jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 35]
ubZ fnYyh, vxLr 25—vxLr 31] 2013] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 3—Hkkæ 9] 1935
No. 35]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 25—AUGUST 31, 2013, SATURDAY/BHADRA 3—BHADRA 9, 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)
foÙk ea=kky;
(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1827-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh oh- dkuu (tUe frfFk % 25&12&1954)]
dk;Zikyd funs'kd] vksfj;aVy cSad vkWiQ dkelZ dks 1&1&2014
dks ;k mlds ckn muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk
31&12&2014 rd vFkkZr~ muds }kjk vf/o£"krk dh vk;q izkIr
djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]
fot;k cSad ds vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@4@2012&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
3565 GI/2013
(4967)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2013
S.O. 1827.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Sh. V. Kannan (DoB : 25-12-1954), Executive Director,
Oriental Bank of Commerce as Chairman and Managing
Director, Vijaya Bank, from the date of his taking over the
charge of the post on or after 1-1-2014 and up to
31-12-2014, i.e. the date of his superannuation or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
4968
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1828-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ micaèk)
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj [kaM 8 ds
mi&[kaM (1) ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu
,oa varj.k) vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3)
ds [kaM (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh lqjs'k ,u- iVsy (tUe frfFk % 25&12&1957)]
egkizca/d] nsuk cSad dks 1&1&2014 dks ;k mlds ckn muds }kjk
inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rFkk 31&12&2017 rd vFkkZr~
muds }kjk vf/o£"krk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok
vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] vksfj;aVy cSad vkWiQ dkelZ ds
dk;Zikyd funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A
¹iQk- la- 4@5@2012&chvks&Iº
fot; eYgks=kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2013
S.O. 1828.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970/1980, read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and
sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby appoints
Shri Suresh N. Patel (DoB : 25-12-1957), General Manager,
Dena Bank as Executive Director, Oriental Bank of
Commerce, with effect from the date of his taking over
charge of the post on or after 1-1-2014 and up to
31-12-2017, i.e. the date of his attaining the age of
superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/5/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
(jktLo foHkkx)
(dsUæh; izR;{k dj cksMZ)
ubZ fnYyh] 22 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1829-—loZlk/kj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk
;g vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUæ ljdkj }kjk vk;dj
fu;ekoyh] 1962 (mDr fu;ekoyh) ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5Ä ds
lkFk ifBr vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (mDr vf/fu;e) dh /kjk
35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (ii) ds iz;kstukFkZ dj fu/kZj.k o"kZ
1&4&2012 ls vkxs laxBu fn bafM;u bULVhV~;wV vkWiQ VsDukWykth]
xka/h uxj] (iSu&,,, VhvkbZ 7352 ,e) dks fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds
v/hu ^fo'ofo|ky;] dkWyst ;k vU; laLFkk* dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr
fd;k x;k gS] vFkkZr~ %µ
(i)
vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k dk mi;ksx oSKkfud
vuqla/ku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk_
(ii)
vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius
ukekafdr Nk=kksa ds ekè;e ls oSKkfud vuqla/ku djsxk_
(iii)
vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, blds }kjk
izkIr jkf'k ds laca/ esa vyx [kkrk cgh j[ksxk] ftlesa
vuqla/ku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] mDr
vf/fu;e dh /kjk 288 dh mi&/kjk (2) ds Li"Vhdj.k
esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh [kkrk&cgh
dh ys[kk&ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk
139 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr
djus dh fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/or
lR;kfir ,oa gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ekeys esa
{ks=kkf/dkj j[kus okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj
funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk_
(iv)
vuqeksfnr laxBu lacaf/r foHkkxksa ds laca/ esa oSKkfud
vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr nku rFkk iz;qDr jkf'k dk vyx
fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk
ys[kk&ijh{kd }kjk fof/or lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh
izfr izLrqr djsxk A
2- dsaæ ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr
laxBu %µ
(d)
iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk cgh
ugha j[ksxk_ vFkok
([k)
iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr viuh
ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok
(x)
iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iv) esa mfYyf[kr oSKkfud
vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr ,oa iz;qDr nku dk viuk fooj.k
izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok
(èk)
viuk vuqla/ku dk;Z djuk can dj nsxk vFkok blds
vuqla/ku dk;Z dks Bhd ugha ik;k tk,xk_ vFkok
(M-)
mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5Ä ds lkFk ifBr
mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM
(ii) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq#i ugha gksxk rFkk mudk ikyu
ughsa djsxk A
¹vf/lwpuk la- 65@2013@iQk-la- 203@38@2012&vk-d-fu&IIº
Ípk jLrksxh]voj lfpo (vk-d-fu&II)
( Department of Revenue)
( Central Board of Direct Taxes)
New Delhi, the 22nd August, 2013
S.O. 1829.—It is hereby notified for general
information that “The Indian Institute of Technology,
Gandhi Nagar, (PAN-AAATI7352M) has been approved
by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4969
sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(said Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax
Rules. 1962 (said Rules), from 01.04.2012 onwards in the
category of ‘University, College or Other Institution,
subject to the following conditions, namely :—
(i)
The sums paid to the approved organization shall
be utilized for scientific research;
(ii)
The approved organization shall carry out
scientific research through its faculty members
or its enrolled students;
(iii)
The approved organization shall maintain
separate books of accounts in respect of the
sums received by it for scientific research, reflect
therein the amounts used for carrying out
research, get such books audited by an
accountant as defined in the explanation to sub-
section (2) of Section 288 of the said Act and
furnish the report of such audit duly signed and
verified by such accountant to the Commissioner
of Income-tax or the Director of Income-tax
having jurisdiction over the case, by the due date
of furnishing the return of income under sub-
section (1) of Section 139 of the said Act;
(iv)
The approved organization shall maintain a
separate statement of donations received and
amounts applied for scientific research in respect
of concerned Departments and a copy of such
statement duly certified by the auditor shall
accompany the report of audit referred to above.
2. The Central Government shall withdraw the
approval if the approved organization :—
(f)
fails to maintain separate books of accounts
referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1;
or
(g)
fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-
paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or
(h)
fails to furnish its statement of the donations
received and sums applied for scientific research
referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1;
or
(i)
ceases to carry on its research activities or its
research activities are not found to be genuine;
or
(j)
ceases to conform to and comply with the
provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of
Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and
5E of the said Rules.
[Notification No. 65/2013/F. No. 203/38/2012-ITA-II]
RICHA RASTOGI, Under Secy. (ITA-II)
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;
(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)
(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)
ubZ fnYyh] 31 tqykbZ] 2013
dk-vk- 1830-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, ekud (dksa) esas la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa A
vuqlwph
Øe la- la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh
la'kks/u dh la[;k
la'kks/u ykxw gksus
la[;k vkSj o"kZ
vkSj frfFk
dh frfFk
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ ,l 8112% 2013
la'kks/u la[;k 1]
31 tqykbZ] 2013
tqykbZ] 2013
bl la'kks/u dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg ”kiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;
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 miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=kº
lh- vkj- jktsUæk] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (flfoy bathfu;jh)
4970
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 31st July, 2013
S.O. 1830.—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 below, has been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No. and Year of the
No. and year of the
Date from which
Indian Standards
amendment
the amendment
shall have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 8112 : 2013
Amendment No. 1,
31st July, 2013
July, 2013
Copy of this amendment 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] 2 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1831-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi fofu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh;
ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %µ
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
LohÑfr djus
ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa
Hkkjrh; ekud dk
Hkkek la-@Hkkx@[k.M@o"kZ
la[;k
la[;k
dh frfFk@o"kZ@
irk
'kh"kZd
ekg
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1-
3941873
17&04&2013
ck;ksdkWu bysDVªhdYl bafM;k]
fon~;qr iz;kstuksa ds fy,
Hkk-ek- 7809 % Hkkx 3 %
ry eafty] 12]
nkc lqxzkgh vklatu'khy
[k.M 1 % 1986
oh ds b.MLVªh;y daIysDl]
fon~;qrjks/h Vsi — Hkkx 3 %
ds Vh b.MLVªh;y ikdZ 2]
vyx&vyx lkefxz;ksa dh
fcyky ikMk] foyst okyho]
vis{kk,a [k.M 1 % v
olbZ iwoZ]
rkiekih vklatu'khy
ftyk % Bk.ks&401208]
okys lq?kfV;r
egkjk"Vª
ikWyhfoukbyDyksjkbM Vsi
2-
3944071
02&05&2013
vfjgar bysDVªhdy daiuh]
250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EuhvlZ
Hkk-ek- 1293 % 2005
146@1169] eksrhyky uxj
rd jsfVr /kjk ds Iyxl
la- 1] jksM la- 3]
vkSj lkWdsV
lkabZckck eafnj ds utnhd]
xksjsxkao & if'pe]
eqacbZ&400104
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4971
3-
3944677
03&05&2013
vkslfou b.MLVªht]
250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ
Hkk-ek- 1293 % 2005
xkyk la- 27@28] igyk ekyk]
rd jsfVr /kjk ds Iyxl
iVsy b.M- bLVsV] U;w ¯ox]
vkSj lkWdsV
nfglj iqfyl LVs'ku ds
lkeus] ,l oh jksM]
nfglj iwoZ] eqacbZ&400068
4-
3946580
03&05&2013
iQyseiSd]
,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLiQvlZ
Hkk-ek-@vkbZbZlh 60079 %
12] /uy{eh b.MLVªh;y
Hkkx&1 iQyseizwiQ buDykstj
Hkkx&1 % 2007
bLVsV] foyst & uo?kj]
^Mh* }kjk miLdj laj{kk
rkyqdk & clhu] olbZ iwoZ]
Bk.ks&401210
egkjk"Vª
5-
39445767
08&05&2013
vkslfou b.MLVªht]
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa
Hkk-ek- 3854 % 1997
xkyk la- 27@28] igyk ekyk]
ds fy, fLops
iVsy b.M- bLVsV] U;w ¯ox]
nfglj iqfyl LVs'ku ds
lkeus] ,l oh jksM]
nfglj iwoZ] eqacbZ&400068
6-
3948281
21&05&2013
;wuholZy dscYl fy-]
fueTtuh eksVj ds fy,
Hkk-ek- 8783
IykWV la- ,y&58 ls
yisVu rkj — fof'kf"V —
Hkkx 4 % vuqHkkx 1 %
,y&60 rd]
Hkkx 4 % i`Fkd rkjksa ds fy,
1995
osj.kk b.M- bLVsV] osj.kk]
fof'kf"V — vuqHkkx 1 %
lsy'ksV] ftyk % nf{k.k xksok]
,pvkj ihohlh jksf/r rkj
xksok&403722
7-
3950773
28&05&2013
fu'kk izksMDVl]
?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa
Hkk-ek- 3854 % 1997
86] esgrk b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
ds fy, fLops
fyczVh xkMZu ^X* jksM la- 3]
ekykM if'pe]
eqacbZ&400064
8-
3958385
19&06&2013
gkseuhM vIyk;alsl]
fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kkn~;
Hkk-ek- 4250 % 1980
'kkWi la- 10] x.ks'k Ñik]
feDlj (æohijd vkSj
lh-,p-,l- IykWV la- 23]
xzkbaMj)
lsDVj 20] dksij[kSjkus]
uoh eqacbZ&400709
¹la- ds-iz-fo-@13%11º
,- ,l- tke¯[kMhdj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (,e Mh ,e&III)
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2013
S.O. 1831.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)
Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in
the following schedule :
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
4972
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Grant Date
Name and Address
Product
IS No./Part/Sec./Year
No.
No.
(factory) of the Party
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1.
3941873
17-04-2013
Biocon Electricals India,
Pessure sensitive adhesive
IS 7809 : Part 3 :
Ground Floor, 12,
insulating tapes for
Sec 1 : 1986
VK Indl. Complex,
electrical purposes —
KT Ind. Park 2, Bilal Pada,
Part 3 : requirements for
Village Valiv, Vasai East,
individual materials —
Distt. Thane,
Section 1 : plasticized
Maharashtra-401208
polyvinylchloride tapes
with non-thermosetting
adhesive
2.
3944071
02-05-2013
Arihant Electric Company,
Switches for domestic
IS 3854 : 1997
146/1169, Motilal Nagar
and similar purposes
No. 1, Road No. 3,
Near Saibaba Temple,
Goregaon West,
Mumbai-400104
3.
3944677
03-05-2013
Oswin Industries,
Plugs and socket outlets
IS 1293 : 2005
G. No. 27/28, First Floor,
of 250 volts and rated
Patel Industrial Estate,
current up to 16 amperes
New Wing, Opp Dahisar
Police Station, S.V. Road,
Dahisar (E),
Mumbai-400068
4.
3946580
03-05-2013
Flamepack,
Explosive Atmospheres—
IS/IEC 60079 :
12, Dhanlaxmi Industrial
Part 1 : Equipment
Part 1 : 2007
Estate, At Village Navghar,
Protection by Flameproof
Taluka Bassein, Vasai (East)
Enclosers “d”
Thane-401210,
Maharashtra
5.
39445767
08-05-2013
Oswin Industries,
Switches for domestice
IS 3854 : 1997
G. No. 27/28, First Floor,
and similar purposes
Patel Industrial Estate,
New Wing, Opp. Dahisar
Police Station, S.V. Road,
Dahisar (E),
Mumbai-400068
6.
3948281
21-05-2013
Universal Cables Ltd.,
Winding Wires for
IS 8783 : Part 4 :
Plot No. L-58 to L-60,
Submersible Motors —
Sec 1 : 1995
Verna Indl. Estate,
Specification—Part 4 :
Verna, Salcete,
Specification for Individual
South Goa,
Wires —Section 1 : HR PVC
Goa-403722
Insulated Wires
7.
3950773
28-05-2013
Nisha Products,
Switches for domestice
IS 3854 : 1997
86, Mehta Indl. Estate,
and similar purposes
Liberty Garden X Road
No. 3, Malad West,
Mumbai-400064
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4973
8.
3958385
19-06-2013
Homeneed Appliances,
Domestic electric food-
IS 4250 : 1980
Shop No. 10, Ganesh
mixers (liquidizes and
Krupa, CHS Plot No. 23,
grinders)
Sector 20, Koperkhairne,
Navi Mumbai-400709
[No. CMD/13 : 11]
A. S. JAMKHINDIKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (MDM-III)
ubZ fnYyh] 2 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk-1832-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os jnn dj fn, x, gSa %µ
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lac¼
jnn djus dh frfFk
la-
la[;k
Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1-
1154436
izse daMDVlZ izk- fy-]
Hkk ek 398 Hkkx 2 1996
05&06&2013
losZ ua- 1078@2@2]
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy, ,Y;wfefu;e
foyst ukjksyh] lhyoklk]
pkyd — Hkkx&2] ,Y;wfefu;e pkyd]
ftyk nknjk ,.M
tLrhÑr vkSj izcfyr
uxj gosyh&396235
2-
1551547
izse daMDVlZ izk- fy-]
Hkk ek 398 Hkkx 4 1994
05&06&2013
losZ ua- 1078@2@2]
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy, ,Y;wfefu;e
foyst ukjksyh] lhyoklk]
pkyd — Hkkx&4] ,Y;wfefu;e feJ/krq
ftyk nknjk ,.M
yMnkj pkyd (,Y;wfefu;e flykdkWu Vkbi)
uxj gosyh&396235
3-
2312938
izse daMDVlZ izk- fy-]
Hkk ek 398 Hkkx 5 1992
05&06&2013
losZ ua- 1078@2@2]
f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy, ,Y;wfefu;e
foyst ukjksyh] lhyoklk]
pkyd — Hkkx&5] vfrfjDr mPp oksYVrk
ftyk nknjk ,.M
400 ds vkSj mlls vf/d ds fy, ,Y;wfefu;e
uxj gosyh&396235
pkyd] tLrhÑr vkSj izcfyr
4-
7837797
HkSjo b.MLVªht]
Hkk ek 3854 % 1997
09&04&2013
IykWV ua- 24@ch] xksYMu
?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds fy, fLops
b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]
lkseukFk jksM] nkHksy]
ftyk neu
,.M nho&396210
5-
7993714
gk;MªksMk;u bafM;k izk- fy-]
Hkk ek 2148 % 2004
12&04&2013
ch 47] iSjkekmUV] U;w ¯yd jksM]
fon~;qr midj.kksa gsrq Tokyklg vkos"Vu
va/sjh (i)] eqacbZ&400053
¹la- ds-iz-fo-@13 % 13º
,- ,l- tke¯[kMhdj] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (,e Mh ,e&III)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
4974
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd August, 2013
S.O. 1832.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards
(Certification) Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are
given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licence
Name and Address
Article/process with relevant Indian
Date of cancellation
No.
No.
of the licensee
Standard covered by the Licence
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1.
1154436
Prem Conductors Private
IS 398 : Part 2 : 1996
05-06-2013
Limited, Survey No. 1078/2/2,
aluminium conductors for overhead
Village Naroli, Silvassa,
transmission purposes : Part 2 aluminium
Distt. : Dadra and Nagar
conductors, galvanized steel reinforced
Haveli-396235
2.
1551547
Prem Conductors Private
IS 398 : Part 4 : 1994
05-06-2013
Limited, Survey No. 1078/2/2,
aluminium conductors for overhead
Village Naroli, Silvassa,
transmission purposes : Part 4 aluminium
Distt. : Dadra and Nagar
alloy standed conductors (aluminium
Haveli-396235
magnesium silicon type)
3.
2312938
Prem Conductors Private
IS 398 : Part 5 : 1992
05-06-2013
Limited, Survey No. 1078/2/2,
aluminium conductors for overhead
Village Naroli, Silvassa,
transmission purposes : Part 5 aluminium
Distt. : Dadra and Nagar
conductors — galvanized steel reinforced
Haveli-396235
for extra high voltage (400 kv and above)
4.
7837797
Bhairav Industries,
IS 3854 : 1997
09-04-2013
Plot No. 24/B,
switches for domestic and similar
Golden Indl. Estate,
purposes
Somnath Road, Dabhel
Distt. : Daman
Daman and Diu-396210
5.
7993714
Hydrodyne (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
IS 2148 : 2004
12-04-2013
B-47, Paramount,
flameproof enclosures for electrical
New Link Road,
apparatus
Andheri-W
Mumbai-400053
[No. CMD/13 : 13]
A. S. JAMKHINDIKAR, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (MDM-III)
ubZ fnYyh] 16 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1833-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud
C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa %—
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh la[;k
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la- o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa ] ;fn
dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1-
vkbZ,l@vkbZ,lvks 105&E02% 1994
vkbZ,l 690 % 1988
tqykbZ 2013
oL=kkfn jax ds iDdsiu dk ijh{k.k %
Hkkx E02 leqæh ikuh ds izfr jax dk iDdkiu
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4975
2-
vkbZ,l 234 % 2013 oL=kkfn — oL=kkfn
veyxes¯Vx vkbZ,l 10014
tqykbZ 2013
js'kksa ds jSf[kd ?kuRo Kkr djuk (HkkjkRed ,oa
(Hkkx 2) % 1981
okbZczksLdksi fof/) fof'kf"V (nwljk iquijh{k.k)
3-
vkbZ,l 11056 % 2013 oL=kkfn — diM+sa
—
tqykbZ 2013
dh ok;q ds izfr ikjxE;rk Kkr djus
dh i¼fr (igyk iquijh{k.k)
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg t+iQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh;
dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj]
xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A
¹lanHkZ Vh ,Dl Mh@th&25º
izHkkdj jk;] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa izeq[k (Vh ,Dl Mh)
New Delhi, the 16th August, 2013
S.O. 1833.—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 Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No. Title and Year of the
No. and year of the Indian Standards,
Date of
Indian Standards
if any, Superseded by the New Indian
Establishment
Standards
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS/ISO 105-E02 : 1994 Textiles —
IS 690 : 1988
July, 2013
Tests for Colour Fastness : Part—E02
Colour Fastness of Sea Water
2.
IS 234 : 2013 Textiles — Method for
Amalgamating IS 10014
July, 2013
Determination of Linear Density of
(Part 2) 1981
Textile Fibres (Gravimetric and
Vibroscope Method) — Specificaation
(Second Revision)
3.
IS 11056 : 2013 Textiles —
—
July, 2013
Determination of the Permeability
of Fibres to Air
(First Revision)
Copy of above Indian 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, Thirvananthapuram
[Ref. TXD/G-25]
PRABHAKAR RAI, Scientist ‘E’ & Head (TXD)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
4976
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1834-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy
cSad ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2003)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 7&5&2013 dks çkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@128@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2013
S.O. 1834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Punjab National Bank and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
7-5-2013.
[No. L- 12012/128/2003-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 2003
Between-
Sri Sunder Lal son of late Raman Lal,
Resident of Gawal Toli Hansari,
Jhansi.
And
The Regional Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Regional Office,
Near Sudha Nursing Home,
Kanpur Road Jhansi.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification no. L-12012/128/2003- IR B.II, dated
29.09.2003, has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal-
2.
Whether any employer employee relationship
exists between the management of Punjab National
Bank and Sunder Lal? Whether the action of
Regional Manager Punjab National Bank, Jhansi
in terminating the services of Sri Sunder Lal son of
late Sri Serman Lal w.e.f. 01.3.02 is justified and
legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned
entitled to?
3.
Brief facts of are-
4.
It is alleged by the claimant that he was employed
by the branch manager of Agrani Bank Office
Punjab National Bank near Sudha Nursing Home,
Kanpur Road Jhansi at the post of peon in April
2000. It is also alleged that he worked the work of
permanent nature like distribution dak providing
drinking water to the staff and customers of the
branch etc. Initially he was paid Rs.100/- per month
which was enhanced to Rs.250/- The bank was
habitual of taking letter from the workman and only
thereafter he was paid his wages with a view to
escape from the applicability of the labour laws.
After a long time when he was not paid the salary
of the peon and his attendance was not marked in
the attendance register, he requested the manager
to pay his wages and his attendance should be
marked, upon this the management got annoyed
and the workman was removed orally from service
w.e.f. 01.03.2002 without complying the mandatory
provision of Section 25 F of the Act in so much so
he was not paid any notice, notice pay or
retrenchment compensation at the time of
dispensation of his service by the management.
5.
Lastly it has been prayed that he be reinstated in
the service of the bank with full back wages and all
consequential benefits.
6.
Opposite party has filed written statement refuting
the claim of the workman after raising preliminary
objection that the claimant is not a workman, they
have alleged that there is no relationship of master
and servant, he was never employed on the post
of peon or on any other post.
7.
It is stated that the claimant was running canteen
at LDM’s office of the bank at Jhansi and he was
being paid necessary subsidy in terms of canteen
facility. It is reiterated that due to shifting of the
LDM Office to the premises of Regional Office
Building, there was no requirement of separate
canteen facility and the same was discontinued
with effect from 1.4.2002, therefore, there was no
termination and thereby they have not committed
breach of the provisions of the Act, therefore, the
claimant is not entitled for any relief.
8.
The opposite party has filed certain photocopies
some of them are legible and others not.
9.
Claimant has also filed a application along with
affidavit paper no.8/1-4 along with certain
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4977
photocopies demanding certain papers like Dad
Distribution Register, also alleging that the
photocopies 1-21 of which originals are in the
custody of the opposite party which relates
payment of wages to the claimant for the period
May 2000 to Jan 2002 be summoned from the
opposite party.
10.
This application was decided by my learned
predecessor vide order date 15.10.04 where in this
application was allowed and the management was
directed to file the original document by 16.12.04.
When the management did not file the original of
the summoned documents despite several dates
an order was passed on 1.8.05 that legal
presumption against the management shall be
taken for not complying the order. Thereafter the
file was taken in evidence for several dates. After a
long gap management moved an application for
recalling the order dated 15.10.04 and 1.8.05. This
application was moved probably in the year 2012
and this application was rejected vide a detailed
order dated 07.05.2012. Thereafter the file was again
fixed for evidence.
11.
Despite several dates fixed for evidence the
opposite party did not produce any evidence in
support of their pleadings.
12.
Whereas the claimant has filed an affidavit in
support of his pleadings as W.W.1.
13.
Opposite party was not present to cross the
witness despite several dates so the opportunity
of the management was closed.
14.
This statement of the workman is on oath. It is
uncontroverted. He specifically stated that he was
employed at the post of peon in April 2000 and he
was used to perform distribution of dak and other
allied work and he was paid through cheque his
wages at the rate of Rs.250/- per month. When he
raised his voice for declaring permanent he was
removed from the service with effect from
01.03.2002.
15.
He has filed the documents paper no.1 – 21. The
original of these documents are in the custody of
the opposite party who was ordered to produce
vide order dated 15.10.04 but they miserably failed
and did not disclose any reason for not filing hence
taking the help of Section 114 of Indian Evidence
Act a legal presumption is drawn that had the
original documents been filed by the management
it would have gone against the management to
draw the inference.
16.
The evidence adduced by the claimant
documentary as well as on affidavit appears to be
believable. The opposite party has failed to file
any evidence in rebuttal to the claim of the claimant.
17.
From the evidence of the workman it is established
that he had completed more than 240 days
preceding 12 calendar months from the date of
termination. It is also proved that the workman has
not been paid any notice, notice pay or
retrenchment compensation by the management
at the time of termination of his service, therefore,
his retrenchment is illegal and is liable to be set
aside. Accordingly it is set aside and it is directed
that the workman be reinstated in service with 50%
back wages.
Dated : 1-5-2013
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1835-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj iatkc ,.M
¯l/ cSad ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&II] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
980@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 30&7&2013
dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@401@96&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2013
S.O. 1835.—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. 980/
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 Punjab and Sind Bank and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
30-7-2013.
[No. L- 12012/401/96-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. No. 980/2005
Registered on 16.9.2005
4978
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, C/o Sh. H.C. Arora, H.No.2299,
Sector 44D, Chandigarh.
.....Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,
Regional Office, Kothi No.5, Kamla Nehru Nagar,
Bathinda, Punjab
.........Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj Adv.
For the Management :
Sh. J.S. Sathi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on 9-7-2013
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/
401/96/IR(B-II) Dated 29.8.1997, 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 Punjab
and Sind Bank in dismissal of services of
Sh. Sukhwinder Singh from the Bank w.e.f. 25-3-1992
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said
workman is entitled?”
Vide charge-sheet dated 5.2.1987 the workman was
charge-sheeted for committing large number of
irregularities of very grave nature resulting in fraud
amounting to Rs. 4,12,029.44 paise while working at Branch
Office Abohar of Punjab and Sind Bank as Clerk/Typist
working on the loans counter during the years 1981 to
1984 and was dismissed vide order dated 25.3.1992 from
bank service after enquiry.
As per claim statement, an FIR had also been lodged
against the workman for the alleged commission of fraud
on the same facts but even after lapse of considerable
years the police did not charge-sheet him. The plea for
deferring the departmental enquiry to the conclusion of
the criminal trial was not accepted by the bank and the
departmental inquiry was conducted against him in most
unfair and prejudicial manner and against the principles of
natural justice. He was not provided reasonable
opportunity of defence. The findings of the Inquiry Officer
were not based on legal evidence and were perverse. The
workman had represented against the findings of the
Inquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority but the
disciplinary authority without dealing with any of the
contentions raised by the workman imposed the
punishment of dismissal. The appeal of the workman
against the punishment order was also dismissed by
appellate authority in a most unjustified manner. The
workman has prayed that the penalty of dismissal from
service being disproportionate to the alleged charge and
harsh be set aside with continuity of service and full back
wages.
The claim was contested by the management and it
was stated that the workman had been charged for causing
willful damage to the property of the bank by making
fictitious credit entries, raising loans without security and
non-existence of borrowers, embezzling amount by
tempering with the bank record and exercising undue
influence upon bank’s customers for his benefit.
According to the bank the enquiry had been conducted in
accordance with the laid down procedure of Bipartite
Settlement and the workman had been given opportunity
to present documentary evidence and witness to prove
his case. He had been given the copies of proceedings
and had been permitted to avail services of the defence
representative and thus the enquiry had been conducted
as per Rules and Regulations in a just, fair and proper
manner. The copy of enquiry report had been supplied to
the workman to enable him to make any representation.
He had also been given show cause notice against the
proposed punishment and the workman had availed the
opportunity and had made representation. The punishment
order was passed by the disciplinary authority after
considering the entire record of the inquiry and the proof/
representation submitted by the workman. The disciplinary
as well as appellate authority acted in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of bank and also in conformity
with the principles of natural justice. The gravity of the
charges proved against the workman is so serious that his
continuation in bank service is against the interest of bank
and also prejudicial to the customers and it would be highly
unjustified to reinstate such workman in the service of the
bank. As such the workman is not entitled to any relief
and the reference deserves to be rejected. The claim was
resisted on the ground of delay also.
In a rejoinder to the written statement the workman
stated that there is no period of limitation specified under
the ID Act for raising an industrial dispute.
In support of his case the workman examined himself
and filed certain documents marked as W2 to W10, while
on behalf of management Kanwarjit Singh, Senior Manager
was examined. His statement could not be completed and
had been deferred on 3.1.2008. Workman also stopped
appearing in the case. A notice sent by registered post to
workman returned with postal endorsement ‘left without
address’ hence the case was ordered to proceed ex parte
against workman on 16-8-2010.
From the perusal of the record it was found that on
a previous occasion the case had proceeded ex parte
against management and the written arguments had been
filed on behalf of workman on 25.11.2003. I have perused
those arguments and also the evidence on record and
heard the learned counsel for management.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4979
It has been argued on behalf of workman in the
written arguments that dismissal of the workman is violative
of the provisions of Bipartite Settlement as the prosecution
agency failed to make out a case for prosecution. The
management was at liberty to proceed against the workman
under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement relating to
discharge and in that event if ultimately after enquiry it is
decided not to continue such a workman in service, he
shall be liable only for termination with three month’s pay
and allowances in lieu of notice as provided in Clause 19.3
of the settlement and since in the present case the
prosecution agency has failed to present the charge-sheet
even after more than a decade, the workman should not
have been imposed the punishment of dismissal from
service.
The learned counsel for management argued that
the referred provisions of Bipartite Settlement are not
applicable in the present case. Para 19.4 of Bipartite
Settlement of 1966 provides that if after steps have been
taken to prosecute the employees or to get him prosecuted,
for an offence, he is not put on trial within a year of the
commission of the offence, the management may then deal
with him as if he had committed an act of “gross
misconduct” or “minor misconduct” provided that if the
authority which was to start prosecution proceedings
refused to do so or come to the conclusion that there is no
case for prosecution it shall be open to the management
to proceed against the employee under the provisions set
out in Clause 19.11 and 19.12 relating to discharge and 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 allowance in lieu
of notice as provided in Clause 19.3. The learned counsel
for management argued that the provision for termination
with three months’ pay and allowance in lieu of notice will
apply only if the police who was to start prosecution
proceedings had refused to do so or had come to the
conclusion that there is no case for prosecution. In the
present case it is not the case of the workman that the
police had submitted a closure report.
I agree with the learned counsel for the management
and I am of the view that the provisions of the Bipartite
Settlement relied on by the workman in his written
arguments are not applicable in the case.
The workman in his claim statement has also alleged
that the enquiry was not according to the principles of
natural justice and was not conducted in fair and proper
manner but from the statement of the workman it appears
that the enquiry had been conducted according to the
principles of natural justice. He has admitted during cross-
examination that he had been served with a charge-sheet;
he had been allowed to engage a defence representative
and had been allowed opportunity to cross-examine the
witness of the management. He also admitted that the
enquiry Officer had given him an opportunity to produce
the defence evidence but the witness summoned being
employee of the bank had not appeared in the enquiry. He
also admit to have received the copy of the enquiry report
and show cause notice and to have replied also the show
cause notice.
From the statement of workman it is clear that the
enquiry had been conducted in a fair and proper manner.
The Enquiry report which has been filed by the
workman himself as W3 shows that the workman had
admitted the allegation in his affidavit dated 12.2.1985 and
13.2.1985 in his letter dated 13.2.1985 and 14.2.1985 and
had deposited cash on 14.2.1985 and 5.3.1985. The
workman had deposited Rs.1, 90, 000/- and Rs.17, 656.95
paise. This argument of the workman cannot be accepted
that there is no evidence against him or the confessional
statement is no evidence. The law laid down in Natwarbhai
S. Makwana Vs. Union Bank of India and others 1985 I
LLN 644 decided by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and
relied on by workman in his written arguments is not
applicable in the case. In that case the confession or
admission of the employee was not forming part of charge.
The Hon’ble High Court therefore held that he cannot be
guilty for which there was no charge. Admission has got
to be correlated with the charge only.
On the basis of the above law it cannot be said that
the workman cannot be held guilty on the basis of
confession. Against it confession is the best evidence
against its maker. It is not the quality but the quality of the
evidence which is material for establishing the charge. I
am therefore of the view that the enquiry was conducted
in a proper and fair manner and there was sufficient
evidence to prove the guilt of the workman. He had been
charged for committing a large number of irregularities of
a very grave nature resulting 4, 12, 029.44 paise and the
punishment of dismissal from service of the bank was
justified. The reference is answered against the workman.
He is not entitled to any relief.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1836-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy
cSad ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
11@2004) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 20&7&2013
dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12011@301@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
4980
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2013
S.O. 1836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2004)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kolkata 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
20-7-2013.
[No. L-12011/301/2003-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Present : JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. 11 OF 2004
Parties :
Employers in relation to the management of
Punjab National Bank
And
Their workmen (Shri Sudhangshu Mahapatra)
Appearances :
For Punjab National Bank
:
Shri A Indwar, Manager
For Punjab National Bank
:
Shri S. Mukherjee,
Employees Union
President
State : West Bengal
Kolkata, dated 6th 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. The terms of reference given in the
schedule are as follows :
“Whether Mr. Sudhangshu Mahapatra, Special
Assistant, working at Medinipore Branch of Punjab
National Bank is entitled for a stagnation increment
of Rs.230 in the pay scale of Rs. 900-2835 w.e.f.
1.11.1996 or not? If not, what relief he is entitled
to?”
2. According to the statement of claim filed by the
Union the workman Sudhangshu Mahapatra joined the
services of the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred
as the Bank) in April, 1977 as a Clerk. As per promotion
policy of the Bank he became an officer in JMG Scale-I in
November, 1985 through process of selection and was
posted at a rural branch in Midnapur Region (West
Bengal). Because of his continuous illness he was unable
to discharge his duties properly and therefore he made a
representation for his reversion to the post of Clerk on
21.12.1987. The competent authority granted his prayer
and posted him as Clerk at BO : Khajra in the district of
Midnapur vide letter dated 18.03.1988. He was then selected
as a Special Assistant and posted at Branch Office
Midnapur. As per norms he was entitled to stagnation
increment with effect from November, 1996 and accordingly
his case was recommended by the Branch Manager to the
Regional Office, Midnapur vide letter dated 07.02.1997.
Competent authority, however, disallowed his claim.
Aggrieved, he made a representation before the Regional
Manager, Midnapur which was rejected. He thereafter
raised an industrial dispute. The Union has prayed that
the workman Sudhangshu Mahapatra be given stagnation
increment.
3. According to the written statement filed by the
Bank as per the terms of Bipartite Settlement dated
14.02.1995 an employee is not entitled to any stagnation
increment if he seeks reversion after one year of the
acceptance of the promotion. In the instant case the
stagnation increment of the workman fell due in November,
1996 but as he sought reversion after one year of the
promotion he was not entitled for the same under the
Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995.
4. The union did not file any affidavit of any
witness. The Bank, however, examined Rati Kanta
Patnayak.
5. Heard Shri S. Mukherjee on behalf of the union
and Shri A. Indwar on behalf of the Bank.
6. The workman was promoted on 18.11.1985. After
one year of the promotion he sought reversion to the post
of Clerk on the ground of illness on 21.12.1987. The
workman’s reversion was allowed by the Bank by letter
dated 18.03.1988 and he was actually reverted to the post
of Clerk on 02.04.1988. The workman reached the maximum
of pay on 01.11.1993. His stagnation increment became
due on 01.11.1996.
7. The Bipartite Settlement dated 14.02.1995 was
made effective from 01.11.1992. Clause 5(c)(ii) of the
Settlement says that an employee shall not be eligible for
stagnation increment’s if he, after accepting promotion,
seeks, and is granted, reversion after one year from the
date of promotion.
8. I have no doubt that the Settlement dated
14.02.1995 which has been made applicable with effect
from 01.11.1992 applies in this case. Since the workman
sought and was granted reversion after one year from the
date of his promotion, he is not entitled to any stagnation
increment under Clause 5(c)(ii) of the Settlement dated
14.02.1995.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4981
9. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
Award is passed accordingly.
JUSTICE G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1837-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2012)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 26&3&2013 dks
çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@99@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2013
S.O. 1837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Central Bank of India and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
26-3-2013.
[No. L- 12012/99/2011-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 47 of 2012
Between :
Sri Akhilesh Srivastava son of Sri R R Prasad,
Resident of 911/7,(1), Sewa Ram II Mills,
Civil Lines Jhansi.
And
The Regional Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Regional Office,
372/18-A, Civil Lines,
Jhansi.
AWARD
1.
Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-12012/99/2011-IR-B-II dated
28.05.2012, has referred the dispute for adjudication
to this tribunal.
2.
Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, Jhansi, in imposing the capital
punishment dismissed without notice upon
Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, Ex-Head Cashier, son of
Sri R R Prasad, vide order dated 18.04.09 is legal and
is justified? What relief the concerned workman is
entitled to?
3.
In the instant case after receipt of reference order
from the Ministry, repeated notices under registered
post have been issued to the Union raising the
dispute, Again registered notice was sent to the
workman from the office of the tribunal but neither
appeared in the case nor did he file any claim
statement.
4.
Therefore, from the conduct of the Union it is crystal
clear that he is not interested in prosecuting with
the case, therefore, reference is bound to be decided
against them for want of pleadings and proof.
5.
Therefore, reference is decided in the above terms
against the workman holding that he is not entitled
for any relief pursuant to the present reference.
6.
Reference is answered accordingly.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1838-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ
bafM;k ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2008)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 25&7&2013 dks
çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@122@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2013
S.O. 1838.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2008)
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Central Bank of India and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
25-7-2013.
[No. L- 12012/122/2007-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
4982
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 18/2008
Ref. No. L-12012/122/2007-IR (B-II) dated: 28.02.2008
BETWEEN :
Shri Ganesh Singh
S/o Late Jagdamba Singh,
Village & Post Virohi,
Mirzapur (UP)
AND
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India,
Goding Star,
B-20/44-A, Bhelapur,
Varanasi (UP)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-12012/122/2007-IR (B-II) dated :
28.02.2008 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 Ganesh Singh
S/o Late Jagdamba Singh, Village & Post Virohi, Mirzapur
(UP) and the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Goding Star,
B-20/44-A, Bhelapur, Varanasi (UP) for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the management of Bank
of India in terminating the services of Shri Ganesh
Singh, Armed Guard w.e.f. 27.11.2001 is justified
and legal? If not, what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?”
3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,
Ganesh Singh had been working with the Bank as Armed
Guard when he had been suspended vide order dated
19.07.2001 for his alleged involvement in the Criminal Case
No. 58/2001 u/s 307 IPC and Criminal case No. 59/2001
u/s 307 IPC and Criminal case No. 60/2001 u/s 25 of the
Arms Act. The workman’s services were terminated vide
order dated 27.11.2001 of the Zonal Manager after giving
him three months’ pay in lieu of notice.
4. The workman in his statement of claim has alleged
that he moved a Writ Petition No. 364606/2001 before
Hon’ble High Court against his suspension; and the
management revoked his suspension vide letter dated
27.11.2001; but terminated his services with immediate
effect through another letter dated 27.11.2001 on the
grounds of loss of confidence, without affording him any
opportunity of hearing or defence. The workman filed
another writ petition No. 1930/2002 against illegal
termination, which was dismissed on the grounds of
alternate remedy. The workman has alleged that termination
of his services without giving any charge sheet or
conducting any departmental inquiry is contrary to the
law and principles of natural justice; and accordingly, his
illegal termination is liable to be set aside and the workman
is liable to be reinstated with consequential benefits.
5. The management in its written statement has
submitted that the workman had been appointed vide letter
dated 13.10.1997 on the specified terms and conditions as
applicable to Armed Guards of the Bank. The security of
the Bank premises and valuables kept therein is of
paramount importance and as such Armed Guard is very
sensitive assignment in the Banking System. The
involvement of the workman in criminal cases led to loss
of confidence of the Bank in its employee; and accordingly,
the services of the workman were terminated as per
provisions contained in para 522 of the Shastry Award
after complying with the norms given therein. The
management has contended that its action of terminating
the services of an employee in whom the Bank had lost its
confidence was lawful as his involvement in various
cognizable offences were basis of their loss of confidence
in the workman; and accordingly, it has prayed that the
claim of the workman be rejected without any relief to him.
6. The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he
has only reiterated his averments already made in the
statement of claim and has introduced noting new.
7. The parties have filed documentary evidence in
support of their respective claim. The workman examined
himself whereas the management has examined Shri Rakesh
Kumar Sharma, Manager in support of their stands. The
parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the each
other’s witnesses and forwarded oral arguments.
8. Hear representatives of the parties and perused
entire evidence on record.
9. The authorized representative of the workman
has argued that the management has acted arbitrarily in
terminating the services of the workman merely on the
institution of criminal case against him, without giving
him a charge sheet or holding any departmental inquiry
against him. He has further urged that the workman had
been denied of opportunity to defend himself as the
management did not conducted any inquiry before
penalizing him. It is a principle of natural justice that before
penalizing an official the management is duty bound to
conduct a domestic enquiry into the misconduct of the
delinquent official and he should be afforded proper
opportunity to defend himself. It was further submitted
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4983
that workman had been falsely implicated in the criminal
case. The management without going into the facts, acted
in haste; examined the situations superficially and
terminated the services of the workman on the grounds of
‘loss of confidence’. It has been further submitted that
since the workman had not been convicted by the criminal
court therefore, the action of the management in
terminating the services of the workman, considering the
criminal cases is bad in the law and he is entitled for
reinstatement. He has relied on Babul Lal vs. Narmada
Shakari Tel Prakriya Samiti Maryadit Khargone & others
FLR 1996 (74) 1960 and Workman of Subong Tea Estate
vs. The outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate 1977-
88 SCLJ 3634.
10. In rebuttal the authorized representative of the
Bank has submitted that it is not disputed that the FIR
was lodged against the workman u/s 307 of IPC and u/s 25
of Arms Act and thereafter criminal cases were also
instituted against him. He has further submitted that the
Banking Industry involves a lot of risks in as much as
huge amount of cash and valuable securities are to be
guarded vigilantly and are transferred from one place to
another in a routine course of businesses system. The
security of the Bank premises and valuables kept there in
is of paramount importance and as such armed guard is
very sensitive assignment in the Banking system. It was
also submitted that the service conditions of the Armed
Guard in the Banking Institutions are governed by Bipartite
Settlement with time to time amendments Shastry and Desai
Awards; and accordingly, primarily the workman was placed
under suspension and was paid suspension allowance
and thereafter his services were terminated in view of
provisions contained in para 522 (i) of the Shastry Award
without holding any disciplinary inquiry; after complying
with the conditions given therein. It has been further
argued that the services of the workman were terminated
for loss of confidence in accordance with the terms
contained in para 522 (i) of Sastry Award which amounts
to termination simplicitor. As the services were terminated
under the aforementioned provision of the Sastry Award,
where there is no need to issue charge sheet and no
misconduct was required to be proved.
He has relied on Pavnendra Narayan Verma vs.
S.G.P.G.I. if Medical Sciences and another 2002 (92) FLR
349 (SC) and Suresh Chandra vs State of UP and others,
2010 (124) FLR 594.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to
the rival contentions of the authorized representative of
the parties and scanned entire evidence available on
record.
12. The case of the workman, is that he was
appointed as Armed Guard with the management of the
Bank and his services had been terminated by the Bank
for his involvement in the criminal cases, without
conducting any domestic inquiry in the matter, which
amounts to flagrant denial of justice; accordingly, he has
prayed that the termination of his services be declared
illegal and he be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
13. Per contra, the management of the Bank has
come forward with the case that the termination of the
services of the workman is termination simplicitor which
resulted due to loss of confidence in the workman for his
alleged involvement in the cognizable offence u/s 307 IPC
and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The validity of the Bank’s
action in terminating the services of the workman without
holding any formal inquiry into the matter of the workman
rest upon the provisions contained in para 522 (1) of the
Sastry Award, which provides that the services of a
permanent employee can be terminated by giving him three
months’ notice or notice pay in lieu thereof. The
management has contended that since it has paid three
months pay in lieu of notice, its action in terminating the
services of the workman, due to loss of confidence in him,
in compliance of provisions contained in para 522 (1) of
the Sastry award is fully justified.
14. In view of the rival contention of the parties the
para 522 (1) of the Sastry Award is of out most importance,
which is quoted hereunder:
“(1) In cases not involving disciplinary action for
misconduct and subject to clause (6) below, the
employment of a permanent employee may be
terminated by three months’ notice or on payment
of three months’ pay and allowances in lieu of notice.
The services of a probationer may be terminated by
one month’s notice or on payment of a month’s pay
and allowances in lieu of notice.
A bare perusal of the above mentioned shows that
the cases where no disciplinary action for misconduct is
required, the management is at liberty to terminate the
services of its employee by giving him three months’ notice
or on payment of three months’ pay and allowances in lieu
of notice.
15. The principle that to determine whether the
misconduct is motive or foundation of order of termination,
the test to be applied is to ask the question as to what was
the object of the enquiry. In State of Orissa vs. Ram
Narayan Das 1961 (2) FLR 1 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
“If an enquiry or an assessment is done with the
object of finding out any misconduct on the part of
employee and for that reason his services are
terminated, then it would be punitive in nature. On
the other hand, if such an enquiry or an assessment
is aimed at determining the suitability of an employee
for a particular job, such termination would be
termination simplicitor and not punitive in nature.
4984
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the case of Pavenendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay
Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and Another 2002 (92)
FLR 349 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the test to
determine the nature of the termination order, i.e. whether
the termination is punitive or simplicitor. The Court
observed that one of the judicially involved tests to
determine whether in substance an order of termination is
punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there
was (a) a full scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations
involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c)
culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are
present the termination has been held to be punitive
irrespective of the form of the termination order.
Conversely, if any one of the three factors is missing the
termination has to be upheld.
In the case of Gujrat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujrat
Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha 1980 (40) FLR 152 (SC), it
was observe by the Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer that:
“a termination effected because the master is
satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent
desirability of terminating the service of the
delinquent servant, is a dismissal. If there is
suspicion of misconduct the master may say that he
does not wish to bother about it and may not go
into his guilt but may feel lime not keeping a man he
is not happy with. He may not like to investigate
nor take the risk of continuing a dubious servant.
Then it is not dismissal but termination simplicitor,
if no injurious record of reasons or punitive
pecuniary cut-back on his full terminal benefits is
found. For, in fact, misconduct is not then the
moving factor in the discharge. In other words it
will be a case of motive if the master, after gathering
some prima facie facts, does not really wish to go
into their truth but decides merely not to continue a
dubious employee. The master does not want to
decide or direct a decision about the truth of the
allegations. But if he conducts an enquiry only for
the purpose of proving the misconduct and the
employee is not heard, it is a case where the enquiry
is the foundation and the termination will be bad.”
16. In the light of above legal position, it has to be
determine whether, in substance, the order of termination,
in the present case is punitive in nature or termination is
simplicitor. In the instant case, it is admitted that the
workman involved in the criminal cases, pertaining to
Section 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. Also, the workman
had been detained in jail for the period from 14.05.2001 to
26.06.2001, which resulted into his suspension. The
workman during his cross-examination has stated that the
criminal case in which he was detained is still pending.
The opposite party bank is a financial institution which
deals with the public money. Trust and integrity are basic
qualities of the employee of the Bank. The post of the
Armed Guard is a post of trust and great confidence, as
the duty of the armed guard is not only to provide security
to the Bank’s property/premises and its customers but
also to the hard earned money of the masses; and
involvement of such an employee, in criminal cases, who
holds a strategic post leads to embarrassment and
inconvenience to the Bank and is also detrimental to the
discipline and security of the Bank. If a person who himself
is indulged in anti social activities then how he is supposed
to carryout such a responsible work i.e. providing security
to public money and bank property.
Admittedly, the integrity of the workman became
doubtful for his alleged involvement in cognizable
offences. Also, as per workman’s own statement the said
criminal cases are still pending against him. Had he been
acquitted from criminal cases, then it might have been
considered that he was falsely implicated in the criminal
cases; but here the scene is different, which supports the
stand of the management that it lost the confidence in the
workman and accordingly, terminated his services after
complying with the provisions given in para 522 (1) of the
Sastry Award. As discussed above termination of workman
is not punitive but the termination is simplicitor, no
opportunity was required to be given to the workman
before passing of the impugned order and giving him three
months’ pay in lieu of notice as per the para 522 (1) of the
Sastry Award catered all that was required before
terminating the services of the workman.
17. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances
stated above and law of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion
that the action of the Bank management in terminating the
services of the workman, in terms of provisions contained
in para 522 (1) of the Sastry Award; who had allegedly
been involved in the cognizable office of serious nature,
was neither illegal nor unjustified. Accordingly, I come to
the conclusion that the workman, Dinesh Singh is not
entitled for any relief.
18. Award as above.
Lucknow
15th July, 2013
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1839-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj bykgkckn cSad
ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 16@2002)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 7&5&2013 dks çkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@38@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4985
New Delhi, the 1st August, 2013
S.O. 1839.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Allahabad Bank and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on
7-5-2013.
[No. L- 12012/38/2001-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFF ICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOR COURT,
KANPUR.
Industrial Dispute No.16 of 2002
Between :
Sri Narendra Sharma,
C/o L. Radhey Shaym Sharma,
Plot No. 3268,
Awas Vikas Yojna No. 3,
Panki Road, Kalyanpur,
Kanpur
And
The Assistant General Manager,
Allahabad Bank,
Regional Office,
Pandu Nagar,
Kanpur.
AWARD
1.
Central Govt., MoL, New Delhi vide notification no.
L-12012/38/2001-IR (B-II), dated 20.07.01, has
referred the following dispute for adjudication to
this tribunal—
2.
Whether any employer employee relationship exist
between the management of Allahabad Bank and Sri
Narendra Sharma son of Late Radhey Shyam
Sharma? If so whether the action of Regional
Manager/Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank Kanpur.
In terminating the services of Sri Narendra Shrama
with effect from 27.05.2000, is legal and justified? If
not what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?
3.
Brief facts are—
4.
It has been alleged by the claimant that he was
engaged for the post of peon on 17.05.99 by the
Allahabad Bank at its Vijai Nagar Branch by the then
branch manager Sri M. K. Mishra and he was being
paid Rs.50 per day. His job was of permanent nature
like to bring drinking water in the branch, to bring
registers, to bring vouchers from the cash
department, to provide token to the customers of
the branch and to bring stationery etc. It is also
stated besides the above work he was also deployed
to operate the generator. When made a demand for
his permanency in the service of the bank the officers
of the bank annoyed and he was removed from the
service of the bank by oral order. He had worked for
more than 240 days of continuous service. Lastly it
has been prayed that he be reinstated in the service
of the bank with full back wages.
5.
Opposite party has filed reply alleging that the
applicant was never engaged by the bank, there exist
no relationship of master and servant between the
bank and the workman. However, they have stated
that the bank had given a contract to Dharm
Electricals Kanpur for providing and running a
generator of 5 KVA at Vijai Nagar Branch. After
installation of generator the contractor for full filling
his part of agreement to run the generator had
deputed the claimant on his behalf to operate the
generator as such the claimant was operating the
generator on behalf of the contractor. At no point of
time he was engaged as peon at all. It is also stated
that there was already sufficient strength of peons
at the branch and as such there could be no occasion
to appoint the claimant. As there was no termination,
question of flouting the provisions of the Act does
not arise. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for
any relief.
6.
Rejoinder has also been filed but nothing new has
been stated therein.
7.
Both the parties have filed the documentary
evidence as well as adduced oral evidence.
8.
Claimant has filed 127 papers which are photocopies
in the nature mostly illegible. These paper are paper
no. 14/7 to 14/128.
9.
Opposite party has filed three payment vouches
which are certified copies of the vouchers alleging
that these are not in the name of the claimant.
10.
Claimant has adduced himself as W.W.1 Narendra
Sharma. Opposite party has produced one Sri Manoj
Mishra who is the Sr. Manager of the Bank as M.W.1.
11.
I have heard and examined the evidence of both the
parties documentary as well as oral.
12.
It has been alleged by the claimant that he was
engaged in the year on 17.5.99 by the Branch Manager
M. K. Mishra. M.W.1 is the person who has been
4986
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the branch manager during the period 1997 to 2000.
He has stated on oath that during that period there
were two sub staff working in the year 1999 and
they were permanently posted. Their names are
Devender and Shyam Sunder Sharma. They have
never employed Sri Narendra Kumar Sharma as peon
and they have never made any payment in the name
of the claimant. Whenever there was need for
purchase of misc. items a voucher was prepared in the
name of sub staff and the payment was made to them.
13.
Much stress has been given by the claimant on paper
no. 14/7 to 9. These are the vouchers dated 9.10.99,
16.10.99 and 23.10.99.
14.
Both the parties have filed the photocopies of these
vouchers. It has been contended by the opposite
party that original of these vouchers were sent to
AGM Office, on 7.10.05 and thereafter original
vouchers are not traceable and they have also filed
an affidavit paper no. 33/3-4 of a Manager which
has been considered by me.
15.
A.R. for the claimant is pressing that the aforesaid
vouchers 14/7-9 bears the signature of Sri Narendra
Sharma on the back of these vouchers, whereas the
auth. Rep. of the opposite party as well as M.W. 1
stated on oath that two vouchers dated 9.10.99 and
16.10.99 were prepared in the name of S S Sharma to
bring water etc. Sri S S Sharma is a member of the
sub staff as stated by M.W. 1. On the front of these
voucher there is specific endorsement - cashier
please pay Sri SS Sharma. This voucher also bears
the signature of Sri Sharma on the back of these
vouchers.
16.
The contention of the A.R. for the opposite party is
that when the payment was made to S S Sharma and
endorsement to this effect is available on the front
side of these voucher how he would be able to sign
these vouchers on the back. Opposite party stated
that the claimant somehow procured the photocopy
of these vouchers and put his signature and again
got it photo copies, which have been filed. Similarly
voucher paper no.14/9 is in the name of M Mishra
and is not in the name of Narendra Sharma.
17.
It is also stated by the opposite party that in para 4
of the claim statement the claimant himself has
written that all the vouchers which were prepared
under the Head of payment of salary, but the claimant
came to know these vouchers were torn by the
management and prepared another voucher under
the head of water.
18.
In this way also there cannot be any voucher as
wages or salary in the name of the claimant. I have
also considered the other documents filed by the
claimant paper no.14/10-128. Cognizance of such
type of documents cannot be taken which are
photocopies.
19.
There is no appointment letter, whereas M.W.l has
specifically stated that to appoint any sub staff there
is a prescribed procedure and this power also vested
in the Head Office of the bank. Claimant was no
where appointed or engaged through this procedure.
20.
Therefore, the claimant has failed to prove that he
was employed for the post of peon and he
continuously worked for 240 days before his
termination which is 25.05.2000. There is no cogent
oral as well documentary evidence that the claimant
had worked for more than 240 days. Initial burden
lies on the claimant to prove that he had worked for
more than 240 days continuously. Therefore the
claimant failed to discharge his obligation in this
regard.
21.
Consequently it is held that the claimant is not
entitled for any relief as claimed by him.
22.
Reference is accordingly answered against the
claimant and in favour of the opposite party.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1840-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos
ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 116@99) dks çdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 1&8&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&41012@137@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/99)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of S.E. Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 1-8-2013.
[No. L- 41012/137/98-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/l16/99
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4987
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Pushpachandrahas Vyas,
Ex -Casual Gangman,
Vge . Thyodharivaghelan,
Distt. Satna (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
South Eastern Railway,
Bilaspur
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 4th day of July 2013
1.
As per letter dated 9-3-99 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-41012/137/98/IR (B-I). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of
Railways, The Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.
Railway Bilaspur terminating the services of
Shri Pushpachandrahas Vyas Ex-Casual Gangman
w.e.f. 27-6-98 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled ?”
2.
After receiving reference, notice’s were issued to
the parties. lst party workman filed Statement of
claim at Page 2/1 to 2/3. The case of 1st party is that
he was employee of IInd party. His services were
illegally terminated. Workman is less qualified, only
he can sign, he cannot read or write in English. The
certificate of past service granted to him by PWI
was mentioning wrong dates. It resulted the
certificate as false. That lst party workman had no
intention to obtain service by producing false
certificate. If he was so Iiterate, he would not have
knowingly produced false certificate. The certificate
was not issued on letter pads. The certificate
mentioning wrong period of service is a curable
mistake as Party No.1 worked for years together. He
had educational qualifications and experience. The
termination of his service is not legal. Order of
termination of service dated 27-6-88 be set aside.
Workman prayed for his reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/3.
IInd party submits that the allegation of applicant
that he was illegally terminated from service are
denied. That the services of applicant were properly
terminated as he secured Job producing false service
certificate. The contentions of the 1st party that he
is less qualified, he cannot read or speak in English
is denied. It is submitted that what 1st party is doing,
shows he understands contents of service-
certificate submitted for his appointment as casual
gangman. The Ist party had submitted petition
before Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur and ALC. He was
himself defending those proceedings. The claim of
Ist party ignorance of the contents of certificate is
denied. It is further submitted that workman himself
had admitted in Departmental Enquiry, that he has
produced past working certificate even though he
did not work at all under PWI Bhatapara. That PWl
Bhatapara stated that workman Pushpachandrahas
has never worked under his control. He did not
discharged him at any time and hence the claim of
applicant that past service certificate issued by PWI
Bhatapara is not accepted by Railway
Administration is false. It is submitted that no
question arise to verify or rectify such false
certificate. The workman never worked in Railway
before obtaining appointment as casual Gangrnan
on 8-8-83. The termination order issued by Railway
Administration is correct. Other contentions of
workman are denied as false. IId party prays for
rejection of claim of 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
In Affirmative
management of Railways, The
Divisional Railway Manager,
S.E. Railway Bilaspur terminating
the services of Shri Pushpachandrahas
Vyas Ex-Casual Gangman w.e.f.
27-6-98 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Relief prayed
workman is entitled to?”
by workman
is rejected.
REASONS
5.
Ist party workman is challenging termination of his
service contending that the past service certificate
produced by him. He had no knowledge of its
contents. The certificate was not intentionally
produced to secure employment. Affidavit of
evidence is filed by workman. He has stated that he
was working in S.E. Railway, Bilaspur under PWI.
Thereafter he was working under PWI for 5 years.
No enquiry was held against him before termination
of his service. That certificate received by him was
produced in the same condition. The certificate was
not prepared or fabricated by him. He received
education upto Vth standard. He cannot read or write
English. PWI issued certificate, was removed from
service. Other person was working in his place. That
4988
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
two person cannot be punished for same ground. In
his cross-examination, workman says from 1983, he
was working. under PWI Khongsara. He was
working till 1988 in Railways. That he had not
produced past service certificate. That he had not
worked in Railway prior to 1983. That prior to joining
service in Railway in 1983, he had not submitted any
false service certificate.
6.
Management adduce evidence of witness Namdeo
Raghav by affidavit. The witness of management
has stated that there was a departmental vigilance
enquiry. The Vigilence party ceased the documents
related to appointment and service records of the
applicants and records are not available in the office.
On the basis of correspondence available in office,
he states that the workman had given false certificate
for obtaining employment. On the basis of complaint
received, the matter was sent to Vigilence deptt. The
Vigilence enquiry, the certificate was found false.
Therefore the service of the workman was dispensed
with. In his cross-examination, management’s
witness says he was working on several posts from
5-3-2001. On report of vigilance, chargesheet was
issued to the workman. Those persons were
removed from service after completion of the
departmental enquiry. The PWI concerned was
suspended and there after he was terminated from
service. PWI Mr. M.H. Kumar has died. That he had
not received record despite of writing several letters.
7.
The pleadings and evidence of 1st party workman
are considered. In his statement of claim, he says
that he had no knowledge about the past service
certificate as he cannot read or write English. He has
not intentionally submitted certificate for obtaining
employment. In his evidence of affidavit, he claims
that the certificate received by him from department
was produced in the same condition. The PWI
concerned issuing certificate was dismissed from
service. There appears substance in the contentions
of IInd party that past service certificate produced
by workman was found false after vigilance enquiry.
The PWI concerned was dismissed from service. If
past, service certificate was false, the employment
given on the basis of such certificate cannot be said
legal.
8.
At the time of argument, learned counsel for Ist party
submitted that no documents were produced by
management. Reliance is placed on ratio held in
case of —
“S.Kirpal Singh Duggal Versus Municipal Board,
Ghaziabad reported in AIR 1968—Supreme Court
1416. The party in possession of best evidence
which would throw light on the issue in controversy
withholding it. Court ought to draw an adverse
inference against him notwithstanding that onus of
proof does not lie on him. Party cannot rely on
abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that
he was not called upon to produce it.”
9.
IInd party has produced the documents. Those
documents show that Ist party Pushpchandrahas
had filed proceedings before CAT, Jabalpur
challenging his termination from service. Reply was
filed by IInd party. The record of Enquiry
Proceedings is also produced. The Ist party has not
stated anything about the Enquiry Proceeding. The
pleading and evidence of the workman clearly refers.
that the past service certificate was produced by
him but he says that he has no knowledge about jts
contents. When the documents produced for getting
employment was found false after examination, the
termination of service of workman cannot be said
illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
10.
In the result, award is passed as under :—
1. The action of the management of Railways,
The Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.
Railway Bilaspur terminating the services of
Shri Pushpachandrahas Vyas Ex-Casual Gangman
w.e.f. 27-6-98 is legal.
2. Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1841-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj uhekj {ks=kh;
xzkeh.k cSad ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 180@97)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 1&8&2013 dks çkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@121@90&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 180/97)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Nimar Kshetriya
Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 1-8-2013.
[No. L- 12012/121/90-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4989
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/l80/97
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shi Harish Kumar,
S/o Shri Ramkishan Bhutda,
Village Semri, Tehsil Suhagpur,
Distt. Hoshangabad
...Workman
Versus
Chairman,
Nimar Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
4, Nutan Nagar Colony,
Khargaon,
Distt. Khargone (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of July 2013
1.
As per letter dated 4-7-87 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-12012/121/90/IR (B-I). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Nimar
Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services
of Shri Harish Kumar Bhutda S/o Shri Ram Kishan
Bhutda is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled?”
2.
After receiving. reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement
of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/8. The case of Ist party is
that he was initially appointed to the post of
supervisor vide order ‘dated 7-6-84 in pay scale
Rs. 925-1500 in establishment of IInd party. Though
he was employed as supervisor but he was
discharging duties of clerical nature. That he had no
power to grant leave to supervise subordinate staff
and take disciplinary action against the Bank. That
he was discharging duties of workman under I..D.
Act. He claims to be covered as workman under
Section 2(s) of I.D. Act.
3.
That he was appointed on probation of 2 years vide
order dated 20-6-84. He was found medically fit.
However the IInd party Bank wanted to
accommodate some other officer and therefore
wanted to get rid of the applicant. It is alleged that
with the intention of terminate him, conspired case
was prepared against him on 28-1-86, no enquiry
was conducted in respect of the charges. He was
advised to bring the standard of his working upto
the level. That he had completed his probation. Prior
to completion of his probation, no letter was issued
for extension of his probation. That he worked
continuously w.e.f. 2-7-84 to 1-1-86 without break.
During probation period, he was on leave. His
probation was extended for one month as per order
dated 27-11-86. Again his probation was extended
for two months as per order dated 17-1-87. That he
was in service of IInd party for two years, 9 months
and 21 days continuously. That the IInd party making
request to clause 8 of the Nimar Kshetriya Gramin
Bank Staff Service Regulations 1983 terminating his
services without assigning reasons or with-holding
enquiry. Workman submits that termination of his
services amounts to retrenchment under Section 2
(oo) of I.D. Act. Said retrenchment is in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Workman has referred to
ratio held in various cases decided by Hon’ble High
Courts. He contends that termination of his service
amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of I.D.
Act. His services are illegally terminated violating
Section 25-F of I.D. Act is illegal. He has not received
any adverse communications. On such contentions,
workman prays for his reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
4.
Management filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/8. Management submits that Ist party workman
was appointed as Officer vide order dated 7 -6~84 in
the Bank on probation period was not satisfactory.
His probation was extended vide order dated
18-6-86 for 154 days. Ist party did not show
improvement during probation period. A chargesheet
was issued to him on 28-1-86. Reply was given to
the chargesheet by Ist party. However on
assessment of his work performance and conduct,
management found he would not sit as a good
officer. Ist party was found unsuitable to continue
in employment of the Bank. Therefore his services
were terminated as per order dated 28-3-87 giving
3 months salary in lieu of such notice.
5.
Conciliation Officer had submitted Failure Report to
Central Govt. The reference has been made. That Ist
party workman was appointed on probation for two
years. His services were terminable as per Regulation-
8 during probation period. It is further submitted
that the Ist party was posted as permanently as
Manager at Gandhawal Branch of the Bank. He
shows dereliction from duty. It is found that he
remained absent from duty, in many cases subsidy
was not received and some loan cases were found
pending for disbursement. General Manager found
that there was no follow up in loan cases and
n o
entries were made since last 5 months in that behalf
in the register maintained in the Branch. Above
deficiencies were found at the time of inspection by
4990
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the General Manager. Ist party workman remained
unauthorisely absent from 26-8-86 to 30-8-86. It is
reiterated that the workman was on leave for 154
days during probation period. The probation period
was extended. The services of workman terminated
during probation period giving 3 months pay in lieu
of notice. The termination of services of IInd party
is as per Regulation-8 which permits termination
during probation. Termination of services of Ist party
falls under exception clause (bb) to Section 2 (oo) of
I.D. Act. Section 25-F of I.D. Act is not attracted. It
is further submitted that workman was appointed as
Supervisor in the Bank in 925-1500. It is denied that
he was discharging duties of clerk. That Ist party
was posted as Branch Manager in Officer Cadre.
The duties and functions of Branch Manager are
supervisory and control over the Branch and staff
working there. As such, Ist party is not covered as
workman under I.D. Act.
6.
Probation of workman was extended time to time
and ultimately his services were terminated as good
improvement was found despite of opportunity
given. to him. It is not disputed that workman
completed 2 years of probation. but his probation
period was extended. There is no automatic
confirmation as it depends on satisfactory
completion of deputation period. Merely completing
240 days service does not attract Section 25-F
relating to payment of retrenchment compensation.
The termination is not referred invalid. It is submitted
that the termination. of Ist party falls under the
exception under clause (bb) of Section 2 (oo) of I.D.
Act. It is submitted that reliefs prayed by workman
be rejected.
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 Ist party is
In Negative
covered as workman under
Section 2(s) of I.D. Act?
(ii) Whether the action of the
Doesnot Survive
management of Nimar Kshetriya
Gramin Bank in terminating the
services of Shri Harish Kumar
Bhutda S/o Shri Ram Kishan
Bhutda is legal?
\(iii) If so, to what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?”
workman is rejected.
REASONS
8.
There is no dispute that the Ist party Harish Kumar
Bhutda was appointed as Officer in IInd party Bank.
The parties are at dispute whether Ist party is
workman defined under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, The
verbatim of Section 2(s) is produced as under :—
“ ‘workman’ means any person 9 including an
apprentice employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be express or
implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this act in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,
discharge of retrenchment has led to that dispute,
but doesnot include any such person—
(i)
Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 or the
Army Act, 1950 etc.”
9.
Ist party filed affidavit of his evidence. He has stated
about his appointment and continuity in duty. His
probation was extended for 154 days. That his
services were terminated without assigning reasons
or holding any enquiry. His affidavit of evidence is
silent in the duties performed by. him. Though in
statement of claim, workman has stated that though
he was appointed as Officer, he was performing
duties of clerical nature. His above contentions do
not find place in his affidavit of evidence. In his
cross-examination, Ist party was unable to say
anything with respect to document 7/8. That he did
not understand after reading document 7/22 to 7/29.
He was unable to tell the name of person who was
accommodated when his services were terminated.
10.
Management’s witness Shri Surendra Kumar Saraiya
Personnel Manager of the Bank has stated in his
affidavit about appointment of Ist party as Officer
vide order dated 7-6-84 on probation for 2 years. His
probation was extended for 154 days as per order
dated 18-6-86. His further evidence is devoted about
the written statement produced by the Bank that at
the time of inspection, General Manager found
several deficiencies in his work. In para-9 of his
affidavit, witness states that workman was directly
recruited on post of Officer in 950-1500. He was
posted as Branch Manager through Officer cadre.
The duties and functions of Branch Manager are
supervisory. Branch Manager has supervisory
control over the staff working there. That there are
only two categories of employees in the Bank i.e.
officers and employees. In Para-14 of his affidavit,
he states that it is clear form order of appointment of
Ist party that he was appointed in Officer cadre was
observing his duties as Branch Manager in various
branches. In leave application written by him, he
himself has written his designation as Branch
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4991
Manager. Ist party handed over charge to Shri Anil
Kumar Patel. In his cross-examination, management
witness says no action was taken on charge sheet
issued to the Ist party. Ist party was absent for 154
days. In para-35 of his evidence, management’s
witness says that the Branch Officer had given
training to Ist party as clerk, field officer. He was
unable to tell their names. In para-40 of his evidence,
management witness says Ist party had power to
sanction IRDP loan. The circular in that regard was
issued. It is denied that power to sanction IRDP
Loan was with headquarter. In para-44 of his
evidence, management’s witness, says that
application for leave submitted to the Manager i.e.
clerk and peon. Manager has power to sanction
leave of clerk and peon. As it is very old matter,
record is not available. That Ist party was given
independent charge of Branch Manager. The
documents are produced on record. He had power
to grant leave as per the circular. The evidence of
management’s witness about appointment of Ist
party as Officer, he was posted as Branch Manager
independently. Ist party had power to sanction leave
application of clerk and peon is not shattered. The
documents Exhibit M-10 is addressed to Ist party as
Branch Manager Sunderdev. Exhibit M-11 is also
addressed to Ist party as Branch Manager, 11-A, 12,
11-B, 12-A, 11-C, 12-B, 11-D, 12-C, 13 & 12-D are
addressed to 1st party’s Branch Manager and bears
his endorsement. Documents 11-E is also addressed
to Ist party as Officer, Branch Gandhiwal.
11.
Learned counsel for 1st party Mr. Shashi on the
point whether Ist party is covered as workman under
Section 2(s) relates on ratio held in
“Case of Sunita, B.Vatsaraj and Karnataka Bank. Ltd.
and another reported in 2001-III-LLJ-494. His
Lordship held after analyzing evidence on record
and the decisions, the High Court concluded that
the petitioner though designated as an Officer and
entrusted with powers under a power of Attorney,
she was infact left to the situation of carrying out
the work of clerical nature, no doubt including the
checking up of work done by the other workers in
her own section. The Tribunal had misdirected itself
in appreciating the evidence and hence the impugned
award could not be sustained.” From reading of
Para-8 of judgment it is seen that it was admitted
position that in absence of the Branch Manager, the
petitioner had worked as Manager of the Bandra
Branch.”
The facts of present case are not comparable. It is
not case of workman that he was working as Branch
Manager would be additional charge or power of
Attorney etc. Though in his statement of claim, he
tried to plead that he was doing clerical duties
despite his appointment as officer but his affidavit
of evidence is absolutely silent what kind of duties
he was performing. On the other hand, documents
discussed above find clear that his designation is
Branch Manager as he had acknowledged those
documents. Therefore ratio cannot be applied to the
present case. The copies of awards in R/l/07, R/97/
01 and R/114/07 produced on record cannot be
beneficially considered. In view of the evidence
discussed above. For above reasons, I hold that the
Ist party has failed to prove that he is workman under
Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. Therefore, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
12.
Point No. 2 In view of my finding on point No.1, the
Ist party has failed to prove that he is covered as
workmen under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act the protection
of provisions under I.D. Act is not available to the
Ist party. I record my finding on Point No. 2 as
doesnot survive. In view of my finding in Point 1 &
2, workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 3.
13.
In the result, award is passed as under :—
(1)
Ist party is not a workman, he is not entitled to
protection under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act.
(2)
Action of the management of Nimar Kshetriya
Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri
Harish Kumar Bhutda S/o Shri Ram Kishan
Bhutda is legal.
(3)
Relief prayed by workman are rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1842-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ
bUnkSj ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 156@99)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 1&8&2013 dks çkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@552@98&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 156/99)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
4992
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
1-8-2013.
[No. L- 12012/552/98-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/l56/99
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE
The Asstt. General Secretary,
Akhil Bhartiya Adhinasth Bank
Karmchari Sangh,
Central Office, Huzrat Pul,
Opp. Ashoka Palace, Lashkar,
Gwalior
...Workman
Versus
The Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
Regional Office,
Modi House,
Jhansi Road, Gwalior
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 8th day of July, 2013
1.
As per letter dated 19-4-99 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-12012/552/98/IR (B-I). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of Indore in not paying
the special allowance of chowkidar in respect of Shri
Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi w.e.f. 15-3-95 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 2/1 to 2/2. The case of Ist party workman is
that he is posted as waterman/chowkidar in Patankar
Branch of the State Bank of Indore at Gwalior. That
as per Bipartite settlement between management and
recognized Union, in case the office/branch of the
bank where three or more than three watchmen are
posted, one of them will be appointed as Head
watchman and will be paid Rs. 46 per month. Since
there are three watchman in the branch and the Ist
party workman being the senior most amongst them
is entitled to be designated as Head watchman. That
he is entitled to allowance Rs. 46 per month from
15-3-95 till the agreement came in force. That
workman and Union had submitted several
representations to the management for pleading the
allowance. Management did not pay allowance from
15-3-95. Therefore the dispute was raised.
3.
IInd party filed Written Statement at page 7/1 to 7/4.
Case of IInd party is that workman Dilip Kumar
Chaturvedi was working as chowkidar/peon in
Lashkar branch of the State Bank of Indore at Gwalior.
Prior to 29-9-97. The State Bank of Indore is having
another branch at Maharajpur in Gwalior where
additional posts of subordinate branch was
considered necessary. That it was decided to post
one of the subordinate employee at Maharajpur
branch for smooth function. The names of employees
working as subordinate cadre were shown ‘as —
Shri D. R. Sharma, head peon, Shri R.C. Jatav, Daftari,
Shri S. Dhanelia, Cash Peon, Shri J. C. Pal, Cash
Peon, Shri D. K.Chaturvedi, watchman-cum-peon,
Shri P. S. Sengar, Peon/Farrash/ Chowkidar, Shri
Rakesh Garg, Peon/Chowkidar, Smt. Pushpa Devi,
Peon/farrash. That Ist party workman Dilip Kumar
Chaturvedi was not holding allowance carrying post
either at Lashkar branch. On his transfer to
Maharajpur branch, he was not entitled to special
allowance. He was not holding special allowance
post. That the representation made by the Union
considering the request Ist party workman was
transfer from Kampu branch on 24-10-97. Another
employee from Kampu branch was transferred to
Maharajpur branch. Under VIth Bipartite Settlement,
the service conditions or the subordinate staff are
covered. The applicant is not entitled to special
allowance. That as per the VIth Bipartite settlement,
there is no such post in the name of Head watchman
in the Bank. Therefore Ist party workman employed
as chowkidar is not entitled to such allowance. That
Ist party workman claimed where there are 3 or more
watchman, head watchman is entitled to allowance
Rs.46. Ist pany workman posted at Kampo branch.
There are six sub staffs working in Kampo branch.
Ist party workman working as peon cum farrash is
not entitled to special allowance. On such grounds,
IInd party prayed for rejection of claim.
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
In Affirmative
the management of Asstt.
GeneralManager, State Bank
of Indore in not paying the
special allowance of chowkidar
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4993
in respect of Shri Dilip Kumar
Chaturvedi w.e.f. l5-3-95 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Relief claimed by
workman is entitled to?”
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5.
No evidence is adduced by workman to substantiate
his claim for special allowance working as watchman.
The evidence, of Ist party workman was closed on
18-2-2008.
6.
IInd party management filed affidavit of evidence of
witness Shri Rangnath Kuiya, Asstt. General
Manager. He has stated the facts covered in the
Written Statement filed by the management of IInd
party. Management witness was not cross-examined,
His evidence remained unchallenged. I don’t find
reason to disbelieve his evidence. Considering that
workman failed to adduce evidence in support of
his claim and the unchallenged evidence of
management’s witness, I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Affirmative.
7.
In the result, award is passed as under :—
1.
The action of the management of Asstt. General
Manager, State Bank of Indore in not paying
the special allowance of chowkidar in respect
of Shri Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi w.e.f. 15-3-95 is
legal.
2.
Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1843-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV
cSad ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 161@2001)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 1&8&2013 dks çkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@55@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 161/
2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank
of India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 1-8-2013.
[No. L- 12012/55/2001-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/l61/2001
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE
Smt. Shakunbai,
W/o Shri Vishnu Prasad,
R/o Bhama Ward,
Near Nirmal Medical Store,
Vijay Colony, Gadarulada,
Distt. Narsinghpur (MP)
...Workman
Versus
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Branch Gadarulada,
Distt. Narsinghpur (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 9th day of July, 2013
1.
As per letter dated 16-10-2001 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-12012/55/2001-IR (B-I). The dispute under
reference relates to:
“ Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of India, Gadarwada Branch, Distt. Narsinghpur
in terminating the services of Smt. Shakunbai W/o
Vishnuprasad w.e.f. 18-11-96 is justified? If not, what
relief she is entitled?”
2.
After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 4/1 to 4/3. The case of workman is that he
was daily rated employee of IInd party working from
12-2-96 to 19-11-96. That services of 1st party were
terminated by the department. The termination was
followed by Conciliation proceeding and ultimately
the dispute between parties is referred to this
Tribunal. That the services of workman were
terminated without giving opportunity of hearing.
No notice was issued. Procedure was not followed.
The termination is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. That
the workman was serving with devotion with
unblemished record. That the record about payment
of salary is in custody of the management. The
management be directed to produce the record.
3.
IInd party management filed Written Statement at
Page 6/1 to 6/6. It is contended that failure report
was submitted by ALC, Jabalpur. Despite of it, the
4994
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reference has been made. The engagement of 1st
party workman was on daily wage basis based on
need of the work depending upon exigency of work
and only for a period of three hours per day. The
employment of workman cannot be treated as
employment in service of the Bank. There is no
question of violating provision of Section 25-F. The
non-engagement of 1st party workman is not covered
as retrenchment but falls under the provisions of
Section 2(oo )(bb) of I.D. Act. The violation of
Section 25-F is denied. Workman has not completed
240 days continuous service in any of the year. IInd
party has reiterated that the engagement of Ist party
workman cannot be termed as employment in the
Bank. All the other contentions of workman about
violation of provision of I.D. Act are denied. Ist party
workman is not employee for purpose of Section
25-B of I.D. Act. IInd party prayed for rejection of
the claim.
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
In Affirmative
management of State Bank
of India, Gadarwada Branch,
Distt. Narsinghpur in
terminating the services of
Smt. Shakunbai W/o
Vishnuprasad w.e.f.
18-11-96 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?”
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5.
Workman is challenging legality of termination of
service by IInd party. However Ist party workman
has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his
claim. Management has filed affidavit of evidence
of Shri Naresh Kumar Agrawal, Chief Manager, SBI,
Gadarwara Branch, Distt. Narsinghpur. Management
witness has stated most of the facts pleaded in
Written Statement filed by IInd party. It is specifically
stated by the witness that the workman has not
completed 240 days in any of the calendar year. His
evidence remained unchallenged. I donot find reason
to disbelieve his evidence as the workman failed to
adduce evidence in support of her claim and to prove
that the action of management terminating his service
is illegal. I record my finding in Point No.1 in
Affirmative.
6.
In the result, award is passed as under :
1.
The action of the management of State Bank of India,
Gadarwada Branch, distt. Narsinghpur in terminating
the services of Smt. Shakunbai W/o Vishnuprasad
w.e.f. 18-11-96 is legal.
2.
Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1844-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds
çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa
fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 117@2012) dks
çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 5&8&2013 dks çkIr gqvk
Fkk A
¹la- ,y&41011@67@2012&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 117/
2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Nothern
Railway and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 5-8-2013.
[No. L- 41011/67/2012-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR.R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 117/2012
The State General Secretary,
CITU,
Local Bus Stand. Rajpur Road.
Dehradun
...Workman
Versus
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
Moradabad (U.P)
2. Sr. Divisional Personal Officer,
Northern Railway,
Moradabad (U.P)
...Management
AWARD
Shri Narayan Singh was working as Shed Man with
Northern Railways (in short the Railways), from where he
superannuated from service. Pension was sanctioned in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4995
his favour. After some time, Shri Narayan Singh breathed
his last. He was survived by his widowed daughter. She
raised a demand with the Railways seeking family pension
in her favour. Her demand was not conceded to. She
approached Centre of Indian Trade Union (in short the
union) for redressal of her grievances. The union took up
her cause as their own and raised an industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Railways
contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into
failure. On consideration of failure report, submitted by
the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government
referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide
order No. L-41011/67/2012-IR(B-I), New Delhi dated
24.09.2012, with following terms:
“Whether the action of the management of Northern
Railway Moradabad in not granting family pension
to widowed daughter of late Shri Narayan Singh, Ex-
Shed Man, Northern Railway, Dehradun, is legal and
justified? To what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
2. In the reference order, appropriate Government
issued directions to the party raising the dispute to file
claim statement, complete with relevant documents, list of
reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within 15 days of
receipt of the reference order and to provide copy of such
statement to the opposite party. Despite directions, so
issued, claimant or the union opted not to file claim
statement before the Tribunal.
3. Notice was issued to the General Secretary of the
union at the address provided in the reference order on
16.10.2012 by registered post calling upon them to file
claim statement on or before 07.11.2012. Another notice
was sent to the union by registered post on 12.11.2012
calling upon them to file their claim statement on or before
05.12.2012. None came forward on behalf of the union to
file claim statement. Yet another notice was sent to the
union by registered post on 12.02.2013 calling upon it to
file claim statement on or before 08.03.2013. Last notice
was sent to the union by registered post on 11.03.2013
calling upon it to file its claim statement on or before
08.04.2013. Neither the aforesaid postal article was received
back nor it came to light that postal services remained
affected during the period, referred above. Therefore,
every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the
aforesaid notices were served on the union. Despite
service of the notices, referred above, the union opted not
to file its claim statement.
4. Reference order raises a question as to whether
action of the Railways in not granting family pension to
the widowed daughter of Shri Narayan Singh is legal and
justified. Therefore, it is evident that onus is there on the
Railways. Consequently, the Railways was called to file
its response to the reference order. On compliance of the
directions, response was filed by the Railways mentioning
therein that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain
this dispute in view of provisions of Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985. Except this jurisdictional issue, the
Railways opted not to present any factual proposition in
the matter.
5. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Man Mohan
Singh, authgrized representative, advanced arguments on
behalf of the Railways. As projected above, none came
forward on behalf of the claimant or the union to present
facts. I have given my careful considerations to the
arguments advanced at the bar. My findings on issues
involved in the controversy are as follows:
6. The only contention advanced by Shri Man
Mohan Singh is that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
entertain the dispute, in view of the provisions of
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Unfortunately,
submissions made by Shri Man Mohan Singh are not in
consonance with provisions of the aforesaid Act. The
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 saves jurisdiction of
this Tribunal to adjudicate the matter. For the sake of
convenience, provisions of Section 28 of the said Act are
reproduced thus :
“28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the
Supreme Court —
On and from the date from which any jurisdiction,
powers and authority becomes exercisable under
this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and
matters concerning recruitment to any Service or
post or service matters concerning members of any
Service or persons appointed to any Service or post,
no court except —
(a) the Supreme Court; or
(b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other
authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or any other corresponding
law for the time being in force,
shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction,
powers or authority in relation to such recruitment
or matters concerning such recruitment or such
service matters.”
7. Bare perusal of the provisions of Section 28 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 makes it apparent
that jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate industrial
disputes has been saved by the aforesaid Act. Resultantly,
it is evident that objection taken by the Railways, relating
to jurisdiction of this Tribunal, is uncalled for. Resultantly,
the said objection is, hereby, brushed aside.
8. Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 (in short
the Rules) detail parameters for grant of pension or family
pension when a railway servant retires or is retired or is
discharged or is allowed to resign from service or dies, or
4996
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the case may be. Rule 3(9) defines “family pension” to
mean family pension, admissible under rule 75 of the Rules.
Rule 75 narrate that there is Family Pension Scheme for
Railway Servants 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the
Scheme). The Scheme provides parameters for grant of
pension or family pension to the railway servants or their
dependents in case of death of the former, as the case may
be. Rule 19(b) of the said scheme defines ‘family’ for the
purpose of grant of family pension. For the sake of
convenience, the said definition is extracted thus :
(b)
‘family’, in relation to railway servant, means:
(i)
wife in the case of a male railway servant or
husband in the case of a female railway
servant;
(ii)
a judicially separated wife or husband, such
separation not being granted on the ground
of adultery and the person surviving was
not held guilty of committing adultery;
(iii)
son who has not attained the age of twenty-
five years and unmarried daughter who has
not attained the age of twenty five years,
including such son and daughter born after
retirement or adopted legally;
9. As pointed out above, unmarried daughter who
has not attained the age of twenty five years is entitled to
family pension. A daughter becomes ineligible for family
pension from the date she gets married, as provided by
rule 6(2) of the said scheme. Thus, it is evident that a
daughter becomes ineligible for family pension when she
gets married. After her marriage, a daughter cannot revert
to the family of the railway servant for the purpose of
family pension, despite the fact that she becomes a widow.
Thus it is evident that a widowed daughter is not entitled
to family pension, under the provisions of the scheme,
referred above.
10. Appropriate government referred the question
as to whether widowed daughter of Shri Narayan Singh is
entitled to family pension. In view of the above
discussions, it is apparent that widowed daughter is not
entitled to family pension. In such a situation, refusal of
the claim of the widowed daughter of Late Shri Narayan
Singh for grant of family pension is neither illegal nor
unjustified. Action of the Railways in not granting family
pension to widowed daughter of Shri Narayan Singh is
found to be in consonance with the provisions of the
scheme, referred above. Except the scheme, there are no
other provisions for grant of family pension in the Rules.
Under these circumstances, it is concluded that widowed
daughter of Shri Narayan Singh is not entitled to any relief.
Reference is answered, accordingly. The award be sent to
the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : 24-7-2013
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1845-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ bZlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
34@2002) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 5&8&2013
dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@1@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Madhavpur Colliery,
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 5-8-2013.
[No. L- 22012/1/2002-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 34 of 2002
Parties :
The management of Madhavpur Colliery of
M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol, Burdwan
(WB)
Representative :
For the Management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the Union
:
Sri Rakesh Kumar, Ld.
(Workman)
Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 07-06-2013
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
secuont (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/
1/2002-IR(CM-II) dated 14.08.2002 has been pleased to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4997
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
Madhavpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited in not providing employment to Sh. Raghu
Nunia, dependant of l.ate Durga Nunia, C.C.M.
Helper is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
dependant of the workman is entitled to ?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-220121/1/
2002-IR(CM-II) dated 14.08.2002 of the above said
reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.
34 of 2002 was registered on 10.09.2002 and accordingly
an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through
the registered post to the parties concerned directing them
to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their
written statements along with the relevant documents and
a list witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of
the said order notices by the registered post were sent to
the parties concerned.
Sri Durga Nunia was working as C.C.M. Helper in
Madhavpur Colliery of M/s. ECL as permanent employee
was suffering from T.B. and was treated in T.B. Hospital,
Searsole, Kunustoria Area of ECL and during treatment he
died on 19.06.98. Photocopy of ldentity Card of Sri Durga
Nunia (No. 13482, Form ‘B’ No. 1115), treatment paper of
ECL Hospital and Death Certificate granted by the office
of Medical Superintendant, T.B. Hospital, Searsole filed
by the Union on behalf of Sri Raghu Nunia who claimed
job on compassionate ground as dependant of Late Durga
Nunia.
On perusal of the record and the documents filed on
behalf of the dependant Sri Raghu Nunia S/o Late Durga
Nunia that Smt. Saraswati Nunia W/o Late Durga Nunia
has filed a petition before the Agent Madhavpur Colliery
on 13.07.98 for providing employment to her son Sri Raghu
Nunia against the death of her husband as per Schedule
of NCWA-V and on the same day (13.07.98) Sri Raghu
Nunia has also applied for employment on compassionate
ground due to death of his father Sri Durga Nunia. On
perusal of the document (W.E. VIII) which is a photocopy
of the Letter dated 03.05.89 issued by Supdt. Manager,
Madhavpur Colliery that Late Sri Durga Nunia was found
unauthorized absent in the year 1995, 1996 and 1997 due
to which he was punished by the Management and he (Sri
Durga Nunia) was directed to join as “Badli-Worker” so it
is apparently clear that Sri Durga Nunia was not dismissed
frorn service by the Management and he was very well in
service at the time of his death. In this case though the
learned lawyer Shri Piyush Kanti Das, Advocate, appeared
on behalf of the Management but he could submit written
statement in this case as the Management did not co-
operate him by sending the statement of facts, documents
etc. But the learned Advocate Sri Das has cross-examined
the claimant Sri Raghu Nunia and on perusal of the cross-
examination of the claimant I find that the main plea of the
management is that as because Sri Durga Nunia was
punished due to unauthorized absent and his job was
degraded as “Badli-Worker” hence his son Raghu Nunia
(claimant) can not claim service on compassionare ground
on the death of his father Sri Durga Nunia. In my opinion
this plea of the management is not sustainable, because
Rule 3.3 of the Standing Order of M/s. ECL (W.E. XV)
clearly shows that “Badli-Worker” is a punishment and
not an order of dismissal and Letter Ref. Madh/Sr. P.O./
Badli/89/576 dated 03.05.89 issued by Supdt./Manager,
Madhavpur Colliery shows that Sri Durga Nunia was
directed to join as “Badli-Worker”.
Hence in my opinion the action of the Management
of Madhavpur Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited
in not providing employment to Sri Raghu Nunia.
dependant of Late Sri Durga Nunia, C.C.M. Helper is totally
illegal and not justified and accordingly the same is set
aside.
Management is directed to provide employment to
the claimant Sri Raghu Nunia on compassionate ground
due to death of his father Sri Durga Nunia, within two
months from the receipt of this Award after completing all
the formalities.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per
above. Send the copies of the “Award” to the Government
of India. Ministry or Labour & Employment. New Delhi for
information and needful.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1846-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ bZlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vklulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k
54@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 5&8&2013
dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@304@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 54/2005)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
4998
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dispute between the management of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 5-8-2013.
[No. L- 22012/304/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 54 of 2005
Parties :
The management of Nimcha Colliery of M/s.
ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
Sri S. K. Pandey, The Gen. Secy., KMC,
Asansol (WB)
Representative :
For the Management
:
Sri P. K. Goswami, Ld.
Advocate
For the Union
:
Sri S. K. Pandey, Ld.
(Workman)
Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 21-06-2013
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/
304/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 25.07.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the order of dismissal accorded to Sh. S.
N. Bhomraj by the management of Nimcha Colliery of M/s.
Eastern Coalfields Limited is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012//
304/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 25.07.2005 of the above said
reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.
54 of 2005 was registered on 17.08.2005 and accordingly
an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through
the registered post to the parties concerned directing them
to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their
written statements along with the relevant documents and
a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance
of the said order notices by the registered post were sent
to the parties concerned.
The workman S. N. Bhomraj was a permanent
employee as underground Loader at Nimcha Colliery of
M/s. Eastern Coalfield Limited since 13.07.1995. It is further
case of the Management the workman absented from his
duty w.e.f. 06.12.2000 to 19.02.2001 due to sick, and charge
sheet as NC/CS.PER/25 dated 19.02.2001 and after enquiry
he was found guilty by the Management and dismissed
from service vide G. M. Satgram Area, Letter No. SAT/
G.M/ PER/C/2002/665(E) dated 25.11.2002.
The learned lawyer of the Management Shri P. K.
Das. Advocate has submitted that the workman did not
inform the Management regarding his sick and earlier also
the workman was found unauthorized absent due to which
he was also punished and the workman during his cross-
examination (Para-7) has admitted this fact. It has further
been submitted that the workman is a habitual
unauthorized absentee, hence the order of dismissal of
workman taken by the Management is legal and justified.
The learned representative of the workman Shri S.
K. Pandey has submitted that the enquiry was conducted
exparte as no information or notice regarding enquiry was
sent to the workman. It has further been submitted that
the Management has taken very harsh step against the
workman on the ground of absent for two months only,
where as on this ground several workman were allowed to
join. It has further been submitted that the workman was
suffering from jaundice and he was treated by his nearby
one private doctor and due to illiteracy he could not inform
the managemeut in time. It is further been submitted that
the workman belongs to very poor family and due to harsh
steps taken by the Management against the workman, his
whole family is starving since 2002 and they are forced for
begging for their livelyhood which is against the principle
of Natural Justice, hence necessary order rnay be passed
so that the workman as well as his family member can be
saved from starvation.
On perusal of the record I find that it is fact that the
Management has taken a very harsh and extreme decision
against the workman S. N. Bhomraj due to his absent of
two months only and in my opinion this decision of the
Management of Nimcha Colliery of M/s. E.C.L. is not legal
and is quite unjustified.
Accordingly the dismissal order against the
workman S. N. Bhomraj taken by the Management of
Nimcha colliery of M/s. E.C.L. is hereby set aside, and the
Management is directed to reinstate the workman S. N.
Bhomraj immediately within one month of the notification
of this Award with 50% back wages from 06.12.2000 till he
joins.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
4999
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per
above discussion. Send the copies of the order to the
Govt. of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
information and needful. The reference is accordingly
disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1847-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ bZlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 82@2005)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 5&8&2013 dks çkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@251@2004&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 82/2005
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 5-8-2013.
[No. L- 22012/251/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 82 of 2005
Parties :
The management of Bansra Colliery of M/s.
ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Gen. Secy., KMC, Asansol (WB)
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management
:
Shri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the Union
:
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ld.
(Workman)
Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 03-06-2013
SETTLEMENT AWARD IN LOK ADALAT HELD
ON 03.06.2013 A T KUNUSTORIA GUEST HOUSE
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
lndustrial Disputes Act, 19'47 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/
251/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 06.07.2005 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Bansra
Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern
Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh. Kalosona Majhi.
U.G. Loader from services is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief he is entitled?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/
251/2004-IR (CM-II) dated 06.07.2005 of the above said
reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of l.abour, New
Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No,
82 of 2005 was registered on 17.08.05 and accordingly an
order to that effect was passed to issue notices through
the registered post to the parties concerned directing them
to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their
wrirtten statements along with the relevant documents
and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In
pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post
were sent to the parties concerned.
The workman. Sri Kalosona Majhi is physically
present with its representative Sri Rakesh Kumar.
Representative of the management is also present. The
workman Sri Kalosona Majhi has agreed to be reinstated
without any back wages. On behalf of the management,
Sri P. K. Das has made an endorsement on the settlement
petition that the workman Sri Kalosona Mujhi does not
cover the age under memorandum of settlement and has
stated that under memorandum of settlement the age should
not exceed forty five years. On perusal of the case record.
it appears that a photocopy of Identity Card of Sri Kalosona
Majhi bearing C.M.P.F. No. 11346 /ASN 37/107 is filed from
which it appears that the workman was aged twenty five
years on 30.05.1986. It further appears from the record that
the Chargesheet issued on 12.10.93 and the workman was
dismissed on 18.11.1993. So, it is apparently clear that at
the time of disposal the workman was below 33 years. So
in my opinion, the case of Sri Kalosona Majhi comes within
the purview of memorandum of settlement. Accordingly
the Settlement application is allowed and the workman is
to be reinstated without any back wages.
Considering the above facts, the case is closed and
accordingly it is awarded that case has been settled as per
form ‘H’ memorandum of settlement between both the
parties as an integral part of it. The terms and conditions
of the settlernent shall be binding upon both the parties.
5000
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hence, it is ordered
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and same is passed as per above
discussron. Form ‘H’ containing terms and conditions does
form as an integral part of the Award. Send the copies of
the award to the Govt of India, Ministry of Labour and
Employment, New Delhi for information and needful. The
reference is accordingly disposed of.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1848-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ bZlh,y
ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 38@1993)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 5&8&2013 dks çkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&22012@129@1993&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/1993)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Kumardihi Colliery,
M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 5-8-2013.
[No. L- 22012/129/1993-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
Present : Sri Jayanta Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 38 of 1993
Parties :
The management of Kumardihi ‘A’ Colliery
of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Vs.
The Jt. Gen. Secy., CMU, Ukhra, Burdwan
(WB)
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the Management
:
Sri P. K. Das, Ld. Advocate
For the Union
:
Sri M. Mukherjee, Ld.
(Workman)
Advocate
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated : 03-06-2013
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
lndustrial Disputes Act, 19'47 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 22012/
129/1993-IR(CM-II) dated 23.08.1993 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this
Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Kumardihi
‘A’ Colliery PO : Ukhra, Distt. Burdwan, in dismissing
Shri Sarayan Kora, General Mazoor vide their Letter
No. BA/PD/Dis/967 dated 14/1503.1991 is justified?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012//
129/93-IR (CM-II) dated 23.08.1993 of the above said
reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.
38 of 1993 was registered on 27.08.1993 and accordingly
an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through
the registered post to the parties concerned directing them
to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their
written statements along with the relevant documents and
a list of witnesses in support or their claims. In pursuance
of the said order notices by the registered post were sent
to the parties concerned.
On perusal of the record as well the evidence of the
workman Sarayan Kora I find that the workman remain
absent from his duty from 22.11.1989 to 06.021990 without
giving any information to the Management and
accordingly an enquiry was held and he was found guilty
of unauthorized absent, and he has been dismissed from
service vide letter No. BA/PD/Dis/967 dated 14/15 March,
1991.
It is the plea of the workman that due to illness he
failed to remain present in duty. In para 8 of examination-
in-chief the workman has stated that he was suffering from
Jaundice. But I find that no Medical certificate has been
filed by the workman to corroborate this fact. and in para
25 he has clearly stated that he has no Medical Certificate
regarding his illness. The learned lawyer of the workman
has submitted that the workman was engaged as Mazdoor
at Kumardihi Colliery which is situated at a distance of 40
km. frorn Kalipahari where the native home of the workman
is situated. It has further been submitted that the workman
approached the Management to transfer him in Satgrarn
Area which is nearby the residence of the workman, but in
vain.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
5001
On perusal of the written statement of the
Management dated 03.12.1996, I find that the Management
did not mention anything about any previous adverse
report against the workman regarding his presence in duty.
So it is clear that the workman Sarayan Kora was punctual
in his duty earlier. So, in my opinion only on the ground of
absent for a short period, the Management has taken a
very harsh action against the workman by dismissing him
from service without giving any warning or lesser
punishment, which is obviously against the principle of
“Natural Justice”, because by this harsh action of the
Management the workman along with his whole family
members were thrown on the street for the purpose of
begging.
So in my opinion the action or the Management of
Kumardihi ‘A’ Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sarayan
Kora w.e.f. 19.03.1991 is totally unjustified and illegal and
accordingly the same is set aside.
The Management is directed to reinstate the
workman Sarayan Kora within one month from the date of
receipt of Award. But the workman will not be entitled to
get back wages and he should be appointed on minimum
grade from the date of joining. The workman must give in
writing to the Management that he will remain regular and
punctual in his duty in future.
ORDER
Let an “Award” be and the same is passed as per
above discussion. Send the copies of the “Award” to the
Government of India. Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi for information and needful.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1849-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ bUVhV~;wV
vkWiQ ekbØksch,y VsDuksyksth ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la[;k 2] p.Mhx<+
ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 625@2005) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUæh; ljdkj dks 5&8&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&42012@187@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)º
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 5th August, 2013
S.O. 1849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 625/
2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure,
in the Industrial Dispute between the management of
Institute of Microbial Technology and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 5-8-2013.
[No. L- 42012/187/2002-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri A. K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 625 of 2005
Registered on 24-8-2005
Smt. Sunita, W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
C/o Sh. G.S. Mann, Auth Rep.,
H.No. 228, Phase 3A, SAS Nagar,
Mohali
...Petitioner
Versus
The Director,
Institute of Microbial Technology,
Sector 39A, Chandigarh
...Respondent
APPEARANCES :
For the workman
:
Sh. J.K. Sharma A.R.
For the Management :
Sh. I.S. Sidhu Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 15-7-2013
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/
187/2002-IR(CM-II)) Dated 13.3.2003, by exercising its
powers under Section 10 of 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 IMTEC
in terminating the services of Smt. Sunita, Ex-Safai
Karamchari, w.e.f. 31.7.2001 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief she is entitled to?”
As per claim statement the workman had been
engaged after the death of her husband in his place on
14.8.1995 with an assurance in writing that she would
continue’ to be employed in IMTECH through contractor,
as a special case. She continued to work upto 31.7.2001
when her services were terminated by the respondent
without any notice and compensation in violation of the
provisions of ID Act. She had worked for more than 240
days from August 1995 to 31.7.2001 and after termination
several new hands have been engaged. She had claimed
her reinstatement with full back wages and continuous
service.
5002
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The claim was contested by the management and it
was alleged that there is no relationship of master and
servant between the respondent and the workman. The
workman had been engaged by a contractor who had a
contract with the respondent for supplying the manpower
for undertaking the work assigned to the contractor. The
relationship of master and servant was denied with the
deceased husband of the workman also. According to the
respondent the claim has no merits.
In a rejoinder to the written statement of the
respondent it was alleged that though she had been
employed through contractor but as the respondent had
accepted the workman deputed for its business affairs,
the relationship of master and servant came into existence
and therefore she is the employee of the management.
The workman in support of her case examined herself
and a witness Smt. Kanta as WW1 and WW2 respectively
while on behalf of management Chhering Tobden was
examined. While the case was at the stage of management
evidence the AR of the workman moved an application on
22.4.2010 with a request to adjourn the case either sine die
or to permit him to withdraw the same as the workman is
not in his contact since long. The application was however
not allowed and the notices were issued by registered
post to workman but the notice returned undelivered with
the endorsement that the colony of the workman has been
demolished by the Corporation. Under the circumstances
it could not be possible to communicate with the workman
and the case was ordered to proceed exparte against
workman on 13.8.2010.
I heard the learned counsel for management and
perused the evidence on record. It is important to note
that workman has alleged the relationship of employer
and employee between the respondent and herself but it
is clear from her pleadings that she had been engaged
through a contractor and since she had been allowed to
work hence she claims to be the employee of the
respondent. She had also relied on a note marked ‘B’ in
her statement; according to which, she had been assured
on humanitarian ground to continue through contractor
as a special case. This is purportedly signed by Director
IMTECH. From this note it is clear that the deceased
husband of the workman was an employee of the
Contractor and she only had been assured by IMTECH
the continuous engagement through contractor.
Obviously she was not the employee of the respondent
and if her services had been terminated then this note
cannot provide any protection to her. The learned counsel
for management argued that the affidavit of the
management witness remains uncontroverted and it has
been stated in the affidavit that the workman was deployed
by the contractor as part of the manpower supplied by
him to undertake the work and she worked as part of the
manpower supplied by the different contractors from time
to time. The management witness has also tendered six
agreements with the different contractors marked Annexure
1 to 6 in the affidavit of the management witness.
I agree with the learned counsel for management
that there is no evidence to prove that the workman was
an employee of the management hence the question of
termination of her service by the management does not
arise. The reference is answered against her. She is not
entitled to any relief.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1850-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ¯lfMdsV cSad
ds çca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 135@2001)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 1&8&2013 dks çkIr
gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12012@86@2001&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013
S.O. 1850.—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.
135/2001) 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 Syndicate Bank and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
1-8-2013.
[No. L- 12012/86/2001-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/135/2001
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Bhimsen Vinodiya,
S/o Shri Rajaram Vinodiya,
R/o 32, O.C. Lines,
Cantt. Sagar (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
Syndicate Bank, SB P.B.No. 4112,
Neptune Towers,
Opp. Nehru Bridge, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
...Management
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
5003
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of July, 2013
As per letter dated 17-23/8/2001 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-12012/
86/2001-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Syndicate
Bank, Zonal Office, Ahmedabad in dismissing
Shri Bhimsen Vinodiya, S/o Shri Raja Ram Vinodiya,
Ex-sub Staff from service vide order dated 30-1-99 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. 1st party workman filed Statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/3. The case 1st party workman is that he was
working with Non-applicants for 24 years. He was
dismissed from service vide order dated 30-1-99 by Non-
applicant No.1 for alleged misconduct. That prior to
passing said order of dismissal, he was served with charge
sheet dated 9-8-97, 12-1-98 for the charges against him.
Enquiry conducted relating to both charge sheets was
not legal and proper. Enquiry Officer did not conduct
enquiry following the rules and regulations of the Bank,
principles of natural justice were not followed. Applicant
was not supplied documents relied in the enquiry. He did
not get opportunity to cross examine witnesses of the
Bank. He was not given opportunity to produce his
evidence. The Enquiry Officer had not recorded his
statement in enquiry. Show cause notice was not issued
to him before imposing punishment of dismissal. Copy of
Enquiry Report was supplied to him. The enquiry is vitiated.
The findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse, illegal without
supporting evidence. That the punishment of dismissal is
harsh, excessive. The charge sheet is silent about is
completing 24 years service. That he has not committed
any misconduct. On such ground, 1st party workman
submits that the punishment of dismissal is illegal. He
further submits that he is not gainfully employed after
dismissal from service. He prays for reinstatement with
back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/26. IInd party submits that the workman committed
misconduct. The details of the misconduct are given that
Sagar Branch received 100 PCC. Said PCC pad was used
for issuing PCC FDs during 1995-96. The Branch had not
issued PCC Sl. No. 362737 to 362742. That in September
1996, customer Sanjay Kumar presented PCC receipt No.
362742 for Rs. 10,000 for encashment before maturity. On
verification, it was noticed that Receipt was not issued.
The PCC No. 362737 to 362742 were missing from the
branch. The above number of PCC were not used by the
Bank. Those missing PCCs were misused by the delinquent
workman. That amount of Rs. 10,000 was transferred from
S.B. Account of Dr. D.P. Nema as the delinquent workman
borrowed said amount. The amount was credited to his
account. That delinquent workman has pilfered 6 PCCs
numbered above and fradulently issued PCC No. 362742
to Shri Sanjay Kumar accepting Rs. 10,000 in cash.
4. That in March 1997, Smt. Shanti Devi Yadav
approached Sagar branch with PCC No. 362740 for
Rs. 3726 maturing on 9-6-98. She has requested Bank to
confirm genuineness. On verification, it was found that
said receipt was not issued by the Branch. The said PCC
was out of the misplaced numbers of PCC. That Smt. Shanti
Devi informed that she invested Rs. 3000 her husband has
approached the Bank in December 1995 for renewal. The
receipt was tendered to Bank. The delinquent workman
promised for renewal and said that receipt would be sent
to her residence. That delinquent had sent deposit receipt
at her residence.
5. Other charge against workman was he
fraudulently closed PCC 3540 for Rs. 3000 on 12-12-1995
without knowledge or consent of Shri Hazarilal Yadav and
Smt. Shantidevi Yadav. He discharged said PCC for
receiving maturity proceeds. That delinquent workman
issued PCC No. 362740 for Rs. 3726 to Shri Hazarilal Yadav
and Smt. Shanti Devi Yadav. Said PCC receipt was one of
the stolen receipt by the workman himself. The writing on
said PCC is of the delinquent workman and signature of
Manager/Officer on the PCC receipt is forged.
6. Next charge is around April 1997, Smt. Deoki Devi
Yadav presented PCC No. 362739 for Rs. 10,000 to the
branch to confirm the genuiness of the same. The Bank
record does not reveal that the same had been issued by
the Branch and that the same was one of the missing PCCs
of the branch. Smt. Deoki Devi Yadav informed that she
had earlier invested Rs. 10,000, she was received PCC No.
27995/1784. The investigation relealed that the delinquent
workman arranged LD 99/91 for Rs. 7500 against said VCC
in name of Deoki Devi Yadav. The writing was of delinquent
workman. He had signed on it having received amount on
the reverse. That amount of Rs. 14,463 was adjusted at the
time of maturity. Amount of Rs. 10,000 was received by the
delinquent workman. That Smt. Deoki Devi Yadav informed
that she was introduced by Shri Bhinsen and handover
receipt No. 279755/1784 for Rs. 10,000 duly discharged on
revenue stamp saying that if she delivered the receipt, she
would get monthly interest which would be created to her
daughter’s name every month. That delinquent workman
fraudulently issued PCC No. 362739/1784 for Rs. 10,000 to
Smt. Deoki Devi Yadav. Six PCC receipts were stolen by
him. That delinquent workman fraudulently closed VCC
No. 279755/1784, he has pilfered six PCCs receipts bearing
Nos. 362737 to 362742. The chargesheet was issued to
him. Corrigendum was issued subsequently on 8-8-97, its
copy was served on the delinquent workman. That Enquiry
Officer was appointed. The evidence of management’s
witness was recorded. The delinquent workman was
5004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
represented by Shri Gunashekharan and cross-examined
the management’s witness. The enquiry was conducted
following principles of natural justice. The details of
Enquiry Proceedings are exhaustively narrated in Written
Statement. After receiving showcause notice and reply
given by the delinquent, considering gravity of the
misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority imposed
punishment of dismissal as charges were reported proved
by the Enquiry Officer. The delinquent had committed mis-
appropriation of amount causing loss to the Bank. The
PCCs were fraudulently used causing loss to the Bank.
7. Supplementary chargesheet was also issued to
the workman. On said chargesheet, enquiry was
conducted, evidence was recorded, enquiry was
conducted properly following principles of natural justice.
The misconduct against delinquent workman is proved.
After considering report of the Enquiry Officer, reply to
the showcause notice issued for dismissal was imposed
for serious conduct committed by the delinquent
workman. The IInd party submits that the order of
dismissal is legal, proper and prays for rejection of the
relief prayed by workman.
8. 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 Negative
management of Syndicate
Bank, Zonal Office, Ahmedabad
in dismissing Shri Bhimsen
Vinodiya, S/o Shri Raja Ram
Vinodiya, Ex-sub Staff from
service vide order dated
30-1-99 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?”
REASONS
9. As per order dated 8-11-2010, enquiry conducted
against workman is held legal. The issues framed in the
matter on 9-9-06 relates to the legality of enquiry. The next
issue is whether the management is entitled to prove
misconduct and Issue no. 2 is to what relief the workman
is entitled. In view that enquiry is found legal, management
is not required to adduce further evidence to prove the
misconduct alleged. The enquiry proceedings itself needs
to be considered whether the evidence in enquiry adduced
by management, is sufficient to prove misconduct against
the workman. The record of enquiry proceeding is
produced. Management has examined only witness
Shri R.A. Fernandiz, Vigilence Officer. Said witness had
investigated the entire matter from Bank record, recording
statements of the customers, verifying the payments,
obtain copies of the Accounts. The amount withdrawn
from account of Customers and deposit in Account of the
delinquent workman. However it is necessary to state that
he is not witness to any of the incident, he was not working
in the Bank, he was not conversant with the handwriting
or signatures of the customers, the concerned Bank
employees, Managers. Management Witness Shri R.A.
Fernandiz recorded statements of witness Shri Hazarilal
Yadav, Smt. Shantidevi Yadav and Smt. Deoki Devi Yadav.
Those statements are marked as Exhibit MEX 24 to 27. The
statement of so called customers are also considered by
the Enquiry Officer while submitting his report. To make it
clear that the registers about receiving PCC, VCC or any
record about views of the same is not produced in Enquiry
Proceedings. What opinion Mr. Fernandiz have arrived to
conclusion that the relevant number of six PCCs, VCCs
were missing and misused by the delinquent worker. The
documents MEX-14, 15, 16, 17 to 23 are signed by
customers and Branch Manager. However evidence of
management’s witness Shri R.A. Fernandiz shows that the
signatures were forged, documents were misused, amount
was received by the delinquent employee, how the
Manager was not knowing about the missing PCCs, VCCs
and at the time of payment of amount made. The statement
of witness of management appears of universal character.
He is telling everything about genuineness of documents,
misusing of documents, forgery of signatures. His
evidence is based on information received from the staff
working in the Bank. Any of them is not examined as witness
in the enquiry. The witness Shri Hazarilal Yadav,
Smt. Shantidevi Yadav and Smt. Deoki Devi Yadav were
not examined in the proceedings. In absence of their
evidence, there allegations about receiving amount by the
delinquent employee at the time of renewal or after maturity
can hardly be believed.
10. Learned counsel for Ist party workman
Shri S. Mishra relies on judgment in
Case of Umakant Dwivedi versus State of MP and
others in W.P. No. 7622/2005 by M.P. High Court,
Jabalpur. In para-14 of the judgment their Lordship
dealing with ratio held in case of State of Mysore
and others versus Shivbasappa Shivappa Makapur,
AIR 1963-SC-375 observed that the statement given
by a witness previously behind the back of the party,
is required to be put to him again in the disciplinary
proceedings and is required to be admitted in
evidence and thereafter a copy thereof should be
given to the party and he should be given an
opportunity to cross-examine him. It has further been
held that the rules of natural justice are sufficiently
complied with when previous statements given by
the witnesses are read over to them, marked on their
admission, copies thereof are given to the party and
he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them.
In para-15 their Lordship dealt with ratio held in case
of Kuldeep Singh versus The Commissioner of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
5005
Police and others, AIR 1999-SC-677, held in the case
that reasonable opportunity as contemplated by
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India has to be
provided which means “Hearing” in accordance of
principles of natural justice which requires that all
the witnesses in the departmental enquiry shall be
examined.
In para-16 in case of Shri A.Sudhakar Versus Post
Master General, Hyderabad and another 2006(4) SCC
348, it was held that the procedural requirements
based on the principles of natural justice embodied
under rule 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, which
are required to be followed in disciplinary
proceedings.
In para-18, their Lordship considered ratio held in
case of Rajkishore Pandey versus Rewa Sidhi Gramin
Bank and others reported in 1989 MPLJ 530. Ratio
held in this case that a person can be held to be
guilty in Departmental Proceedings only on the basis
of the evidence recorded during the Departmental
Proceedings itself and not on the basis of the
statement of witnesses recorded during a preliminary
fact finding enquiry unless and until the same
witnesses are again examined in the regular
departmental enquiry and reiterate the same
statements against the delinquent during the
Departmental Proceedings.
In present case any of the witnesses whose
statements were recorded were not examined in the
Departmental Enquiry, any employee from the Bank was
not examined, the customers were not examined in the
enquiry. The evidence of management’s witness Shri R.A.
Fernandiz is on the point that he had investigated about
the matter and he found that the PCCs, VCCs were missing
and same were misused by the workman. The evidence of
management’s witness on all the matters deposed by him
cannot be said legal as his evidence is based on
information received from other persons. His evidence is
hear-say basis. On his evidence, misconduct alleged
against delinquent employee cannot be proved.
11. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi relies
on ratio held in
“Case of Gurnit Singh Viku versus Punjab and Sind
Bank and others reported in 2011-I-LLJ-665(MT).
Their Lordship held on charges of willful damage to
property of Bank and involving Bank in serious loss-
challenge to dismissal held not sustainable.
Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of
Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC Etawah and others
Versus Hotilal and another reported in 2003(3)
Supreme Court Cases 605. Their Lordship of the Apex
Court dealing with scope of judicial review of test of
proportionality. It is very limited to exceptional cases.
The court must give reasons for holding the
punishment to be not commensurate with the
charges.
The citation relied by IInd counsel Mr. Shashi in
any of the case doesnot relate to legality of the evidence
by Vigilence Officer deposing all the facts he had come
across during his investigation whether evidence of such
witness is legal. In my considered view, evidence of
management’s witness Shri R.A. Fernandiz cannot be said
legal on the points of missing PCCs and VCCs, receipts of
amount, forgery of documents by delinquent employee,
signature of customers on the documents produced in the
Enquiry Proceedings. The management’s witness was not
conversant with the signatures of any of the customers,
staff working in the branch. All his evidence is of hear-say
character. Shri A.K. Shashi, counsel for IInd party relies to
the point of punishment imposed in the matter when loss
is caused to Bank, punishment of dismissal could not be
interfered.
12. The evidence of 1st party workman in his cross-
examination shows that he was desiring to examine witness
Shri Hazarilal Yadav, Smt. Shantidevi Yadav and Smt. Deoki
Devi Yadav but the Enquiry Officer told him it was not
necessary. Infact all those witness who have been examined
by the management for proving the alleged misconduct.
The material witnesses were not examined by management
of IInd party in Enquiry Proceedings. The evidence
in cross-examination of management’s witness
Shri Nagendranath shows that he had not given
opportunity to the delinquent himself to test velocity of
witnesses Shri Hazarilal Yadav, Smt. Shantidevi Yadav and
Smt. Deoki Devi Yadav. Though learned counsel for IInd
party during course of argument emphasized that the
statements recorded of the witnesses was not basis for
recording finding of the Enquiry Officer. The careful reading
of the Enquiry Report shows that the statements of those
witnesses were proved by the management witnesses and
the same were considered while submitting his report by
the Enquiry Officer.
13. Next, it was argued that delinquent employee
had admitted charges and therefore the findings cannot
be said perverse. The witness as the management has
produced Exhibit M-2 letter sent by delinquent workman
dated 21-9-97 to the Dy.General Manager, Syndicate Bank.
He had stated that he had vide his letter dated 5-11-95
explained the circumstances and requested him to view
matter leniently. He with to further state that the
management or customers has not incurred any loss out
of the transaction. The copy of letter dated 5-11-96
produced in the Enquiry Proceeding was denied by
delinquent employee. The defence representative had
submitted in his statement that said letter was obtained
5006
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
from delinquent employee at Bhopal Regional Office. The
letter was not proved during enquiry proceedings. When
charge was explained to workman by Enquiry Officer, he
has pleaded not guilty to the charge. Therefore it is difficult
to accept that employee had admitted charge and therefore
there non-examination is not final. Considering the nature
of evidence of management’s witness Shri Fernandis he
had investigated allegation against the misconduct. His
evidence cannot be said legal. On his evidence, the
misconduct alleged against workman cannot be proved.
The findings of Enquiry Officer are therefore perverse.
The punishment of dismissal of delinquent employee based
on the evidence of Shri R.A.Femandis , vigilance Officer is
illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Negative.
14. Point No.2- In view of my finding in Point No.1
findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse based on evidence
not of legal character, the order of dismissal of workman
needs to be quashed and set-aside. The workman would
be entitled to reinstatement of service. Next question is
whether the workman is entitled to back wages. Workman
in his affidavit of evidence has not stated whether he is
employed or un-employed after dismissal. In his. cross-
examination, nothing is brought about his gainful
employment. The evidence of management’s witness
Nagendra Nath is silent on the point. Considering the facts
that since order of his dismissal, the delinquent is out of
employment. It would be appropriate to allow 50 % back
wages to him. Accordingly I record my finding on Point
No. 2.
15. In the result, award is passed as under :-
(1)
Action of the management of Syndicate Bank,
Zonal Office, Ahmedabad in dismissing
Shri Bhimsen Vinodiya, S/o Shri Raja Ram
Vinodiya, Ex-sub Staff from service vide order
dated 30-1-99 is illegal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman
Shri Bhimsen Vinodiya with 50 % back wages.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1851-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ;wfu;u
cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xksgkVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ
la[;k 01@2011) dks çdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks
1&8&2013 dks çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&12011@57@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013
S.O. 1851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Union Bank of India and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
1-8-2013.
[No. L- 12011/57/2010-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,
ASSAM
Present : Sri L. C. Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :
The Management of Union Bank of India.
-Vrs-
North Eastern Region Union Bank Employees
Association.
Ref. Case No. 01 of 2011
Appearances :
For the Management
:
Mr. B.Bhattacharjee,
Manager (HR)
For the Workman
:
Mr. S.Chakrabarty,
General Secretary,
NERUBA
Date of Award : 24.7.2013
AWARD
1. This Reference was made by the Ministry of
Labour & Employment, Government of India, on the
Industrial Dispute raised by the North Eastern Region
Union Bank Employees Association against the
Management of Union Bank of India vide their Order No.
L-12011/57/2010-IR(B-II); Dated : 09-12-2010. The Schedule
of the Reference is as follows:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Bank management in
terminating the service of Sh. B.B. Das, workmen
without considering the involvement of the other
responsible officers of the Bank Management for
fraudulently withdrawal of money from Customers
Account is justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?”
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
5007
2. On receipt of the order of Reference this
Reference Case has been registered and notices were
served upon both the parties who appeared and contested
the proceeding by filing their claim statement/written
statement, adducing evidence along with documents.
3. The case of the North Eastern Region Union Bank
Employees Association, (in short, NERUBEA is that on
02/08/2007 an amount of Rs. 48,000 and on 07/08/2007
another amount of Rs. 52,000 were fraudulently withdrawn
from the S.B. A/C No. 5381 and S.B. A/C No. 6329
respectively from the Shillong Branch of Union Bank of
India. This act of fraudulent withdrawal came to the notice
of the Branch only on 10.08.2007 when the account holders
enquired about withdrawal from their accounts while the
official concerned immediately arranged and deposited the
same to cover up the lapse. In this connection preliminary
investigation carried out by the Bank on 04.09.2007 wherein
some observations were made as follows:
(i)
The unused cheques returned on closure of A/c.
No. 6787 was not destroyed and not entered in
Cheque Book Returned Register & Destroy
Register evidencing lack of proper control.
(ii)
In both the fraudulent withdrawal cases the
cheques were used as loose cheques and though
Loose Cheque Issue Register is maintained in the
branch, there is no entry of these cheques in the
register. Both these transactions were authorized
by Shri Soubhik Dutta, Asstt. Manager and his
signatures are there on the face of the instruments.
(iii)
Withdrawal by loose cheques were allowed without
production of passbooks violating the norms of
the bank.
(iv)
In both the cases drawer’s signature on the
instrument differs with that of signature on record
on the specimen signature card. It clearly shows
that the minimum basic precaution of verifying the
signature was also not taken before authorizing
the transactions.
(v)
No written complaint was lodged by the account
holders in whose account frauds were committed.
(vi)
Since the amounts involved were refunded in both
the cases there is no financial loss to the bank.
The Association contended that in respect of the
above facts, the Management of Union Bank of India taking
advantage of poor educational qualification of the
workman Sri B.B. Das, Peon-cum-Hamal, Union Bank of
India, Shillong Branch to cover up the lapse of others,
with vindictive and deliberate as well as discriminate view,
issued charge sheet against Sri B.B.Das on 28.09.2007 and
instituted a Departmental Enquiry and finally Sri B.B. Das
was dismissed from service of the Bank on 16.09.2008. But
Departmental Enquiry could neither establish that Sri B.B.
Das has withdrawn the cash fraudulently from the Bank
by using any cheque/instrument nor that Sri B.B.Das
individually or by engaging any other prevailed upon Bank
official at Shillong Branch for encashment of any cheque
fraudulently. The entire process of making entry, checking,
cancellation of cheques, tallying of signature of cheques,
permission for payment and subsequent cash payment to
the bearer of the cheques were carried out by responsible
officials of the branch and the said Branch failed to protect
the interest of the customers and the Bank. Further the
finding of the departmental enquiry and recommendation
made thereon by the Enquiry Officer, in respect of the fact
that the Management representative failed to put forward
any defence for Management argument which was also
confirmed in the findings of the Enquiry Officer at page -l
l of his report wherein it was mentioned that the
Management argument of Management representative not
received since Management Representative is reported
sick and not yet joined. The Association also mentioned
that in course of the departmental enquiry the Management
Witnesses confirmed that the Branch was practicing use
of loose cheques for making payment to customer because
of non-updation of system at the Branch; that Sri B.B.Das
was neither involved in fraudulent withdrawal nor
deposited any money in the accounts of the customers;
that the other fraudulent payment at Shillong Branch
because of lapse/negligence etc. of the branch official
and to which even customer had to lodge FIR; and that
the signature did not tally/match with the record though
cleared for payment by the official. The Association alleged
that from the Enquiry Proceeding it was established that
the cheques used for fraudulent payment, never handled
by the workman Sri B.B. Das at the Branch and’ said
B.B.Das had deposited the money in the account of the
customers; rather it was the Investigating Officer in his
statement, exhibited as management document (MEX -I5)
and it was confirmed that the money was deposited
reportedly by contribution from staff members in order to
avoid damaging the reputation of the Bank the amount of
Rs. 48,000 was credited to her account reportedly by
contribution from staff members. The Association stated
that the Management could not establish that the workman
Sri B.B. Das taking away 5 leaves of unused cheques and
thus using 2 leaves for repaying some loan amount as per
practice of using loose cheques by the Bank and he used
these loose cheques for withdrawal of money from any
customer’s account; and the said submission of the
workman was also exhibited as Management document
(MEX-15 in the Departmental Proceeding), and thus
treating the same as his confession is not tenable. It is
also added that the workman was dismissed from the service
of the Bank by holding Shri B.B.Das as guilty of gross
misconduct for doing act prejudicial to the interest of the
Bank involving or likely to involve the Bank in monetary
loss; and willful damage or attempt to cause damage to
the property of the bank. But no other official of the Bank
5008
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was ever charged or issued any notice/memo for
committing fraud at the Branch maintained conspicuous
silence or took lenient view on various acts prejudicial to
the interest of the bank and causing loss and inviting
damage to the bank by the acts of responsible official of
the Bank.
Hence, the Association prayed to direct the Bank to
quash the order of dismissal and any other order served
on the workman; to pay actual wages, dues and benefits
as entitled as regular and permanent employee of the bank;
to pay full compensation for the sufferings caused to the
workman and his family; and also to allow other relief to
which the workman is entitled to; and also to fix
responsibility and accountability to the erring officials to
stop recurrence of similar lapses.
4. In their Addl. W.S. the Association stated that
the Management by taking plea on the honest and
voluntary submission of workman for using some loose
cheques as per practice of the Branch as confession for
fraudulent withdrawal from the Branch deliberately
victimized the workman for being in subordinate cadre.
The Association categorically denied the contention of
the Management made in Para-21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 to 34 of
the written statement submitted by the Management. The
further contention of the Association is that mere admission
of the workman for taking 5 leaves of unused cheques and
using 2 leaves of unused cheques for his own purpose in
no way can be established as fraudulently used in
withdrawing money from the customer’s account and in
the same way the said being the practice at the Branch by
other official which was also confirmed by the
Investigating Officer that the serious and deliberate lapse
on the part of the responsible official of the Branch for
allowing fraudulent encashment of cheques from the
Branch and without fixing any responsibility and
accountability for the erring officials, the actions of the
Management in dismissing Sri B.B.Das from the service is
irregular and illegal.
5. The Management, on the other hand, contested
the proceeding by filing their written statement, stating
inter-alia, that the Reference itself is not maintainable in as
much as other officers involved in connection with the
incident for which the workman Sri B.B.Das has been
dismissed were punished, are not workmen within the
meaning of Industrial Dispute Act and as such, the
Reference is not maintainable and the same is liable to be
referred back to the Appropriate Government; and that
the issue involved in this Reference is not Industrial
Dispute and as such, the Notification dated 9.12.2010 is
illegal and hence, this Court can not assume jurisdiction
to adjudicate the alleged issue; that the demand of the
Association is illegal and untenable in law and as such,
the same is not maintainable; that the Association has no
locus standi to raise an Industrial Dispute before this
Authority as the issues sought to be raised are not
Industrial Disput u/s 2(k) of the I.D. Act since Sri B.B.Das
is not a workman within the definition of Section-2(s) of
the I.D. Act,1947; that the Management Bank being a
Nationalised Bank having its own policy and procedure
and Rules governing the service conditions of their
employees and the action taken against the workman was
under relevant Provision of Rules governing the service
conditions of the employees or the workman of the Bank;
that the Association is not a registered Trade Union under
the Provisions of Trade Union Act,1926 and the
Association ought to have produced a copy of the Form-
A of its application for registration as a Trade Union under
Trade Union Act 1926; that the Association ought to have
shown the authority of the General Secretary who raise
the demand on behalf of the workman along with the
Constitution of the Association and the documents to
show that the workman is a member of the Association;
and as such, the allegation made against the Management
Bank are illegal, false, frivolous, fabricated, unjustified,
perverse and without any basis of law as well as on fact.
Hence, the Management prayed to frame and decide the
preliminary issue on maintainability of the claim before
the matter is taken up on merit.
Further case of the Management is that the workman
B.B. Das was working as Peon-cum-Hamal, PF No. 415789
and he was charged on 02.08.2007 alleging that on 2.8.07
and amount Rs.48,000 and on 7.8.2009 an amount of
Rs.52,000 were fraudulently withdrawn from the Savings
Bank Account Nos. 5381 & 6329 of Sri Gang Sarma and
Smti Sarita Devi respectively while he was working in the
Shillong Branch of the Management Bank. Subsequently
the workman was charge sheeted for :
(a) gross misconduct,
(i)
doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank
involving monetary loss to the bank.
(ii)
willful damage or attempt to cause damage to
the property of the bank.
(b) minor misconduct,
(iii)
breach of rule of business of the bank or
instruction for running of any department.
It is mentioned by the Management that after
detection of fraudulent act of the workman, he (the
workman) credited an amount of Rs.48,000 in the S.B.
A/c. No. 5381 on 13.8.2007 and similarly the said workman
B.B.Das also credited a sum of Rs.52,000 on 20.8.2007.
The Management added that the workman B.B. Das used
the unused cheque leaves of closed SB Accounts while
doing the above misconduct and the cheque and unused
leaves were unauthorisedly taken away by the concerned
workman. On receipt of the show cause notice the
concerned workman submitted his reply by letter dated
11.10.2007 to the Management Bank to excuse him for the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
5009
misconduct committed by him, While the Management
was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the workman
and issued formal charge sheet on 6.3.08 stating that the
concerned workman committed misconduct and
disciplinary action will be started against him appointing
Sri Amit Banerjee, Manager, HRM, Nodal Regional Office,
Kolkata to conduct the enquiry into the charges against
the workman. In his written statement submitted before
the Management Bank on 5.9.07. the workman admitted
his guilt and stated that he owed money to some one
which he could not repay in time and he took the
responsibility and no other member was involved in the
matter for which he had taken away 5 numbers of cheque
leaves from the table of Duftary and used 2 number of
cheque leaves and threw other 3 cheque leaves in the
river, and that he shall never do this type of action in
future. However, enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry
Officer in strict compliance of principle of Natural Justice
and as per Rules giving all opportunities to the concerned
workman who in response to the show cause dated
28.9.2007 again by his letter dated 11.10.2007 admitted his
guilt for the act of commission of the same by him under
the compelling circumstances and request the
Management Bank to excuse him for his misconduct.
The Management further stated that the enquiry
was conducted by impartial officer who was in no way
connected with the Regional Office of the Management
Bank at Guwahati and as the workman committed serious
misconduct and he harmed the reputation of the Bank,
and as he admitted his guilt the admission of guilt need
not be proved. The Management forwarded the enquiry
report along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the
workman asking him to submit his representation, if any;
and considering the facts and circumstances of the case
along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer the workman
B.B. Das was dismissed from service on 11.9.2008.
The Management categorically denied the
statements made in Para-1 of the Claim Statement that on
7.8.2007 an amount of Rs. 20,000 (Which should have been
Rs.52,000) was fraudulently withdrawn from the S.B.
Account No. 6329 from the Shillong Branch of the Bank.
The Management also denied the contention made in
Paras-2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Claim Statement and
prayed for dismissing the claim of the Association passing
the Award holding that the workman is not entitled to any
benefit.
6. The Management side by submitting Addl.
Written Statement pleaded that the prayer of the
Association made in the claim statement can not be
granted by this Tribunal as it would be beyond the scope
of the terms of Reference made by the Appropriate
Government. It is further submitted by the Management
that the punishment of dismissal was imposed upon the
workman after holding domestic enquiry in conformity with
the Rules and the principle of natural justice; and the
workman duly participated in the said enquiry and
defended him through a defence representative of his
choice and the workman was also given opportunity to
file departmental appeal; and hence, this Tribunal is to
first frame and decide the issue regarding the fairness and
propriety of the domestic enquiry and the Management
may be given opportunity to adduce evidence u/s 11 (a) of
Industrial Dispute Act in the event of findings of this
Tribunal that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper.
The Management again pleaded that the workman admitted
his guilt of using 2 leaves (destroyed cheques) in
committing the offence because he was in need of money
and for that purpose he took 5 leaves of cheque leaves
from the table of the Duftary and he destroyed 3 numbers
of unused cheque leaves. It is also contended by the
Management that the allegation made by workman in Para-
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the written statement are not true
and correct; and mentioned that the concerned workman
was found guilty of the charge and was dismissed from
the service after following due process of law by holding
departmental enquiry and after giving him reasonable
opportunities to defend his case without any violation of
natural justice. Hence, the reference is liable to be rejected.
7. In support of their respective pleadings both the
parties examined one witness each. They submitted the
written argument and also made oral submission on their
respective cases at length.
8. From the evidence on record it appears that Sri
Subrata Chakrabarty, General Secretary, North Eastern
Region Union Bank Employees Association was examined
as W.W.l, while the Management examined Mr. B.
Bhattacharjee, Senior Manager, Union Bank of India,
Regional Office, Chandmari, Guwahati, as M.W.1.
9. The W.W.l stated that on 2.8.2007 and 7.8.2007
two cases of fraudulent withdrawal of cash amount of
Rs.48,000 and Rs.20,000 from the Saving Bank Account
No. 5381 and 6329 respectively took place at Shillong
Branch of Union Bank of India, wherein the workman Sri
B.B.Das was working as one of the Peons-cum-Hamal
along with the Branch Manager, 3 numbers of Officers,
one Special Assistant, 4 Clerks and 4 numbers of
subordinate staff. The said fraudulent acts of withdrawal
of money came to the notice of the Branch on 10.08.2007
when the account holder brought the matter to the notice
of the Branch Manager. He also said that both the
payments were made against presentation of cheques
across the counter after issuance of token, verification
and authorization exercises carried out by the concerned
officers and ultimately the payment handed over to the
bearer of the cheque on acknowledgement by the paying
official of the Branch. There was neither the presence of
the workman Sri B.B. Das nor his involvement could be
found or established in the alleged act, but in the process
minimum basic precaution of verifying the signature was
not taken before authorizing the transaction as both the
5010
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cases drawer’s signature in cheques differs with that of
the signature on the specimen signature card; and in both
the cases loose cheques were issued inspite of
maintenance of Loose cheques Issue Register wherein no
entry of these two cheques was made. It is also mentioned
that withdrawal by loose cheques were allowed without
production of Pass Book violating norms of the Bank. The
W.W.l alleged that the Management in order to cover up
the lapse of the responsible officials of the Bank made the
workman who is Under Metric hails from poor family, the
scapegoat and obtained an undertaking to establish his
involvement in the fraud following the practice of the
Branch in using loose cheque even without knowing the
cheque numbers etc. for being a Peon while using
destroyed cheques in repaying his debt to somebody else
which was also confirmed by the Management Witness in
his statement as recorded in Page-7 under serial No.2 of
the Departmental Proceeding. Accordingly a Departmental
enquiry was initiated against the workman by the
Management with ulterior motive and a preliminary
investigation was done on 4.9.07 at Shillong Branch of the
Bank. The W.W. l contended that in the face of the strong
opposition made by the workman in the departmental
enquiry with submission and evidences for harassing the
workman with a view to cover up the lapse of responsible
officials of the Branch the Management representative
failed to put forward any argument to establish the case of
the Management to victimize the workman, which can be
confirmed from the findings of the departmental enquiry.
Subsequently the workman was dismissed from service of
the Bank. In order to cover up the lapse and negligence as
well as the direct involvement of the responsible officers
of the Bank in committing repeated fraud at the Branch the
Management did neither cautioned nor issued any
memorandum or punishment against any of the official of
the Branch who was involved in the entire exercise of the
commission of the alleged fraud inspite of the report of
the preliminary investigation. The W.W. 1 again mentioned
that the Management document marked as MEX-18
(departmental enquiry) which confirmed that the money
was deposited reportedly by contribution from staff
member in order to avoid damaging the reputation of the
Bank. The Deputy General Manager (IR), Regional Office
vide his letter dt. 24.8.09 informed the Asstt. General
Manager, Industrial Relation Division, HRM Department,
C.O. Mumbai, the Head Office of the Bank that the Bank
had not suffered any monitory loss on account of the
misconduct in the Branch. The workman alleged that the
Management having vested power of taking disciplinary
action carried out the same against the workman who is a
lowest graded employee, with malafide intention and out
exceeding the jurisdiction without bringing any charge
against the officials who are the custodian of people’s
money for working in the Bank for extraneous
consideration. The poor workman Sri B.B. Das was
dismissed from the service. Hence, the W.W. l prayed for
quashing the order of dismissal and any other order served
upon the workman; to pay actual wages, due and benefit
as entitled as regular and permanent employee of the Bank
and to regularize the service of the workman; to pay full
compensation for the suffering of the workman and his
family; to fix responsibility and accountability to the erring
officials to stop recurrence of similar lapse and any other
relief to which the workman is entitled to under law and
equity. The workman witness has proved the findings of
the Enquiry Officer in connection with the Departmental
Enquiry against the workman vide Exhibit-1 and the
proceeding of the said Departmental enquiry vide Exhibit-
2. He also proved the statement of the workman vide
Exhibit-3 and the preliminary report of the Management in
connection with the Departmental Proceeding against the
workman vide Exhibit-4.
10. In course of his cross-examination the workman
witness No.1 has admitted the documents marked as
Exhibit-A which is a Show Cause Memo dated 28.9.07,
issued by the Management against Sri Souvik Dutta,
Assistant Manager, Shillong Branch, in connection with
fraudulent withdrawal of the workman from Shillong
Branch. Exhibit-B is the reply to the show cause dated
28.9.07 submitted by the said Sauvik Dutta, Asstt.
Manager; Exhibit-C is the order imposing punishment
against Souvik Dutta issued by the Disciplinary Authority
vide their Memo dated 7.10.08; Exhibit-D show cause Memo
dated 28.9.07 issued by the Management upon
Sri M.A. Dhakar, Manager, Shillong Branch; Exhibit-E the
reply of M.A. Dhakar, Manager, Shillong Branch against
the Memo of Show Cause (vide Exhibit-D); Exhibit-F. the
Memo issued to the workman and the Exhibit-G is the
reply of the workman on the memo of show cause dated
28.9.07 wherein it has been written by the workman that he
sincerely regretted for the acts of omission and commission
under some compelling circumstances; Exhibit-H is the
charge sheet issued against the workman; Exhibit- I the
order dated 19.8.08 imposing final punishment issued by
the Disciplinary Authority upon the workman after
allowing him personal hearing; Exhibit-J is the confessional
statement made by the workman; and Exhibit-K is the
proceedings of the Departmental Proceeding against the
workman. The workman witness No.1 denied the
suggestion tendered by the Management that the workman
had committed the acts which is prejudicial to the interest
of the Bank involving or likely to involve the Bank in
monitory loss and willful damage or attempt to cause
damage to the property of the Bank; and thereby violated
the Rules of all the Banks or instruction for running any
department.
11. The Management Witness No.1, on the other
hand, stated that he knows the workman Sri B.B. Das as
Peon-cum-Hamal who was charge sheeted on 6.3.08 due
to the fact that he had fraudulently withdrawn a sum of
Rs. 48,000 from the S.B.Account No. 5381 of Sri Ganga
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
5011
Sharma using loose cheque No.099479 while he was
working at Shillong Branch of the Management; and
another sum of Rs.52,000 was also fraudulently withdrawn
by the workman from the S.B.Account No.6329 of Smt.
Sarita Devi. Thereafter the workman was charge sheeted
as mentioned above.
He also stated that on receipt of the said charge
sheet the workman submitted his reply on 11.10.07 vide
Exhibit-G admitting his guilt and requested the
Management to pardon him; and also the workman
voluntarily made his statement on 5.9.07, admitting his
guilt vide Exhibit- J, wherein Exhibit-J(1) is his signature.
The M.W.1 added that a Departmental Enquiry was held
against the workman and all reasonable opportunities were
afforded to the workman. Accordingly the Enquiry Officer
on completion of enquiry submitted enquiry proceeding
vide Exhibit-K along with its report and findings vide
Exhibit-L. The workman was also supplied with the findings
of the Enquiry Officer allowing him an opportunity to
submit his representation and the workman was also heard
in person on 3.9.11 vide Exhibit -I. Finally the workman
was dismissed from service vide Exhibit -M. He also stated
that before issuing the charge sheet a memorandum was
issued against the workman vide Exhibit-F. The M.W.1
further said that the workman credited an amount of
Rs.48,000 in the S.B. Account No. 5381 and on 13.8.07 and
another amount of Rs.52,000 in the S.B.Account No. 6329
on 20.8.2007. He has proved the documents namely show
cause memo dated 28.9.2007 vide Exhibit-A issued by the
Management against Sri Souvik Dutta: Exhibit- B, reply to
show cause memo dated 28.9.07 submitted by Sri Souvik
Dutta: Exhibit-C the order imposing punishment against
the Souvik Dutta by the Disciplinary authority vide Memo
dated 7.10.2008; Exhibit-D the show cause memo dated
28.9.07 issued by the Management upon Sri M.A. Dakhar,
Manager, Shillong Branch; Exhibit-E the reply of
Sri M.A.Dakhar, Manager, Shillong Branch; Exhibit-F the
memo issued to the workman B.B. Das.
12. In his cross-examination MW.1 stated that at
the time of encashing the cheque the bearer cheque is
suppose to put his signature on the back side of the
cheque, and in banking business when a cheque is
presented for encashment the account is required to be
debited, verification of the signature of the cheque holder
is to be done, and ultimately it is produced before the cash
counter for payment; and in observing the above processes
debit of account and verification of signature are to be
done by the responsible officer and payment of cash is
made by the cash Clerk/Cashier. He also said that Mr.
KC.Bhuiya, Senior Manager, HRM, Regional Office,
Guwahati has given his observation in his preliminary
investigating report held on 4.9.07 and that the workman
made a confession statement vide Exhibit-3 wherein the
cheque numbers has not been mentioned. It is further
stated that the Enquiry Officer mentioned in the findings
of the Departmental Enquiry (Exhibit-l, at page-1l ) that the
Management representative is reported sick and not yet
joined; and that in Exhibit-2 at page No.1, the workman
replied in negative on the question asked by the Enquiry
Officer that whether the workman plead guilty of the
charge/allegation levelled against him. In course of his
cross-examination the Management Witness No.1 also
stated that there is no mention the name of the workman
nor any allegation of involvement of the workman appears
to have been made in Exhibit-A, B, D, & E. The Management
witness No.1 categorically denied the suggestion tendered
by the Union that there is no involvement of the workman
in the fraudulent encashment of the cheque from the Branch
and that the workman was punished in order to cover up
the lapse of the Management, and that the Departmental
Proceeding was held not as per the Provision of law and
the workman was punished illegally.
13. The Tribunal, in this Reference, is to decide first
the vital issue i.e. whether the action of the Bank
Management in terminating the service of the workman
without consideration the involvement of other responsible
officers of the Bank Management for fraudulent withdrawal
of money from customers account is justified? The fact,
as it reveal from the pleadings as well as from the evidence
available on record, shows that the workman while
discharging the duties of Peon-cum-Hamal in the Shillong
Branch of Union Bank of India alleged to have withdrawn
fraudulently the amounts of Rs. 48,000 and Rs. 52,000 from
the Account No.5381 & 6329 on 2.8.07 and 7.8.07 belong
to Sri Gautam Sarma and Sarita Devi respectively using 2
unutilised/destroyed cheques.
14. During the course of argument Mr. S.
Chakrabarty, General Secretary, North Eastern Region
Union Bank of India Employees Association, the learned
counsel for the workman pointed out that at the time of
alleged occurrence of fraudulent withdrawal of amount
from the Bank the other officers and Cashier were involved
in the alleged transaction; and as the Management, in
order to cover up their own lapses and to protect the
reputation of the Bank, they have victimized the workman
without taking any step against the officer concerned who
were involved in this transaction. It is also pointed out by
the learned counsel for the workman that the then
Assistant Manager, S. Dutta, verified the signature on the
alleged cheques and authorized the payment in respect of
the alleged fraudulent withdrawal and Sri M.A.Dakhar, the
then Manager, of Union Bank of India, Shillong Branch
also failed to take proper care to destroy the unused cheque
leaves deposited by the account holders and thereby
created opportunity to misutilise the said cheques which
amounts to failure to discharge his duty with utmost
devotion and due diligence and failed to adhere the norms
but no action taken against said Mr. Souvik Dutta and
Mr. M.A.Dakhar while the workman B.B.Das being a poor
lowest grade employee has been made victim of this entire
5012
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
episode with a view to protect the popularity of the Bank
as well as to protect the bank officers and as such, the
action of the Management in not taking the proper action
against the aforesaid two responsible officers is not proper
and legal and by victimizing i.e. imposing punishment of
dismissal against the workman is an act of violation of law,
as well as Natural Justice.
15. Mr. B.Bhattacharjee, Senior Manager, Union
Bank of India, Regional Office, Guwahati, on the other
hand, submitted that the officers concerned namely Sri
Souvik Dutta and Mr. M.A.Dakhar have committed some
lapses and negligence in regard to due discharge on their
duties and accordingly appropriate action have been taken
against the said 2 officers by the Management and as the
amounts misappropriated by the workman has already been
deposited by the workman in the Management Bank
subsequently after detection of the alleged fraudulent
withdrawal; by imposing minor penalty of reduction by
one stage in the time Pay of Scale for a period of one year
without cumulative effect against Sri S.Dutta and the
Manager, Mr. M.A. Dakhar was also punished by stopping
one increment. Mr. B.Bhattacharjee further stated that the
workman being an employee of the Management Bank,
with malafide intention collected the unused cheque leaves
from the Table of the Duftry and secretly arranged to
withdraw the amount with ulterior motive which he did in
the event of his need for money as mentioned in the
admission of the workman. He also submitted that there is
no lapse or lacuna as well as no violation of right and
Natural Justice committed in course of enquiry proceeding
which was ended with due care and caution as per
provision of law and after giving sufficient opportunity to
hear the workman the Disciplinary Authority delivered its
finding along with the proceeding of the enquiry vide
Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively. Subsequently the
Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment vide Exhibit-
I. As such, the Management has rightly imposed the
punishment of dismissal against the workman. In support
of his contention Mr. Bhattacharjee cited the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Additional District
Magainstrate (City) Agra .. Vrs··· Prabhakar Chaturvedi
and another, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 12, wherein it was
held an amount of Rs.21,000/- temporarily misappropriated
for couple of month, in such a case punishment held not
grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct
proved against the Respondent. He also cited the decision
laid down in Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh
···Vrs···Krishnan Behari and Ors. reported in (1996) 2 SCC
714 that in case involving corruption there can not be any
other punishment than dismissal, any sympathy shown in
such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public
interest; and the amount misappropriated may be small or
large it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. Mr.
Bhattachariee also relied upon the case of Central Bank of
India Ltd .... Vrs··· Karunamoy Banerjee, AIR 1968 SC 266
wherein it was observed that :
“We must, however, emphasize that the rules of
natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be
observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a
workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman, it
is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of
those allegations will be on the management; and the
witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to
be cross-examined, by the workman, and the latter must
also be given an opportunity to examine himself and
adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support
of his plea. But, if the workman admits’ his guilt, to insist
upon the management to let in evidence about the
allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality.
In such a case, it will be open to the management to
examine the workman himself, even in the first instance,
so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct,
or to place before the management any circumstances
which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But,
even then, the examination of the workman, under such
circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If,
after the examination of the workman, the management
chooses to examine any witnesses, the workman must be
given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine those
witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence that he
may choose”.
16. From the evidence of the W.W.1 and the MW.1
together with the documents proved by both the sides it
appears that the workman Sri B.B. Das was working as
Peon-cum-Hamal, Union Bank of India, Shillong Branch
on 2.8.07 and 7.8.07 and on those two days 2 cases of
fraudulent withdrawal of cash from Saving Bank Account
No. 5381 and 6329 amounting to Rs. 48,000 and Rs.20,000
respectively was done and a memorandum was issued
against the workman vide Exhibit-F mentioning the
allegations of fraudulent withdrawal of the amounts from
the Management Bank and in reply to the said
memorandum the workman admitted his guilt stating that
he was sincerely regretted for the act of omission and
commission under some compelling circumstances and
that he was never involved in such act at any time in his
service career and hence prayed for excusing him vide
Exhibit-G which is admitted by the workman in course of
his cross-examination & even in his claim statement (para-
7) the workman mentioned that the honest submission of
the workman for taking away five leaves of unused
cheques & thus using two leaves for repaying some loan
amount, as per practice of using loose cheques by the
bank, in no way established the fraudulent withdrwal of
money. On being dis-satisfied with his reply dated
11.10.2007 charge sheet was issued against the workman
vide Exhibit-H and accordingly Departmental Enquiry was
conducted; and on completion of the enquiry the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report and the Disciplinary Authority
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
5013
vide his order dated 19.8.08 (Exhibit-I) issued the memo
dated 19.8.08 the final order on the enquiry imposing
punishment by the Disciplinary Authority upon the
workman. In course of his cross-examination the workman
witness No.1 also admitted the reply of the workman to
the memo of show cause dated 28.9.07 which was marked
as Exhibit-G. the statement made by the workman before
the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Shillong Branch
on 5.9.07 admitting the guilt of the workman regarding
fraudulent withdrawal of the money using 2 destroyed
cheques vide Exhibit-J (which was proved without any
objection).
Mr. B.Bhattacharjee, Manager, Regional Office,
Union Bank of India, Chandmari, Guwahati, learned counsel
for the Management submitted that the workman
voluntarily confessed his guilt and as such, the charge
levelled against the workman in respect of fraudulent
withdrawal of money by using unutilized cheques need
not be proved and hence, the punishment imposed by the
Management is justified and legal. However, this
contention of the learned counsel for the Management
vehemently objected by Mr. S.Chakrabarty, General
Secretary, NERUBEA stating that the workman was
compelled to make such statement admitting his guilt
marked as Exhibit-G & J under pressure, duress and
compulsion and the workman was dismissed illegally.
17. On careful scrutiny of all the documents relating
to the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the Department,
it appears that initially preliminary investigation was done
on 4.9.07 by Mr. KC.Bhuiyan, Senior Manager, HRM
Department, Regional Office, Guwahati against the
workman Sri B.B.Das in connection with fraudulent
withdrawal of Rs.48,000/- and Rs.52,000/- from the
S.B.Account No. 5881 and S.B. Account No. 6329 of Ganga
Sarma & Smti Sarita Devi respectively, from the Union
Bank of India, Shillong Branch and the report of the said
enquiry proved as Exhibit-4 shows that the workman B.B.
Das confessed is guilt before the Enquiry Officer. Prior to
holding of the enquiry a local enquiry was made and it
was found that Sri B.B. Das made deposits in few Banks
on the next day of committing the fraud and on this clue
Sri B.B. Das was questioned by the Bank official while he
admitted that he committed the fraud; and on the following
day i.e. on 5.9.07 the workman B.B.Das submitted his
statement admitting his guilt (Exhibit-B) before the Union
Bank of India, Shillong Branch. Ultimately, the
Departmental Proceeding was started against the
workman, which was conducted by Mr. Amit Kr. Banerjee,
the Enquiry Officer. From the proceeding of the enquiry as
well as the findings of the Departmental enquiry, it appears
that the workman on receipt of the show cause
memorandum dated 28.9.2007 ( Exhibit-F) submitted his
explanation dated 11.10.2007 (Exhibit-G) admitting his guilt
and the said documents marked as Exhibit-G was proved
by the management Witness No. 1, Mr. Tajul Islam, the
then Assistant General Manager, Shillong Branch and said
Tajul Islam categorically mentioned that the amount
involving the fraudulent withdrawal was recredited by Sri
B.B. Das, the workman and in course of his cross
examination also he confirmed that the workman has
deposited the amounts based on his admission marked as
MEX-14 & 15. The copy of letters dated 11.10.07 and 5.9.07
of Sri B.B. Das (marked as Exhibit-15 and Exhibit-G
respectively). In the said Departmental Enquiry
Management witness No. 2 in his examination-in-chief
stated that as per the report of the Senior Manager the
workman has deposited the money and he confirmed that
the confession (admission) made by the workman was
voluntary and the same was not given under pressure,
coercion or under intoxication and this statement was not
rebutted by the workman side. It is also found that the
workman was given opportunity for his defence
submission and on closure of the enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer, submitted his findings (Exhibit-L) before the
Disciplinary Authority holding the workman B.B. Das guilty
of the following misconduct :
Gross Misconduct.
(i)
Doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank
involving or likely to involve the Bank in
monitory loss,
(ii) Willful damage or attempt to cause damage to
the property of the Bank.
Minor Misconduct,
(iii) Breach of the Rule of the business of the Bank
or instruction for running of any Department.
Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority vide Exhibit- I
proposed punishment and before imposing punishment
the workman B.B. Das was given an opportunity of
personal hearing but the workman B.B. Das did not appear
and made submission against the proposed punishment
nor has brought out any new fact or evidence on record
so as to move to reconsider the proposed punishment.
Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment
as it appears from the Exhibit-M. As such, there is no iota
of evidence to show that the admission of the guilt by the
workman made (vide Exhibits-G & J) under pressure, duress
and compulsion. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is no
irregularity or illegality nor any violation of natural justice
committed by the Management in course of the Disciplinary
Proceeding as well as imposing punishment against the
workman. As such I find no force in the argument of Mr.
S.Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the workman.
18. In view of my discussion and findings as above
and having regard to the evidence and pleadings adduced
by both the sides together with the decisions of the Apex
Court, it can safely be held that the workman B.B.Das
committed the offence on 2.8.07 and 7.8.07 while he was
serving as Peon-cum-Hamal in the Union Bank of India,
5014
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 31, 2013/BHADRA 9, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shillong Branch by fraudulent withdrawal of money from
the Management Bank using unused cheques which was
detected in the concerned Branch on 10.8.2007 and the
said amount was subsequently deposited by the workman
after detection of the act of fraudulent withdrawal of
money; and it is also found well established that the
Officer-In-Charges namely, Souvik Dutta, Assistant
Manager, and Mr. M.A. Dakhar, Manager, Union Bank of
India, Shillong Branch were also punished due to their
negligence and lapse in due discharge of their duties in
relation to the fraudulent withdrawal of the money by the
workman.
19. In the result, I am constrained to opine that the
action of the Management of the Union Bank of India in
terminating the service of Sri B.B. Das, workman without
considering the involvement of the other responsible
officers of the Bank Management for fraudulent withdrawal
of money from customers accounts is justified and hence,
the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly this
Reference is disposed of without granting any relief to the
workman.
Send the Award to Government immediately as per
procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
24th day of July, 2013.
L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 6 vxLr] 2013
dk-vk- 1852-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947
dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj lSUVªy cSad
vkWiQ bafM;k ds çcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 103@2011)
dks çdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 26&4&2013 dks
çkIr gqvk Fkk A
¹la- ,y&39025@1@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh
New Delhi, the 6th August, 2013
S.O. 1852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 103/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
26-4-2013.
[No. L- 39025/1/2010-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PRAKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 103/2011
Kaushal Kumar Singh,
Son of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh,
Resident of 38/24,
Prayag Narain Shivala,
Behind Gupta Own Wala,
Kanpur
AND
The Zonal Manager,
Central Bank of India,
23, Vidhan Sabha Marg,
Lucknow and Others
AWARD
1. Brief facts are—
2. A claim petition has been filed by claimant under
sub-section (1) of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, claiming that his removal from service by the
opposite party from 29.6.93 be declared as illegal and
unjustified and he should be reinstated in the service of
the bank with consequential benefits.
3. The claim of the workman has been challenged
by filing a written reply as well as by moving a separate
application paper no. 9/1 along with affidavit alleging that
the claim of the workman is not maintainable legally or
factually.
4. It is contended by the opposite party that the
claimant has raised the dispute several times before the
ALC(C) but his prayer was not accepted. Vide paper no.
8/6 dated 19.1.95, his case was not found suitable by
Government of India for sending a reference, and thereafter
the workman has also filed a writ petition raising the same
aversions. This writ petition was decided against the
workman vide order dated 25.1.2005. The copy of the said
order is paper no. 9/27. The workman again raised the
dispute before the conciliation officer, the workman
remained absent on several dates before the conciliation
officer thereby the conciliation officer closed the dispute
vide order dated 17.10.0211, vide paper no. 9/23.
5. Thereafter, the claimant filed this claim statement
on 14.12.2011.
6. It is contended by the AR of the opposite party
that under sub-section (3) of Section 2-A of the Act the
present dispute is not maintainable as the same has not
been filed within 3 years from the date of his removal.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vxLr 31] 2013@Hkkæ 9] 1935
5015
7. I would like to reproduce the provisions of sub-
section (3) of Section 2-A of the Act as amended.
8. The application referred to in sub-section 2 shall
be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before expiry of
three years from the date of discharge, dismissal and
retrenchment or otherwise, termination of service as
specified in sub-section (1).
9. The provisions are very clear. Termination is dated
29.6.1993. Therefore, filing of claim statement challanging
the termination of the services of the applicant cannot be
maintainable.
10. Ruling filed by the workman 1999 (82) FLR 137
Supreme Court in between Ajayabd Singh and Sirhand
Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society
Limited is not applicable considering the facts of the present
case.
11. Here in the present case the statute has laid
down limitation which is mandatory.
12. Therfore, considering all the facts that the
Government did not find the case suitable for the reference.
Secondly he raised the dispute before the Hon’ble High
Court and considering the facts the Hon’ble High Court
decided the case vide order dated 25.1.2005, thirdly he did
not take interest before the conciliation officer due to his
absence and lastly under sub-section (3) of Section 2-A of
the Act, the present claim of the applicant is not
maintainable.
13. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any
relief as claimed by him in his claim petition.
Dated : 13-3-2013
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.