reinstatement with back

wages.

In case of ratio held in case between Maharashtra

State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education,

Amravati and another Versus Sanjay Krishnarao Shrungare,

Amravati reported in 2008 II CLR-301. Ther Lordship

observed on examination of record, the Division Bench

held that while there is no doubt that the burden did not lie

on the appellants to disprove that the respondents had

worked for 240 days, if the appellants were in possession

of some evidence in respect of the services rendered by

the respondents, there is no reason why it should not have

tendered such evidence,. If the appellant chose to keep

from the Court the best evidence it had in respect of

respondents employment, the appellant must blame itself.

The ratio held in the case is not dealing with the

point of reinstatement or granting back wages if the

termination is found illegal.

In case of Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S.Ltd

and Vinod Kumar Sharma in 2011-IV-LLJ-292 SC. Their

Lordship held High Court is not entitled to interfere with

the finding of fact recorded by Labour Court. It is held

correct that the employer resorted to subterfuge to avoid

liabilities under various labour statutes by showing that

the concerned workman are not their employees but are

employees of a Contractor or that they are merely daily

wage or short term or casual employees when in fact they

are doing the work of regular employees.

15. Learned counsel for IInd party management Shri

Khare relies on—

“Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3815/10 by Supreme

Court of India. In para-7 of the judgment, his Lordship

observed it is true that the earlier view of this Court

articulated in many decisions reflected the legal

position that if the termination of an employee was

found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with

full back wages would ordinarily follow. However in

recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position

and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently

taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement

with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly

inappropriate in a given fact situation even though

the termination of an employee is in contravention

of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead

of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of

justice."

The facts of present case shows that the digital

telephone exchanges are installed, duties of laying cable is

not available. The workman was not appointed after

ollowing procedure for recruitment therefore his services

cannot be regularized as held in case of Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Others Versus Umadevi and Others reported

in 2006-4- SCC-1 relied by leaned counsel for IInd party.

The ratio held in said case is absorption, regularization or

permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual,

daily wage or adhoc employees appointed/recruited and

continued for long in public employment dehors the

constitutional scheme of public employment are not entitled

to the benefit of regularization. Hon'ble Apex Court held in

such cases, High court may not be justified in interim

directions.

16. Considering the evidence on record as Ist party

workman was not appointed following prescribed

procedure for recruitment, the work after installation of

digital telephone exchange , work of laying cable is not

available. In my considered view, workman is not entitled

to reinstatement with back wages. As held by his Lordship

in Civil Appeal No. 3815/2010, compensation in lieu of

reinstatement would be the appropriate relief. Ist party

workman has completed 6 years service. He is entitled for

retrenchment compensation 15 days for each year

continuous service i.e. total 90 days and one month's notice

3356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

in lieu of notice. Accordingly I record my finding on Pont

No.2.

17. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Distt. Engineer

(Phones), Guna in terminating the services of shri Ramkumar

Shrivastava, S/o Kailash Narayan Shrivastava w.e.f. 21-2-

98 is illegal.

(2) Ilnd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs.1,50,000/- wages for 30 days in lieu of notice and wages

for 90 days towards retrenchment compensation.

The above amount shall be paid at the rate of wages

paid to the Ist party workman at the time of his termination

of his services. Amount as per above order be paid within

six weeks. In case of default, the amount shall carry interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from date of order to its

realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dkdkdkdkdk.vkvkvkvkvk. 131

131

1316.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSustj] ¼,p-

vkj-½ LdwVlZ bf.M;k fyfeVsM ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k 25@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

12-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&42012@06@2009 vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O.1316.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.25/2009) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Lucknow

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relations to the Manager, (HR) Scooters

India Ltd. their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 12.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/06/2009-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -

CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 25/2009

Ref. No. L-42012/6/2009-IR(DU) dated: 17.07.2009

BETWEEN

Shri Phool Chand S/o Shri Gunraj

C/o Om Prakash, Behind St. Thomas School

Sparsh General Store

Shanti Nagar, Sarojini Nagar

Lucknow — 226 008

AND

The Manager (HR)

Scooters India Limited

Sarojini Nagar

Lucknow — 226 008

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/6/2009-IR(DU) dated:

17.07.2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between Shri Phool Chand S/o Shri Gunraj

C/o Om Prakash, Behind St. Thomas School, Sparsh General

Store, Shanti Nagar, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and the

Manager (HR), Scooters India Limited, Sarojini Nagar,

Lucknow for adjudication to this CGIT-cumLabour Court,

Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Whether the action of the management of scooters

india ltd., lucknow in terminating the services of their

workman shri phool chand w.e.f. 23/07/1983 is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to?"

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Phool Chand was, initially, appointed as a casual labour

thereafter was appointed as unskilled labour w.e.f. 01.08.1975

with the opposite party i.e. Scooters India (hereinafter

referred to as Company). The workman was served upon a

charge sheet dated 30.06.1983 for alleged misconduct of

claiming & getting reimbursement regarding false LTC claim;

and consequently, was dismissed from the Company vide

order dated 23.07.1983.

4. The workman has alleged that the Company issued

said charge sheet to 47 workmen under Section 23 (1) Of

the Certified Standing Order and dismissed some of them,

including workman, without affording him sufficient time

to reply the charge sheet or an opportunity to defend

himself. He has alleged that the management acted

arbitrarily while dismissing him without following the

principles of natural justice in his case. It has been alleged

by the workman that the management discriminated in

imposing punishment as the workman was dismissed;

whereas other workmen had been forgiven by giving them

'warning' only while some of them were acquitted of the

charges. It has been submitted that the other workmen

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3357

who have been dismissed on 23.07.1983 challenged the

action of the management in Labour Court and the Labour

Court passed an order of reinstatement of them with back

wages; and they were reinstated by the management with

back wages. The workmen who were reinstated are viz.

Shri Jila Jeet Pal, L.N. Tiward, A.K. Singh, Vinod Singh,

Mohammad Naseem Khan, Vaseem, K.K. Bajpai, Babu Lal,

Raja Ram, S. Pal Singh A.H. Khan, Bajnath Yadav etc.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his dismissal

dated 23.07.1983 be cancelled and he be reinstated with

back wages.

5. The management of the Scooters India denied the

claim of the workman by filing its Written Statement wherein

it has emphasized over the fact that the present claim is

stale one as the cause of action accrued on 23.7.1983 and

the matter has be raised before this Tribunal after lapse of

about 26 years. The management has further submitted

that the workman was afforded 48 hours for submission of

his reply over the charge sheet and on non-receipt of any

reply from• workman, his services were dismissed after

considering all the fact and circumstances of the case and

there is no illegality in it. Further, it has submitted that the

workman agitated his termination before Labour Court

under Section 11 — C of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act; but

the same was dismissed by the Labour Court vide their

order dated 22.10.1986 as being not maintainable.

Thereafter, the workman challenged the said order of

Labour Court before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in Writ

Petition No. 4377 (SS) of 1993; which was dismissed vide

order dated 09.04.2008. The workman filed SLP before

Hon'ble Supreme Court against order dated 09.04.2008 of

Hon'ble High Court and the same too was dismissed by

Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 17.02.2009.

6. As regard reinstating other workmen, the

management has submitted that the case of the workman,

Phool Chand is entirely different with those of workmen

who have been reinstated by the management. It is stated

that the workman entered into a settlement dated 09.09.1986

through the General Secretary of his recognized union;

whereby he finally settled his dispute and according to

which he had received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as lump sum

compensation in full and final settlement of his claim with

the Company. But the other workmen who have been

reinstated did not enter into any settlement with the

management, therefore, they were given reinstatement in

compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court. The management

has submitted that the workman through his representative

union entered into a settlement dated 09.09.1986 with the

management of Scooters India; according to which he was

given Rs. 30,000/- as compensation in full and final

settlement of his claim along with other admissible dues

i.e. Gratuity. The terms of settlement restrains the workman

to raise any dispute regarding his termination of services

w.e.f. 23.7.1983 either individually or through any union or

otherwise before any Court or Authority. Hence, the

present claim is not maintainable. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workman be

rejected out rightly as devoid of merit.

7. The workman has filed rejoinder whereby it has

only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and

has not introduced any new fact.

8. The parties have filed photocopies of various

documents in support of their respective claim. The

workman has examined itself, Shri Jila Jeet Pal and Shri Jai

Prakash whereas the management has examined Shri A.K.

Chatterjee, Manager (HR) in support of their stands. Parties

availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each

other apart from forwarding oral arguments.

9. Heard authorized representatives of the parties

and perused entire evidence on record.

10. The authorized representative of the workman

has argued that the management of the Scooters India acted

in arbitrary manner in not conducting any inquiry and

passing the order of dismissal on non-receipt of any reply

from the workman within 48 hours. The action of the

management while terminating the workman without

holding enquiry and without giving any opportunity of

hearing or defence to the workman is against principle of

natural justice. It has further been submitted that the

management made discrimination by giving lesser

punishment and forgiving other workmen who were charged

with same charges and imposing punishment of dismissal

on the workman. It was further argued that the management

had reinstated K.K. Bajpai, Babu Lal and Raja Ram similarly

situated workmen while spared him.

11. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the action of management

in not conducting any enquiry and giving only 48 hours

time to reply the charge sheet was just and was in accordance

with the standing orders of the Company. He has submitted

that had the time given was insufficient then the workman

might have requested of extra time; but he did not do so

and accordingly, the order of dismissal was passed after

considering facts and circumstances of the case and there

is no illegality in it. He has further submitted that the case

of the workman is different with that of Babu Lal as the

workman, Phool Chand through his representative union

entered into a settlement with the management of Scooters

India vide dated 09.09.1986 whereas Babu Lal did not enter

into any settlement with the management. According to

said settlement the workman received Rs. 30,000/- as a

lump-sum compensation in full and final settlement of his

claim along with Gratuity. It was also provided in the said

settlement that the workman, Phool Chand shall not agitate

any dispute regarding his termination of services w.e.f.

23.07.1983 either individually or through any union or

otherwise before any Court or Authority. The authorized

representative has argued that Babu Lal was reinstated as

3358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

per orders of High Court being not entered into any

settlement; whereas when workman entered into the

settlement with the management and received the amount

agreed between him and the management i.e. Rs. 30,000 as

full and final settlement then neither he has any right to

raise the present dispute nor to claim parity with Babu Lal.

It was further argued that the cause of the workman was

disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide their order

dated 09.08.2008 and the SLP against the same was

dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2008 by the Hon'ble Apex

Court, thus, the matter of the workman has attained finality

and there is nothing for this Tribunal to go through.

12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

submissions of the authorized representatives of the parties

and scanned entire pleadings of the both the parties and

evidence adduced by the parties, documentary as well as

oral.

13. The case of the workman in nut shell is that the

management of the Scooters India acted in utter violation

of principles of natural justice by not proving him proper

time to reply the charges leveled against him and by not

affording him proper opportunity to defend himself before

an inquiry; and secondly the management discriminated in

imposing lesser punishment to other similarly situated

workman and also in not treating him at par with Babu Lal

who was reinstated in view of the orders of Hon'ble High

Court vide order dated 31.08.99 in which he too was a party.

The workman in his evidence has tried to substantiate his

version by examining himself and two other witnesses.

14. Per contra, the case of the management rests on

the plea that its action was in accordance with the

provisions contained in the Certified Standing Orders and

the case of Babu Lal is different to that of the workman as

Babu Lal never entered into any settlement with the

management regarding termination of his services; whereas

the workman, through his representative union entered

into a settlement with the management; whereby the matter

of his dismissal was settled by receiving amount of Rs.

30,000/- as full and final settlement of dispute and by

giving an undertaking that he will not agitate his termination

before any court of law or any forum. It is also the case of

the management that since the matter of dismissal has been

well tried and disposed of by Hon'ble High Vide order dated

09.04.2008 and its approval by Hon'ble Apex Court vide

order dated 11.09.2008 there is nothing which has to be

looked into by this Tribunal.

15. Admittedly, the workman, Phool Chand with other

47 employees were served upon a charge sheet for claiming

false LTC claim and was given 48 hours time to reply to the

said charge sheet. On failure of the workman in giving any

reply to the said charge sheet, the management imposed

punishment of dismissal vide order dated 23.7.1983. On

dismissal the workman challenged the impugned order

dated 23.7.1983 before Labour Court under Section 11-C of

the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act vide Misc Case No. 05/

1985, which was rejected vide order dated 22.10.1986 being

not maintainable. Meanwhile the workman had entered into

a settlement with the opposite party management through

General Secretary of his representative union vide dated

09.09.1986. The terms of settlement are quoted hereunder:

"TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

(1)

That the Employers have agreed to pay Sri

Phool Chand S/o Sri Gun Raj Navik an ex-gratia

amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty

Thousand only) in full and final settlement of

his case/claims leaving no claim of any nature

whatsoever on the company except the

gratuity, if any, payable to him and the

provident fund, on ceasing to be an employee

of the company. The amount, if any,

outstanding against the workman concerned

Sri Phool Chand in the books of Accounts of

the Company shall be recovered and adjusted

against the aforesaid amount of ex-gratia.

(2)

That the relationship of master and servant or

the Employer and employee between the

workman concerned Sri Phool Chand S/o Sri

Gun Raj Navik and he Company i.e. Scooters

India Limited Lucknow shall cease to exist

between the parties from the date of termination

of the services of the workman concerned Sri

Phool Chand i.e. 23.7.83 and it will be deemed

that the workman concerned has resigned from

the said date.

That after adjustment of Rs. 528/- (Rupees Five

hundred twenty eight only) outstanding

against the workman concerned Shri Phool

Chand S/o Sri Gun Raj Navik in the books of

Accounts of the Company, the balance amount

of Rs. 29,472/- (Rupees Twenty nine thousand

four hundred and seventy two only) is being

paid by Account Payee Cheque No. 879621

dated 25.11.86 drawn on the Bank of Baroda,

Hazratganj, Lucknow.

That the workman concerned Sri Phool Chand

S/o Sri Gun Raj Navik has agreed not raise or

agitate any dispute regarding termination of

his service from the company w.e.f. 23.7.83

either individually or through any Union or

otherwise before any court or authority.

That this fully and finally resolves the case/

dispute in respect of the termination of the

services of the workman concerned Sri Phool

Chand S/o Sri Gun Raj Navik w.e.f. 23.07.83.

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3359

Representing

Representing Workman

Workman

-sd-

1. (PHOOL CHAND)

1. (P.D. JOSHI)

-sd-

2. (S.B. SINGH)

2. (S.N. SINGH)

3.-sd-

-sd-

(S.S. RAI)

3. (S.S. NAIR)"

As a result of above quoted settlement the workman

received a sum of Rs. 29,472 as a lump sum compensation

in full and final settlement of his claim along with Gratuity.

From perusal of the above terms of settlement it was agreed

upon that the relationship of master and servant or the

Employer and employee between the management of

Scooters India and its workman, Sri Phool Chand shall

ceased to exist; and it would be deemed that the workman

concerned has resigned from the said date i.e. 23.07.83 and

it was further agreed upon that the workman, Phool Chand

shall not agitate any dispute regarding his dismissal of

services w.e.f. 23.07.1983 either individually or through any

Union or otherwise before any Court or Authority.

16. Even after having entered into a settlement on

09.09.1986 with the management that he will not agitate

any dispute regarding his dismissal of services w.e.f.

23.07.1983 either individually or through any Union or

otherwise before any Court or Authority; and on getting

his case rejected by Labour Court vide order dated

22.10.1886 being not maintainable, the workman, Phool

Chand preferred a Writ No. 4377 (S/s) of 1993 before Hon'ble

High Court, Allahabd which was disposed of vide order

dated 31.08.99; whereby Hon'ble High Court ordered the

management to reinstate the workman and further directed

that amount paid to him be adjusted from his dues. The

management filed a review petition against order dated

31.08.99, which was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2000

and resultantly, the order dated 31.08 99 was recalled by

the Hon'ble High Court. This led to re-consideration of the

matter by the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. Hon'ble High

Court while disposing of writ No 4377 (S/s) of 1993

considered all the relief (s) sought by the workman; which

are enumerated hereunder :

"(i)

to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of certiorari quashing the impugned order and

judgment dated 22nd October, 1986 as passed

by Opp. party No. 1, as contained in Annexure

No. 3.

(ii)

to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of certiorari quashing the impugned order of

termination dated 20/23- 07-1983 das passe by

opp. party no. 3, as contained in Annexure

No. 4.

(iii)

to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of certiorari quashing the impugned agreement/

settlement dtd. 9.9.1986 das contained in

Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition as entered

between the opp. party no. 3 and 4 and any

further agreement in pursuance thereon.

(iv)

to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus commanding the opp. Parties to

consider the case of petitioner sympathetically

and dispose of his representation as contained

in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this writ petition

and to direct the opposite parties to reinstate

him in service with continuity and with full

back wages.

(v)

to issue a writ, order or direction deemed fit

and proper in the circumstances of the case in

the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner

including cost of this petition."

Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 09.04.2008

discussed all the issues/relief(s) sought by the workman.

The operative portion of the said judgment dated 09.04.2008

is reproduced hereunder:

"In the present case undisputed position is that

against various incumbents action has been taken

for submitting false LTC bill including petitioner and

against them order of dispensing of service has been

passed. Various incumbents had adopted various

channels/forum as provided under the law, for

questioning the validity of the action taken. Various

incumbents raised industrial dispute and qua them

Labour Court had directed for reinstatement in

service and substituting punishment of without

holding of three increments with the rights of refund

of amount realized to them as order being

disproportionate. Sate group of persons have been

reinstated back and are functioning. There is another

group of persons whose services have been

disengaged and they through their recognized Union

of workmen came forward to settle their case.

Petitioner is one of them, who gave affidavit and

power of attorney in favour of Union to settle his

case. Thereafter agreement/settlement ahs taken

place, and as per the terms of settlement, relationship

of master and servant was to cease from the date of

termination of service and it was to be deemed that

concerned workman has resigned form the said date.

In respect of petitioner precise settlement has been

made, which is evident from Annexure CA-3. The

incumbents, who have been reinstated back cannot

be said to be similarly situated, inasmuch as their

disengagement had been set aside and as far as

compromise is concerned same is nothing but

package. Once voluntary settlement had been

entered upon and the benefit of the same has been

3360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

undertaken and petitioners claim has been accepted

as one of resignation then it cannot be said that

there is disparity in the award of punishment.

Consequently in the facts arid circumstances of the

present case no relief can be accorded to the

petitioner.

For the reasons stated above present writ petition as

has been framed and drawn is dismissed."

Aggrieved from above order of Hon'bel High Court

in review, the workman preferred an appeal before Hon'ble

Apex Court which was dismissed vide their order dated

11.09.2008.

17. Thus, there left nothing to brood over the issue

raised by the workman in the present industrial dispute

before this Tribunal. From perusal of his pleadings, evidence

and rival contentions of the management along with various

orders given by Labour Court, Hon'ble High Court and

Apex Court it is crystal clear that the there are two separate

group of workmen who have similar cause of action i.e.

they have been punished for similar misconduct; but the

facts have changed in due course of time i.e. few have

preferred litigation whereas other had entered into a

settlement to resolve the matter, out side the court,

permanently. The workman authorized its recognized union

to settle the matter with the management. Not only this he

too put his signatures over the terms of settlement then it

is not open for him to say that he was not aware of the

terms of settlement or its consequences or his signatures

were obtained by misrepresentation or otherwise. Once he

entered into a settlement and received its benefits as per

terms of settlement, then he is legally bound to abide by

the other terms also; which provides that the relationship

of master and servant or the Employer and employee

between the workman concerned Sri Phool Chand shall

cease to exist between the parties from the date of

termination of the services of the workman i.e. 23.07.1983

and it will be deemed that the workman concerned has

resigned from the said date. Thus, once person resigns

and receives dues i.e. gratuity etc. then he cannot claim for

service in due course of time at one pretext or other as

resignation tendered by a person is deemed to be voluntary

action. Furthermore, as per other terms of settlement the

workman was ought not to agitate his termination in future

before any Forum or Court of law; but the workman

committed a breach by entering into series of litigation,

filing of petitions before Hon'ble High Court and Apex

Court.

Likewise the workman cannot claim party with that

group of persons in which Babu Lal is one of them because

Babu Lal did not enter into any settlement with the

management to resolve his termination finally. Therefore,

in his case, action of the management in reinstating him

does not seems to be biased. The workman was one who

settled the matter of his termination with the management

and received one time lump sum amount towards

compensation for his termination. Once he received the

amount compensating the losses caused to him due to his

termination then he cannot claim for his reinstatement on

the basis of irregularities, if any, committed while

terminating his services.

18. The workman before approaching to this Tribunal

under provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

approached Labour Court wherein his application was

rejected being not maintainable. Then he filed a Writ No.

4377 (s/s) of 1993 before Hon'ble High Court with a long

list of relief (s) and the same were allowed vide order dated

31.08.99 by the Hon'ble High Court. The management of

the Scooters India filed review against order dated 31.08.99

and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2000,

recalling the order dated 31.08.99 and the writ petition No.

4377 (s/s) of 1993 was dismissed through a detailed order

vide order dated 09.04.2008. The workman's special appeal

against order dated 09.04.2008 before Hon'ble Apex Court

too was dismissed, which resulted into finality of cause of

the workman; but still he has come to this Tribunal with the

same relief and the same are not tenable.

19. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of

the case and verdicts of Hon'ble High Court and Apex

Court in the matter of workman Phool Chand, the reference

under adjudication is answered in negative; and I am of the

considered opinion that the action of the management of

Scooters India Ltd., Lucknow in terminating the services

of their workman, Phool Chand w.e.f. 23.07.1983 is neither

illegal nor unjustified and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

20. Award as above.

Lucknow.

27th May, 2013.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Preciding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1317

1317

1317.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj phQ tjuy eSustj] fMikVZeSaV vkWQ VsyhdE;wfuds'ku

ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds

chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k lh.th. vkbZ.Vh@,y.lh.@vkj.@93@99½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12.06.2013 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y.&40012@80@1998 vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O.1317.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/93/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3361

the Industrial Dispute between the Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 12.06.2013.

[No. L-40012/80/1998-IR(D)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/93/99

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Badan Singh Kushwah,

S/o Surajpal Kushwah,

R/o Tomar Gali, Ramnagar,

Morena (MP)

. . .Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Deptt. of Telecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

MP Circle,

Bhopal

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of April, 2013

1. As per letter dated 16-2-99 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No .

L-40012/88/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates

to :

"Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom, Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Badan Singh Kushwah, S/o Surajpal

Kushwah is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties despite of repeated notice issued to workman,

he failed to submit his statement of claim. 1st party

workman proceeded exparte on 26-2-08.

3. IInd party management submitted Written

Statement at Page 10/1 to 10/2. IInd party management

denies that 1st party workman was working as watchman.

It is denied that the 1st party had completed 240 days

continuous service. According to the IInd party, name of

1st party workman is not appearing in muster roll. He was

not working with IInd party management. The department

engaged casual employees, Identity Card was given to him

for convenience, he further contended that as 1st party

workman was not employed by IInd party, there was no

point of illegally terminating his services. IInd party prays

for rejection of the reliefs prayed by workman.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the action of the

management of Chief

In Affirmative

General Manager, Telecom,

Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Badan Singh

Kushwah, S/o Surajpal

Kushwah is legal and

justified?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Reliefs prayed by workman is

workman is entitled to?"

rejected.

REASONS

5. 1st party workman is challenging legality of

termination of his services as per the dispute under

reference. However 1st party workman failed to submit

statement of claim. In Written Statement filed by IInd party,

it has denied that 1st party was engaged on its

establishment. In affidavit of evidence of Shri Sunil Kumar

Jain for the management, it is denied that 1st party was

working on his establishment , the name of 1st party was

appearing in muster roll. There was no point of illegally

terminating his services in 1996. The workman remained

absent. The witness is not cross-examined. Evidence of

management witness remained unchallenged. The workman

has not participated in the proceeding, has not filed

statement of claim neither filed evidence to substantiate

his claim. Therefore I donot find substance in the contention

of the workman. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

6. Point No. 2- Relief claimed by workman is rejected.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management of Chief General

Manager, Telecom, Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Badan Singh Kushwah, S/o

Surajpal Kushwah is just and legal.

(2)

Reliefs prayed by the 1st party workman is

rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dk-vk- 1318-

—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj MkbjsdVj] lSUVªy QkeZ e'khujh Vªs¯ux ,.M Vs¯LVx

MkbjsdVj] lSUVªy QkeZ e'khujh Vªs¯ux ,.M Vs¯LVx

bUlVhfV;wV

bUlVhfV;wV ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj

tcyiqj

tcyiqj ds iapkV

3362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

¼lanHkZ la[;k lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-@,y-lh-@vkj-@168@97

lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-@,y-lh-@vkj-@168@97

½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12&06&2013

12&06&2013

12&06&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la. ,y&42012@52@1996&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/168/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial dispute between the Director, Central Farm

Machinery Training & Testing Institute and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

12.06.2013

[No. L-42012/52/1996-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/168/97

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Smt. Chote Bai,

w/o Shri Kalsuram ,

Behind Rly Station,

Godi Mohalla,

Budli,

Distt. Sehore (MP)

. . .Workman

Versus

The Director,

Central Farm Machinery Training &

Testing Institute,

Tractor Nagar,

PO Budni,

. . .Management

Distt. Sehore (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of April, 2013

1. As per letter dated 30-5-97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012/

52/96-1R(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute,

Budni in terminating the services of Smt. Chote Bai,

w/o Kalsuram is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?"

2. 1st party workman is challenging his termination

of services in the dispute under reference even after issuing

notices, he has not participated in the proceeding, no

statement of claim is filed. 1st party is proceeded exparte

on 10-4-08.

3. IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the 1st party, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

4. In the result, award is passed as under:—

" Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dkñvkñ 1319

dkñvkñ 1319.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj tjuy eSustj] vkfMusUl QSDVªh] dVuh ds izcaèr=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh.th.

vkbZ.Vh@,y.lh.@vkj.@159@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12.06.2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[lañ ,y&14011@09@2002 vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1319.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/159/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the GeneralManager, Ordnance Factory,

Katni, which was received by the Central Government on

12.06.2013.

[No. L-14011/09/2002-IR(DR)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/159/2002

SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Dashrath Tiwari,

General Secretary,

Mazdoor Sangh Ayudh Nirmani,

1/1A Type East Land,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3363

Ordnance Factory, Katni

Jabalpur (MP)

. . .Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Katni, Jabalpur

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of May 2013

1. As per letter dated 31-10-2002 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-14011/

9/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Ordnance

Factory, Katni in not paying wages equal to LDC to

S/Shri Vijay Shankar Shukla, Rakesh Kumar Verma,

Vijay Kumar Shivhare, Balram Prasad Upadhya and

G.Toppo, Ticket Sorter is justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workmen are entitled ?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party workman filed Statement of Claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/4. The case of 1st party workman is that they

were appointed in the post of Ticket Sorter in the year 1980

in Ordnance Factory, Katni. Presently they were working

as labour Category-A. They were appointed in pay scale

196-232. They were recruited through Written Test followed

by personal interview, no written test and interview is

prescribed for appointment for the post of Ticket Sorter

but they were required to pass test prescribed for the post

of LDC.

3. It is further contented by workman that test of

LDC is passed by them. They ought to have been

appointed on the post of LDC but they were appointed on

the post of Ticket Sorter. According to job specification,

the job shown to Ticket Sorter is that he should be able to

identify English letters and sort out the metal tokens, passes

etc. and hang them on the Board serially or as required.

that all those workmen since their appointment are

discharging duties of LDCs , reperforming duties of clerical

nature which are- (i) day to day basis attendance based on

mustering in/out and casuality report submitted in time

office by various sections/shops, (ii) Booking of casual

overtime/systematic overtime on receipt of sanction of the

competent authority, (iii) That endorsement of annual

increment, leave and accident leave on receipt of authorized

documents, (iv) Calculation of late arrival time while

mustering In/Out deduction of sort/petty leave period day

to day basis and endorsement thereof, (v) Calculation/

totaling of whole month working at the end of month for

the purpose of payment calculation & (vi) Calculation of

casual/systematic overtime performed by the each

individuals in the particular month.

4. It is further submitted that though all those

workmen are doing job of clerical nature, they are paid

salary of Ticket Sorter Pay Scale 196- 232 ( Revised- 759-

940), in 4th Pay Commission- revised to Rs.2550- 3090. That

the LDC, UDC, Supervisors, Chargeman in time office are

transferred to other section. The Ticket Sorter are asked to

perform their job which is purely on clerical nature. That

industrial dispute for regularization of their services as LDC,

Case No. R/45/92 was filed. Said reference was answered

against them. All the 1st party workman claims pay scale

and wages of LDC on the basis of 12th pass qualification.

5. IInd party management filed Written Statement at

Page 8/1 to 8/5. He submits that the management is defence

establishment under Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India.

Their services are covered by statutory rules framed under

Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment of

all employees is carried out as per the said statutory rules

and as other governing rules. That the workmen were

appointed as ticket Sorters after following selection as per

rules. The appointment was in pay scale Rs. 196-3-220-EB-

3-232. All the workmen accepted their appointment as per

the terms and conditions as Ticket Sorter. Their

appointment is for Group D Post. They can be appointed

as LDC after selection among other eligible Group D

employees against 15% post reserved for Group D

Category. IInd party denies that these workmen were

performing duties of LDC for management and is liable to

wages for the post of LDC on the principle of equal pay for

equal work. That Reference No. 45/92 filed these workmen

was decided against them. All those employees were

appointed as Ticket Sorter on Group D post, they were

assigned duties of said grade since 1980. It is denied that

for appointment of Ticket Sorter, only it is required to have

knowledge of English English letters and sort out the metal

tokens, passes etc. and hang them on the Board serially.

IInd party reiterated that any of those employees are not

entitled to pay scale of LDC on principles of equal pay for

equal work and prays for rejection of the claim.

6. 1st party workman filed rejoinder at Page 15/1 to

15/2. It is submitted by 1st party workman that charger of

dues of ticket sorter is framed by management of the factory

as per manual. The Ticket Sorter is required knowledge of

English letters and sort out the metal tokens, passes etc.

and hang them on the Board serially. Thus Ticket Sorter

are required to perform the duties listed in the manual. He

emphasized that they are entitled to pay scale of LDC as

they are discharging duties of the said post.

7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

Action is legal

management of Ordnance

Factory, Katni in not paying

3364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

wages equal to LDC to

S/Shri Vijay Shankar Shukla,

Rakesh Kumar Verma, Vijay

Kumar Shivhare, Balram

Prasad Upadhya and

G.Toppo, Ticket Sorter is

justified?

(ii) If so, to what relief the

Relief prayed by 1st party

workman is entitled to?"

workman is rejected

REASONS

8. From pleadings of the parties, it is clear that

workman are claiming pay scale of LDC on principles of

equal pay for equal work. They have stated that they were

appointed as Ticket Sorter after following selection process.

It is further stated that all those employees are holding

educational qualification- Higher Secondary. Their written

test was held, such test is not required for the post of

Ticket sorter. He has further stated that they are performing

their duties of (i) day to day basis attendance based on

mustering in/out and casuality report submitted in time

office by various sections/shops, (ii) Booking of casual

overtime/ systematic overtime on receipt of sanction of the

competent authority, (iii) That endorsement of annual

increment, leave and accident leave on receipt of authorized

documents, (iv) Calculation of late arrival time while

mustering In/Out deduction of sort/petty leave period day

to day• basis and endorsement thereof, (v) Calculation/

totaling of whole month working at the end of month for

the purpose of payment calculation & (vi) Calculation of

casual/systematic overtime performed by the each

individuals in the particular month. Their duties are of

clerical nature, they are paid salary of Ticket Sorter as revised

time to time. The pay scale of LDC was Rs.260-400in 3rd

Pay Commission, Rs. 950-1600 under 4th Pay Commission

and Rs.3050-4590 under 5th pay Commission. They claim

pay scale of LDC on the basis of equal pay for equal work.

9. In his cross-examination, said witness Shri Vijay

Shankar Shukla says that he was appointed as Ticket Sorter

Group D post. He was working as LDC though he was

holding post of Ticket Sorter. That no order in writing was

given to him for working as LDC. He was working on oral

directions. He admits that earlier reference was filed claiming

post of LDC. He claims permission on the post of LDC.

That earlier reference was decided against them.

10. The evidence of management's witness

Shri Mahendra Prasad Tiwari, Shri V.N.Tiwari each consistent

with the contention of the management that appointment of

workman was on the post of Ticket Sorter. They were not

doing clerical work, they are not entitled to pay scale for the

post of LDC. Management's witness Shri Mahendra Tiwari

in his cross-examination says that Shri Vijay Shankar Shukla

has accepted post of LDC after the order of the management.

That several persons are working as mazdoor

have left. Some persons were promoted. There is no order

for Ticker Sorter to work as LDC. Management's witness

Shri Mahendra Tiwari in his cross-examination says that

the work of Ticket Sorter is properly fixed as per document

Exhibit W-1 & W-2. Job description is properly made in

document Exhibit M-4. It is denied that the work mentioned

in Exhibit M-4 is of LDC and not of a Ticket Sorter. That

Shri V.S.Shukla has been redesignated/permitted. He admits

that the earlier case was filed for promotion. The present

case is filed for payment of wages on principles of equal

work for equal pay.

11. At the time of argument, learned counsel for 1st

party workman Shri Arvind Srivastava pointed out my

attention to document Exhibit W-1 & W-2 . Para-184 relate

to Ticket Sorter provide workman able to identify English

letters and figures and sort out metal tokens, passes etc.

and hang them on Boards serially is required for

appointment for the post of Ticket Sorter.

12. Management produced document Exhibit

M-1- appointment order of Ticket Sorter. There is no dispute

that initially all those workmen were appointed as Ticket

Sorter, copy of award in R/45/92 is produced at Exhibit

M-3, claim of the 1st party workman for regularization for

the post of LDC are rejected. Their claim was based on

record that they were subjected to written test which were

not required to the post of Ticket Sorter. That they were

doing clerical duties. Their claim was not upheld in R/45/92.

13. Learned counsel for IInd party relies on ratio held

in—

"Case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others versus

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai reported in 2010-1 Supreme

Court Cases (L&S) 287. Their Lordship held that this

can be invoked only when the employees are similarly

situated, further held similarity in designation, or

nature or quantum of work, is not determinative of

equality in the matter of pay scales—Court has to

consider factors like the source and mode of

recruitment/appointment, qualifications, nature of

work, value thereof, responsibilities, reliability,

experience, confidentiality, functional need etc.

Equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay

scales only when there is wholesale identity between

the holders of two posts."

In present case, appointment of all those workmen

was on the post of Ticket Sorter. Only on the basis that

they were subjected to written test, they claimed that they

were doing clerical job without any order in writing can

hardly be accepted. The ratio held in above case doesnot

support the claim of 1st party workman as their initial

appointment was on the post of Ticket Sorter. The clerical

duties stated by witnesses for 1st party workman Vijay

Shukla cannot be accepted that all the 5 workmen were

doing same duties. As per evidence in cross-examination

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3365

of Shri Vijay Shukla is permitted 6-7 years back. There is no

evidence of the individual workman for what work they are

doing since their appointment. Other workmen have not

entered in the witness box. The evidence of witness for 1st

party cannot be accepted as wholesale for all 5 workmen.

14. Next reliance is placed by Shri Shankaran Nair,

Advocate in "case of T.Venkateswarulu Versus Executive

Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and Others

reported in 2009 (1) Supreme Court Cases 546. Their

Lordship held since the plea for parity of Draughtsman

Grade-I with Supervisors had to be examined on the

touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the

burden was upon the appellant to establish discrimination

by placing on record cogent materials. The crucial factor to

be established is not only the functional parity of the two

cadres, but also the mode of recruitment, qualification and

the responsibilities attached to the two offices. All this

information is necessary to analyse the rationale behind

the State action in giving different treatment to two classes

of its employees and then determine whether or not an

invidious discrimination has been practiced.

The evidence in present case shows that all the 5

workmen were initially appointed as Ticket Sorter. The

process for recruitment of ticket sorter and LDC is different.

1st party workman has not produced document about what

are the duties of LDC. Only claim of Shri Vijay Shukla that

duties performed by them that maintaining attendance

claim the pay scale of LDC. For above reasons, I record my

finding Point No.1 in Affirmative.

15. Point No.2- As per my finding in Point No.1, the

relief prayed by workman deserves to be rejected.

16. In the result, award is passed as under :—

(I)

The action of the management of Ordnance

Factory, Katni in not paying wages equal to

LDC to S/Shri Vijay Shankar Shukla, Rakesh

Kumar Verma, Vijay Kumar Shivhare, Balram

Prasad Upadhya and G.Toppo, Ticket Sorter is

legal.

(2)

Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1320

1320

1320.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj tjuy eSustj] xouZesUV vksfi;e ,.M vkydkbM

QSDVªh] uhep ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjks ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k lh.th.vkbZ.Vh@,y.lh.@vkj.@98@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12.06.2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[la. ,y&42012@87@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O.1320.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/98/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the General Manager, Govt.

Opium and Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch, and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

12.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/87/1996-IR(DR)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/98197

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Gorang Trivedi

S/o Shri Bhanuprasad Trivedi,

"Tareesh" Bhuneshwar Mandir Road,

B.No.11, Neemuch-458441

. . .Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch,

Distt. Mandsaur

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of April, 2013

1. As per letter dated 14-3-97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-42012/87/96-IR(DU) . The dispute under reference relates

to:

"Whether the action of the management of the

Government Opium and Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch

in terminating the services of Shri Gorang Trivedi,

S/o Shri Bhanuprasad Trivedi, Technician Gr. II w.e.f.

1-5-94 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. 1st party workman submitted the statement of

claim at Page 4/1 to 4/9. The case of workman is that in the

year 1979, he was appointed as Technician Grade II, in

1981 he was made permanent. That he was member of the

Union of the employees working in IInd party during the

year 1991-92. He was pursuing demands of the employees

from redressal with the management. The officers of the

3366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

IInd party were annoyed with him. That drinking water

facility in Factory was not adequate during summer days

and the employees working in the factory used pass to go

out for drinking water. On 14-5-92, General Manager

Mr. Ram Prakash orally directed to discontinue the said

arrangement which caused unrest among the employees

working in the IInd party. He being Vice President and

Joint Secretary Mr. Rajkumar Jain on call of Production

Manager Shri Vidya Prakash Gupta went to Production

Manager. At the same time General Manager Shri Ram

Prakash came there. That discussion was made in cordial

atmosphere for restoring the drinking water facility. He

pledged that quarrel had not occurred, they have not

misbehaved with the General Manager. However 1st party

and Rajkumar Jain were suspended. The chargesheet was

issued to them. He had submitted reply to the chargesheet

but it was not accepted. Departmental enquiry was initiated.

Mr. A. Hussain Beg, Assistant General Manager was

appointed as Enquiry Officer. Mr. M.K. Bhatnagar, A.O.

was appointed as Presenting Officer. 1st party workman

was represented by co-worker Pawan Khatol.

3. 1st party workman further submits that he was not

given sufficient opportunity for his defence. On 20-5-93,

the enquiry was finished.The Defence Representative was

absent for death of his father. The enquiry was not

adjourned even after his request. Management witness

was required to be cross-examined. The statement of

witnesses were not recorded before Enquiry Officer. After

production of statement of witnesses recorded earlier, 1st

party was called upon to cross-examine the witness. That

principles of natural justice was not followed. The enquiry

is vitiated. That he had not received intimation of the enquiry

proceedings. That he had given reply to the showcause

notice. Without considering reply, punishment of dismissal

was imposed against him. Enquiry was not fair and proper.

That he was dismissed from service.1st party workman

prayed for his reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to

10/5. The allegations of 1st party are denied. According

to IInd party management, workman was appointed

on 15-3-79 as Technician Grade-II. He was confirmed in the

said post on 14-3-98. The chargesheet was

issued to the 1st party on 11-9-92. The articles of charges

No. 1 to 5 are reproduced in the Written Statement.

The charges relates to abusing and misbehaving

with General Manager Shri Ram Prakash on 14-5-92.

That the 1st paprty workman had unauthorisely left place

of duty without permission. The misconduct was

alleged under Rule7 and Rule 3(1)(iii) of C.C.S. (Conduct)

Rules, 1964 and also Article 13 of Standing Orders.

IInd party management futher submits that Enquiry Officer

Shri Beg was appointed, Shri A.K. Bhatnagar was

appointed as Presenting Officer, delinquent workman was

represented by defence representative Shri Pawan Khatod.

It is denied that enquiry is conducted in violation of

principles of natural justice. IInd party management submits

that misconduct against 1st party is proved. The dismissal

of 1st party workman is just.

5. 1st party workman filed rejoinder at Page 12/1 to

12/4 denying contentions in the Written Statement. It is

contended that enquiry conducted against workman is not

fair and proper. Principles of natural justice was not followed.

1st party file affidavit of his evidence at Page 30.

6. Considering pleading between the parties my

learned predecessor recorded evidence of the parties and

decided preliminary issue — "Whether the Departmental

Enquiry conducted by management against both the

workmen of both references is legal and proper?" The

preliminary issue in both references in 97/97 and 98/99 are

decided in common order and held that the enquiry held

against workman in both the cases are not legal and proper.

The management was directed to adduce evidence to prove

his conduct in Court. The said order is not challenged by

workman. It reached finality and therefore other issues

needs to be decided. The issues are as under and my

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons

as below:—

(i) Whether the misconduct

Not proved

alleged against workman is

proved by the management?

(ii) If so, whether the punishment

of dismissal imposed

In Negative

against 1st party workman is

just and proper?

(iii) If so, to what relief workman 1st party workman is

is entitled?

entitled to reinstatement

with 50% back wages.

REASONS

7. As discussed above, the preliminary issue is

decided by my predecessor and held that enquiry

conducted against workman is not legal and proper. The

enquiry is vitiated. The management was permitted to prove

misconduct adducing the evidence. The management was

given opportunity for adducing evidence on request of

management, the case was adjourned from 23-12-11,

28-3-12, 30- 7-12, 6-9-12, 4-10-12, 14-11-12 but the witnesses

were not produced. The management's right to lead

evidence was closed on 26-2-2013. Thus as no evidence is

adduced by management to prove misconduct alleged

against 1st party workman. I record my finding on Point

No.1 in Negative.

8. Point No.2—In view of my finding that misconduct

alleged against workman are not proved by management

by adducing evidence, the enquiry was held not legal,

proper. The enquiry was vitiated The management has not

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3367

proved the misconduct. The question arises to what relief

the workman is entitled?

9. On other issues i.e. whether the punishment of

dismissal is proper or legal, IInd party has not adduced

any evidence. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He

has stated in his affidavit that he was appointed in 1975, he

was confirmed in 1981. He was active member of the Union.

He was pursuing grievances of the employees working in

IInd party. The absence was annoyed from him. That no

incident about alleged misconduct had occurred, no quarrel

has taken place. That as the facility of drinking water going

outside the factory premises was discontinued, there was

unrest. He alongwith Rajkumar Jain had gone for discussion

with Production Manager. In his cross-examination, he says

at the time of discussion with Branch Manager about

drinking water facility, the pass facility was discontinued.

They have not given any slogans nor misbehaved with

General Manager. At fag end of his evidence, he says that

his family consist of 5 members, his both sons have

completed their education and they are in employment. He

owns a house. Family expenses are met from pension of his

mother and help from relatives. His relative is not examined

about how much they help they have provided. How much

pension is received by his mother has not come in his

evidence. The services of 1st party were discontinued in

the year 1994 about 19 years back. Certainly the children

would have been of tendor age. 1st party is holding

agriculture land. It is natural that he would have been

engaged in cultivating lands and getting income from it.

Keeping those aspects in my mind and misconduct alleged

against the workman are not proved, dismissal of 1st party

workman is illegal. He is entitled for reinstatement.

10. Learned counsel for Ist Party Shri Shashi relies

on—

Ratio held in case of Neeta Kaplish and Presiding

Officer, Labour Court and another in 1999 ILLJ-275 .

Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with scope

of Section 11-A considering Domestic Enquiry

conducted by management was found to be not fair

and proper. Labour Court giving opportunity to

management to adduce evidence on merits and justify

dismissal. Management refusing to avail opportunity

to lead evidence to justify dismissal of workman.

Workman did not lead any evidence since

management did not lead evidence to justify

dismissal on merits. Legal position is jurisdiction of

Labour court of Tribunal to itself decide merits of

charge on fresh evidence remains unaltered even

after introduction of Section 11-A Tribunal had not

only power to set aside order of dismissal and direct

reinstatement but also power to award lesser

punishment under Section 11-A. Proceedings of

defective domestic enquiry would not constitute.

"Fresh Evidence" and :Material on Record'- Defective

enquiry proceedings had to be ignored altogether.

Workman entitled to relief as claimed since

management did not lead any fresh evidence on

merits and workman was justified in stating that he

too would not lead any fresh evidence. Claim of

workman cannot be rejected for not leading evidence.

Workman was entitled to be granted relief then and

there."

"In case of Hardwari Lal and State of UP and others

reported in 2000 I LLJ P-495 . Their Lordship

considering non examination of Police Inspector who

recorded statement of police constable who is stated

to have abused and witness who is said to have

accompanied chargesheet. Police constable to

hospital for medical examination would vitiate

departmental enquiry. The dismissal was set aside.

The police constable is directed to be reinstated with

25 % back wages."

"In Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank

and others reported in 2009(2) Supreme Court Cases

570. Their Lordship have held that in Departmental

Enquiry, mere production of documents is not enough.

Contents of documentary evidence have to be

proved by documentary evidence. Further held that

FIR is not an evidence without actual proof of facts

stated therein."

The ratio held in the case has no direct bearing with

the present case. Learned counsel for IInd party

management submits that enquiry is held vitiated after very

long time. It has become difficult to procure witnesses for

proving misconduct in Court. It may be considered while

appreciating claim for reinstatement.

11. Considering the evidence that 1st party workman

holds agricultural lands and in my considered view

reinstatement with 50 % would be appropriate. Accordingly

I answer Point No.2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in terminating

the services of 1st party workman Shri Gorang

Trivedi, S/o Shri Bhanuprasad Trivedi,

Technician Gr.II w.e.f. 1-5-94 is legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to reinstate

1st party workman with 50 % back wages and

continuity of service."

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1321

1321

1321.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj tujy eSustj] xouZesUV vksfi;e ,.M vkydkbM

QSDVªh] uhep ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn

3368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k lh.th. vkbZ.Vh@,y.lh.@vkj.@97@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12.06.2013 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[lañ ,y 42012@79@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O. 1321.—in pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/97/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the General Manager, Govt.

Opium and Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch, and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

12.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/79/1996-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/97/97

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Shri Rajkumar Jain,

S/o Shri Udhaylal Jain,

2, Jawahar Nagar,

. . . Workman

Neemuch

Versus

General Manager,

Govt. Opium and Alkaloid Factory,

Neemuch,

Distt. Mandsaur

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of April 2013

1. As per letter dated 14-3-97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-42012/79/96-IR(DU) . The dispute under reference relates

to :

"Whether the action of the management of the

Government Opium and Alkaloid Factory, Neemuch

in terminating the services of Shri Rajkumar Jain, S/o

Shri Udaylal Jain, Technician Gr.I w.e.f. 1-5-94 is legal

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

entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted the statement of

claim at Page 2/1 to 2/11. The case of workman is that in the

year 1975, he was appointed as Technician Grade II, in 1979

he was confirmed as Technician Grade-I. That he was

secretary of the Employees Union during the year 1991-92.

He was pursuing demands of the employees. The officers

of the IInd party were annoyed with him.

3. That the employees working in IInd party were

provided drinking water facility. During summer days, said

facility was not adequate and the employees were permitted

to go out of factory premises. Pass was used for the said

purpose. On 13-5-92, General Manager Mr. Ram Prakash

orally directed to discontinue the said arrangement. There

was unrest among the employees working in the IInd party.

He being Joint Secretary and Gaurang Trivedi vice President

of the Union on call of Production Manager Simi Vidya

Prakash Gupta went to Production Manager. At the same

time General Manager Shri Ram Prakash came there. That

discussion was made in cordial atmosphere for restoring

the drinking water facility. It is contended that any quarrel

had not occurred during the discussion. However the

General Manager Shri Ram Prakash issued order of

suspension of 1st party and Shri Gaurang Trivedi. The

chargesheet was issued after 5 months alleging that the

Ist party and Gaurang Trivedi had misbehaved with General

Manager Ram Prakash. Ist party has denied charges filing

his reply. The reply was not accepted. Departmental enquiry

was initiated. Mr. A. Hussain Beg, Assistant General

Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Mr. M.K.

Bhatnagar, A.O was appointed as Prresenting Officer. Ist

party workman was represented by co-worker Pawan

Khatol. Ist party workman contends that the enquiry was

not properly conducted. He was not given sufficient

opportunity for his defence. The Defence Representative

was absent for death of his father. The enquiry was not

adjourned even after his request. He has given details of

Enquiry Proceedings compelling to cross-examine

witnesses of the management. The statement of witnesses

of the management were produced, their statement was

not recorded before Enquiry Officer. However the witnesses

were required to be cross- examined. The showcause notice

was issued. Reply was given to show cause notice without

considering his submissions, his services were terminated

form 29-4-94. Ist party workman contends that enquiry was

not conducted following principles of natural justice. The

findings of Enquiry Officer are not proper. His services are

terminated by victimization. He prays for setting aside order

of termination and reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to

5/7. The allegations of Ist party in respect to alleged incident

are denied. It is submitted that chargesheet was issued to

workman. The articles of charges No. 1 to 5 are reproduced

in the Written Statement. The substance of the charges are

on 14-5-92, Ist party workman used unparliamentary

language against General Manager Shri Ram Prakash,

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3369

misbehaved with him and as such acted in a way of

unbecoming on part of Government servant. The

misconduct was alleged under Rule7 and Rule 3(1 )(iii) of

C.C.S .(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and also Article 13 of Standing

Orders. That the charges were denied by the 1st party.

Enquiry was conducted as per rules. Proper opportunity

was given for defence of workman. The witnesses were

cross-examined by defence representative. It is denied that

punishment of dismissal was imposed by way of

victimization.

5. 1st party workman filed rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/

2 contending that he was not given proper opportunity for

his defence. The enquiry was fixed on 22-9-93. Intimation

was not received by him. Enquiry was closed without

giving opportunity for his defence.

6. Considering pleading between the parties my

learned predecessor recorded evidence of the parties and

decided preliminary issue "Whether the Departmental

Enquiry conducted by management against both the

workmen of both references is legal and proper?”

preliminary issue in both references in 97/97 and 98/99 are

decided by common order and held that the enquiry held

against workman in both the cases is not legal and proper.

The management was permitted to adduce evidence to

prove misconduct in Court. The said order is not challenged

by workman. It reached finality and therefore other issues

needs to be decided. The issues are as under and my

findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons

as below :—

(i) Whether the misconduct

Not proved

alleged against workman is

proved by the management?

(ii) If so, whether the punishment

In Negative

of dismissal imposed

against 1st party workman is

just and proper?

(iii) If so, to what relief the

1st party workman is entitled

workman is entitled?

to reinstatement with

50 % back wages.

REASONS

7. As discussed above, the preliminary issue is

decided by my predecessor and held that enquiry

conducted against workman is not legal and proper. The

enquiry is vitiated. The management was permitted to prove

misconduct adducing the evidence. The management was

given opportunity for adducing evidence on request of

management, the case was adjourned from 23-12-11,

28-3-12, 30-7-12, 6-9-12, 4-10-12, 14-11-12 but the witnesses

were not produced. The management's right to lead

evidence was closed on 26-2-2013. Thus as no evidence is

adduced by management to prove misconduct alleged

against 1st party workman, I record my finding on Point

No.1 in Negative.

8. Point No. 2- In view of my finding that misconduct

alleged against workman are not proved by management

by adducing evidence, the enquiry was held not legal,

proper. The enquiry was vitiated. The management has not

proved the misconduct. The question arises to what relief

the workman is entitled?

9. On other issues i.e. whether the punishment of

dismissal is proper or legal, IInd party has not adduced

any evidence. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence on

4-10-2012. He has stated in his affidavit that he was

appointed in 1975, he was confirmed in 1981. He was active

member of the Union. He was pursuing grievances of the

employees working in IInd party. The absence was annoyed

from him. That no incident about alleged misconduct had

occurred, no quarrel has taken place . That as the facility of

drinking water going outside the factory premises was

discontinued, there was unrest. He alongwith Gaurang

Trivedi had gone for discussion with Production Manager.

In his cross-examination, he says at the time of

discussion with Branch Manager about drinking water

facility, the pass facility was discontinued. They have not

given any slogans nor misbehaved with General Manager.

At fag end of his evidence, he says that his family consist

of 5 members. The services of 1st party were discontinued

in the year 1994 about 19 years back. Certainly the children

would have been of tendor age. 1st party is holding

agriculture land. It is natural that he would have been

engaged in cultivating lands and getting income from it.

Keeping those aspects in my mind and misconduct alleged

against the workman are not proved, dismissal of 1st party

workman is illegal. He is entitled for reinstatement.

10. Learned counsel for 1st party Shri Shashi relies

on—

Ratio held in case of Neeta Kaplish and Presiding

Officer, Labour Court and another in 1999 ILLJ-275 .

Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with scope

of Section 11-A considering Domestic Enquiry

conducted by management was found to be not fair

and proper. Labour Court giving opportunity to

management to adduce evidence on merits and justify

dismissal. Management refusing to avail opportunity

to lead evidence to justify dismissal of workman.

Workman did not lead any evidence since

management did not lead evidence to justify

dismissal on merits. Legal position is jurisdiction of

Labour Court of Tribunal to itself decide merits of

charge on fresh evidence remains unaltered even

after introduction of Section 11-A Tribunal had not

only power to set aside order of dismissal and direct

reinstatement but also power to award lesser

punishment under Section 11-A. Proceedings of

defective domestic enquiry would not constitute.

"Fresh Evidence" and : ‘Material on Record'- Defective

enquiry Proceedings had to be ignored altogether.

Workman entitled to relief as claimed since

3370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

management did not lead any fresh evidence on

merits and workman was justified in stating that he

too would not lead any fresh evidence. Claim of

workman cannot be rejected for not leading evidence.

Workman was entitled to be granted relief then and

there."

"In case of Hardwari Lal and State of UP and others

reported in 2000 I LLJ P-495 . Their Lordship

considering non examination of Police Inspector who

recorded statement of police constable who is stated

to have abused and witness who is said to have

accompanied chargesheet. Police constable to

hospital for medical examination would vitiate

departmental enquiry. The dismissal was set aside.

The police constable is directed to be reinstated with

25 % back wages."

"In Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank

and others reported in 2009(2) Supreme Court Cases

570. Their Lordship have held that in Departmental

Enquiry, mere production of documents is not enough.

Contents of documentary evidence have to be

proved by documentary evidence. Further held that

FIR is not an evidence without actual proof of facts

stated therein."

The ratio held in the case has no direct bearing with

the present case.

11. Considering the evidence that 1st party workman

holds agricultural lands and in my considered view

reinstatement with 50 % would be appropriate. Accordingly

I answer Point No.2.

12. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

The action of the management in terminating

the services of 1st party workman Shri

Rajkumar Jain, S/o Shri Udaylal Jain, Technician

Gr. I w.e.f. 1-5-94 is legal and proper.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to reinstate

1st party workman with 50 % back wages and

continuity of service."

13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1322

1322

1322.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj MªkbjsDVj] lSaVªy QkeZ e'khujh Vsªfuax ,.M VsfLVax

bUlVhV~;wV 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k lh.th. vkbZ.Vh@,y.lh.@vkj.@158@97½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12.06.2013 dks izkIr gqvk

Fkk

[la. ,y&42012@53@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2013

S.O.1322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/158/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the Director, Central Farm

Machinery Training & Testing Institute and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

12.06.2013.

[No. L-42012/53/1996-IR(DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/158/97

SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Smt. Latha Bai,

w/o Shri Ramesh Vele,

Behind Rly. Station,

Godi Mohalla,

Budni,

Distt. Sehore (MP)

. . .Workman

Versus

The Director

Central Farm Machinery Training and

Testing Institute,LTractor Nagar,

PO Budni,

Distt Sehore (MP)

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of April, 2013

1. As per letter dated 30.5.97 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.

L-42012/53/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates

to :

"Whether the action of the management of Central

Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute,

Budni in terminating the services of Smt. Latha Bai,

W/o Shri Ramesh Vele is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. Ist party workman is challenging his termination

of services in the dispute under reference. even after issuing

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3371

notices, he has not participated in the proceeding, no

statement of claim is filed. Ist party is proceeded exparte on

10.4.08.

3. IInd party management also not filed Written

Statement. From conduct of the Ist party, it is clear that the

parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.

4. In the result, award is passed as under:-

"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 26 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1323

1323

1323.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] deZpkjh jkT; chek

vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 91&d ds

lkFk ifBr /kkjk 88 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, ,rn~n~okjk Hkkjr gsoh IysV~l vkSj oslsYl fyfeVsM]

Hkkjr gsoh IysV~l vkSj oslsYl fyfeVsM]

fo'kk[kkiVue

fo'kk[kkiVue ds dkj[kkuksa@LFkkiukvksa ds fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa

dks bl vf/kfu;e ds izorZu ls NwV iznku djrh gSA ;g

NwV] vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh

vof/k ds fy, ykxw jgsxhA

2. mDr NwV fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/khu gS( vFkkZr~%&

¼1½ iwoksZDr LFkkiuk ftlesa deZpkjh fu;ksftr gSa]

,d jftLVj j[ksxh] ftlesa NwV izkIr deZpkfj;ksa

ds uke vkSj inuke fn[kk;s tk;saxs(

¼2½ bl NwV ds gksrs gq, Hkh] deZpkjh mDr vf/

kfu;e ds v/khu ,slh izlqfo/kk,a izkIr djrs

jgsaxs ftudks ikus ds fy, os bl vf/klwpuk

}kjk nh xbZ NwV ds izo`Ùk gksus dh rkjh[k ls

iwoZ lanÙk va'knkuksa ds vk/kkj ij gdnkj gks

tkrs gSa(

¼3½ NwV izkIr vof/k ds fy,] ;fn dksbZ vfHknk;

igys gh fd, tk pqds gksa] rks os okil ugha

fd, tk,axs(

¼4½ mDr dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk dk fu;kstd ml vof/

k dh ckcr ftlds nkSjku ml dkj[kkus@LFkkiuk

ij mDr vf/kfu;e ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr

mDr vof/k dgk x;k gS½ izorZeku Fkk ,slh

foojf.k;ka] ,sls izk:i esa vkSj ,slh fof'kf"V;ksa

lfgr nsxk rks deZpkjh jkT; chek

¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 ds v/khu mls mDr

vof/k dh ckcr nsuh visf{kr gksrh Fkha(

¼5½ fuxe }kjk mDr deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e

dh /kkjk 45 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu

fu;qDr fd;k x;k dksbZ lkekftd lqj{kk vf/

kdkjh ;k fuxe dk bl fufeÙk izkf/kd`r dksbZ

vU; in/kkjh(

(i)

/kkjk 44 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu] mDr

vof/k ds ckcr nh xbZ fdlh fooj.k dh

fof'k"V;ksa dks lR;kfir djus ds iz;kstukFkZ( vFkok

(ii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh jkT;

chek ¼lk/kkj.k½ fofu;e] 1950 }kjk ;Fkkvisf{kr

jftLVj vkSj vfHkys[k mDr vof/k ds fy, j[ks x;s Fks

;k ugha( ;k

(iii)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd deZpkjh]

fu;kstd }kjk fn;s x, mu Qk;nksa dks] ftlds

QyLo:i bl vf/klwpuk ds v/khu NwV nh tk

jgh gS] udn esa vkSj oLrq :i esa ikus dk

gdnkj cuk gqvk gS ;k ugha( ;k

(iv)

;g vfHkfuf'pr djus ds iz;kstukFkZ fd ml

vof/k ds nkSjku] tc mDr dkj[kkus ds laca/

k esa vf/kfu;e ds mica/k izo`Ùk Fks] ,sls fdUgha

mica/kksa dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k Fkk ;k ugha]

fuEufyf[kr dk;Z djus ds fy, l'kDr gksxk%&

¼d½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ls vis{kk djuk

fd og mls ,slh tkudkjh ns ftls mijksDr

fujh{kd ;k vU; in/kkjh vko';d le>rk

gS( vFkok

¼[k½ ,sls iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd ds vf/kHkksxk/

khu] fdlh dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k

vU; ifjlj esa fdlh Hkh mfpr le; ij

izos'k djuk vkSj mlds izHkkjh ls ;g vis{kk

djuk fd og O;fDr;ksa ds fu;kstu vkSj

etnwjh ds lank; ls lacaf/kr ,sls ys[kk] cfg;ka

vkSj vU; nLrkost] ,sls fujh{kd ;k vU;

in/kkjh ds le{k izLrqr djsa vkSj mudh

ijh{kk djus nsa ;k ,slh tkudkjh nsa ftls os

vko';d le>rs gSa( ;k

¼x½ iz/kku ;k vklUu fu;kstd dh] mlds vfHkdrkZ

;k lsod dh] ;k ,sls fdlh O;fDr dks] tks

,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa ik;k tk,] ;g fo'okl djus dk

;qfDr;qDr dkj.k gS fd og deZpkjh gS] ijh{kk

djuk( ;k

¼?k½ ,sls dkj[kkus] LFkkiuk] dk;kZy; ;k vU;

ifjlj esa j[ks x, fdlh jftLVj] ys[kk] cgh

;k vU; nLrkost dh udy rS;kj djuk ;k

m)j.k ysuk(

¼³½ ;Fkkfu/kkZfjr vU; 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djukA

6. fofuos'[email protected] ds ekeys esa] iznÙk NwV Lor%

jn~n gks tk,xh vkSj rc u, izfr"Bku dks NwV gsrq

leqfpr ljdkj dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA

[la[;k ,l&38014@7@2012&,lñ,lñ&I]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2013

3372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 13, 2013/ASHADHA 22, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3 (ii)]

S.O. 1323.—In exercise of the power conferred by

Section 88 read with Section 91-A of the Employees' State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/

establislunents of Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Limited,

Visakhapatnam from the operation of the said Act. The

exemption shall be effective from the date of issue of

notification for a period of one ear.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following

conditions namely:-

(1)

The aforesaid establishments wherein the

employees are employed shall maintain a

of the exempted employees';

(2)

Not withstanding this exemption, the

employees shall continue to receive such

benefits under the said Act to which they might

have become entitled to on the basis of the

contributions paid prior to the date from which

exemption granted by this notification

operates;

(3)

The contributions for the exempted period, if

already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4)

The employer of the said factory/establishment

shall submit in respect of the period during

which that factory was subject to the operation

of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said

period), such returns in such forms and

containing such particulars as were due from

it in respect of the said period under the

Employees' State Insurance (General)

Regulations, 1950;

(5)

Any Social Security Officer appointed by the

Corporation under Sub-Section (1) of Section

45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the

Corporation authorized in this behalf by it, shall,

for the purpose of :-

(i)

Verifying the particulars contained in any

returned submitted under sub-section (1) of

section 44 for the said period; or

(ii)

Ascertaining whether registers and records

were maintained as required by the Employees'

State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for

the said period; or

(iii)

Ascertaining whether the employees continue

to be entitled to benefits provided by the

employer in cash and kind being benefits in

consideration of which exemption is being

granted under this notification; or

(iv)

Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of

the Act had been complied with during the

period when such provisions were in force in

relation to the said factory to be empowered

to:

(a)

require the principal or immediate employer to

him such information as he may consider

necessary for the purpose of this Act; or

(b)

at any reasonable time enter any factory,

establishment, office or other premises

occupied by such principal or immediate

employer at any reasonable time and require

any person found in charge thereof to produce

to such inspector or other official and allow

him to examine accounts, books and other

documents relating to the employment of

personal and payment of wages or to furnish

to him such information as he may consider

necessary; or

(c)

examine the principal or immediate employer,

his agent or servant, or any person found in

such factory, establishment, office or other

premises or any person whom the said

inspector or other official has reasonable cause

to believe to have been an employee ; or

(d)

make copies of or take extracts from any register,

account book or other document maintained

in such factory, establishment, office or other

premises,

(e)

exercise such other powers as may be

prescribed.

(6)

In case of disinvestment/corporatization, the

exemption granted shall become automatically

cancelled and then the new entity will have to

approach the appropriate Government for

exemption.

[No. S-38014/7/2012-SS-I]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1324

1324

1324.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 0101010101

tqykbZ] 2013

tqykbZ] 2013 dks 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`Ùk 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`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/

k jktLFkku

jktLFkku

jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%

^^ftyk vkSj rglhy&ckalokM+k esa jktLo xzke yks/kk

[Hkkx II—[k.M 3 (ii)]

Hkkjr dk jkti= % tqykbZ 13] 2013@vk"kk<+ 22] 1935

3373

vkSj dwiM+k dh lhekvksa ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=A

[la. ,l&38013@44@2013&,l.,l. I]

ujs'k tk;loky]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2013

S.O. 1324.— 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 July, 2013 as the date on which

the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45

which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-

V and VI [except sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections

77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into

force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following

areas in the State of Rajasthan namely:-

"The areas comprising within the revenue village

Lodha and Kupra in Tehsil & District Banswara"

[No. S-38013/44/2013-S.S. I]

NARESH JAISWAL, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 twu] 2013

dkdk

dkdk.vk

vkvk

vkvk. 1325

1325

1325.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e 1948

¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk 1 dh mi&/kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01

0101

tqykbZ] 2013

tqykbZ] 2013 dks 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`Ùk 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`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds

mica/k rfeyukMq

rfeyukMq

rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs]

vFkkZr~%

dsUnz

fuEu {ks= ds varxZr vkus okys

jktLo xkao

fr:oYywj ftyk

1. foPpwj

iksUusjh rkyqd

2. vka<kj dqIie

¼ohpwj xk¡o½

3. oSDdkMq

e.kyh ifjf/k

ds varxZr vkus okys jktLo xk¡o

[lañ ,l&38013@45@2013&,lñ,lñ-I]

ujs'k tk;loky]

ujs'k tk;loky] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2013

S.O. 1325.—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 July, 2013 as the date on which the

provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which

have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and

VI (except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77,

78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)

of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas

in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:-

CENTRE

AREAS COMPRISING THE

REVENUE VILLAGES OF

Manali Peripherals

1. Vichoor

(Vichoor Village)

2. Andarkuppam

Ponneri Taluk,

3. Vaikkadu

Thiruvallur District

[No. S-38013/45/2013-S.S-1]

NARESH JAISWAL,Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tqykbZ] 2013

dk-vk- 1326-

—jk"Vªifr] Jh gjca'k dqekj lDlsuk]

dks 28.06.2013 ¼iwokZg~u½ ls dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

U;k;k/khdj.k&lg&Je U;k;ky; la[;k 2] fnYyh] ds

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds :i esa 27.06.2017 rd vFkok

vxys vkn'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] fu;qDr djrs gSA

[la. ,.&11016@3@2012&lh.,y.,l&II]

jkts'k dqekj]

jkts'k dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2013

S.O. 1326.—The President is pleased to appoint Shri

Harbansh Kumar Saxena as Presiding Officer of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,

Delhi w.e.f. 28.06.2013 (F.N.) for a period upto 27.06.2017 or

until further orders, which is earlier.

[No. A-11016/3/2012-CLS-II]

RAJESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.