4546 GI/2013
(6185)
vk;dj foHkkx
¼eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr dk dk;kZy;] psUubZ&IV)
psUubZ] 27 flrEcj] 2013
lañ 1@2013&14
dkñvkñ 2333-—vke lwpuk ds fy, ;g vfèlwpuk tkjh
dh tkrh gS fd esllZ fuLlku v'kksd fyys.M VsDukWyksthl fyfeVsM]
[khojkt dkEIysDl&II] pkSFkh eafty] 477&482] v..kk lkyS]
uUnue] psUuS&600 035 uked dEiuh dks ¼ftudks Hkkjr ljdkj]
foKku vkSj rduhdh ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k la[;k% ,Qñ
Vhñ;wñ&IV@vkjñMhñvkbZñ@2904@2009] fnukad 28-08-2009 }kjk
vkUrfjd vkj ,.M Mh bdkbZ;ksa ds fy, fnukad 31-03-2012 rd
igys gh ekU;rk iznku dh xbZ gSA½ foÙkh; o"kZ 2013&14 ls 2016&17
rd oSKkfud vuqla/kku djus okys vU; laLFkkvksa ds oxZ eas vk;dj
fu;e 1962 ds fu;e 5,Q ds lkFk ifBr vk;dj vfèfu;e] 1961
dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼iid½ ds iz;kstu ds fy,
fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds lkFk ekU;rk nh tkrh gSA
¼d½ mijksDr dEiuh dks lanRr jkf'k dks oSKkfud vuqla/kku
ds iz;kstu ds fy, [kpZ fd;k tk,xkA
¼[k½ mijksDr dEiuh vius futh deZpkfj;ksa }kjk viuh
vkfLr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, oSKkfud vuqla/kku dk;Z djsxhA
¼x½ vk;dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 35 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds
[k.M ¼iid½ ds v/khu vuqeksnu izkIr dEiuh oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds
iz;kstu ds fy, izkIr fuf/k ds lUnHkZ esa vuqla/kku esa [kpZ dh xbZ
jde dks n'kkZrs gq, vyx ys[kk&cgh j[ksxh] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 288
dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ ds Li"Vhdj.k esa fofufnZ"V izdkj ys[kk&cfg;ksa dh
ys[kk ijh{kk djk,xh vkSj mDr ys[kkdkj }kjk lR;kfir vkSj gLrk{kfjr
ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ dks lacaf/kr vk;dj funs'kd ;k vk;dj vk;qDr
ds ikl vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 139 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ esa vk;dj fooj.kh
nkf[ky djus ds fy, mfYyf[kr le; lhek ds vUrxZr nkf[ky djsxhA
¼?k½ vuqeksfnr dEiuh oSKkfud vuqla/kku ds iz;kstu ds
fy, izkIr nku vkSj bl iz;kstukFkZ [kpZ dk fooj.k vyx ls rS;kj
djds j[ksxhA mDr fooj.k dh ,d izekf.kr izfr ys[kkdkj dh ys[kk
fjiksVZ ds lkFk mi&fu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlkj izLrqr djsxhA
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- 45]
ubZ fnYyh, uoEcj 3—uoEcj 9] 2013] 'kfuokj@dk£rd 12—dk£rd 18] 1935
No. 45] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 3—NOVEMBER 9, 2013, SATURDAY/KARTIKA 12—KARTIKA 18, 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)
6186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¼³½ vuqeksnu fn, tkus ds ckn mijksDr dEiuh gj lky
vk;dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 139 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu vk;dj
fooj.kh nkf[ky djus ds fy, fofufnZ"V le;&lhek ds vUnj lacafèr
vk;dj vk;qDr dks fuEufyf[kr fo"k;ksa ij izdk'k Mkyrs gq, ,d
fooj.k izLrqr djsxhA
¼i½ iwoZ o"kZ esa fd, x, vuqla/kku dk;Z ds ckjs esa ,d foLr`r
fVIi.khA
¼ii½ jk"Vªh; vkSj varj&jk"Vªh; if=dkvksa esa lanHkkZ/khu o"kZ esa
izdkf'kr vuqla/kku ys[kksa dh laf{kIr tkudkjhA
¼iii½ lanHkkZ/khu o"kZ esa vkosnu fd, x, ;k iathd`r fd, x,
isVsUV ;k vU; vf/kdkj dk fooj.kA
¼iv½ vxys o"kks± ds fy, mísf'kr vuqla/kku ifj;kstukvksa dk
dk;ZØe vkSj bu dk;ZØeksa ds fy, foÙkh;&vkcaVu dk fooj.kA
¼p½ ;fn vk;dj vk;qDr bl ckr ls larq"V gS fd mijksDr
dEiuh
¼i½ vius oSKkfud vuqla/kku dk;ks± ds fy, vyx ys[kk&cgh
ugha j[krh gS
¼ii½ ys[kk&ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr djus esa pwd dh gS
¼iii½ vuqla/kku ds fy, izkIr vkSj mlesa yxs [kpZ ds lanHkZ esa
;k mi&[k.M ¼³½ esa mfYyf[kr izdkj ls fooj.k izLrqr ugha dh gS] ;k
¼iv½ vuqla/kku dk;ks± dks lekIr dj fn;k gks ;k dk;ks± esa
;FkkFkZrk ugha gks] ;k
¼v½ ftu 'krks± ds vk/kkj ij vuqeksnu fn;k x;k gks] mu 'krks±
dk vuqikyu ugha djrh gS
rks ,sls lanHkZ esa mfpr tkap iM+rky ds ckn mijksDr [k.M
¼i½ ls ¼v½ rd ds lUnHkZ esa ,d fjiksVZ /kkjk 139 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½
ds v/khu fooj.kh nkf[ky djus ds fy, fufnZ"V fnu ls N% eghus ds
vUnj vius eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr dks izLrqr djsxhA
;fn fu;e 5p eas mfYyf[kr ¼i½ ls ¼v½ rd ds 'krks± esa ls
fdlh Hkh 'krZ dks iwjk ugha fd;k x;k ;k lacaf/kr vk;dj vk;qDr ls
fu;e 5p¼3½¼p½ ds varxZr izkIr fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij mijksDr
vuqeksnu dks jí fd;k tk ldrk gSA
[Qkñ lhñ lañ 4104@eq vk vk&IV@2013&14]
chñ dsñ feJ] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr
INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT
(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME-TAX, CHENNAI - IV)
Chennai, the 27th September, 2013
No. 1/2013-14
S.O. 2333.—It is hereby notified for general
information that the company M/s. Nissan Ashok Leyland
Technologies Ltd., Khivaraj Complex II, 4th Floor, 477-482,
Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600035, (already granted
recognition for its in-house R & D units by the Ministry of
Science & Technology, Govt. of India, New Delhi vide their
order dated 28.08.2009 in F.No.TU-IV/RD/2904/2009 till
31.03.2012), has been approved for the purpose of Clause
(iia) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act,
1961 read with Rule 5F of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said
Rules), for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 in the
category of "other institution", engaged in research
activities, subject to the following conditions, namely:—
(a) The sum paid to the above approved company
shall be used for scientific research;
(b) The application company shall carry on scientific
research through its own employees using its own assets;
(c) The company approved under Clause (iia) if sub-
section (1) of Section 35 shall maintain separate books of
account in respect of the sums received by it for scientific
research, reflect therein the amount used for carrying on
research, get such books of account 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;
(d) The approved company shall maintain a separate
statement of donations received and amounts used for
scientific research and a copy of such statement duly
certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit
referred in sub-rule (3).
(e) Subsequent to the approval, the Company shall,
every year, by the due date of furnishing the return of
income under sub-section (1) of Section 139, furnish a
statement to the Commissioner of Income-tax, containing
the following information namely :-
(i) a detailed note on the research work undertaken
by it during the previous year;
(ii) a summary of research articles published in
national or international journals during the year;
(iii) any patents or other similar rights applied for or
registered during the year;
(iv) programme of research projects to be undertaken
during the forthcoming year and the financial allocation
for such projects.
(f) If the Commissioner of Income-tax is satisfied that
the company—
(i) is not maintaining separate books of account for
research activities, or
(ii) has failed to furnish its audit report, or
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6187
(iii) has not furnished the statement of the sums
received and the sum used for research, or a statement
referred to in sub-clause (e), or
(iv) has ceased to carry on its research activities, or
its activities are not genuine to it,
(v) is not fulfilling the conditions subject to which
approval was granted to it,
he may after making appropriate enquiries, furnish a
report on the circumstances referred to in sub-clauses (i)
to (v) to the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner of Income-
tax within six months from the date of furnishing the return
of income under sub-section (1) of section 139.
The above approval may be withdrawn under Rule
5F(2)(j), if any of the above conditions in (a) to (e) if Rule
5F is not satisfied or on receipt of the CIT's report as per
Rule 5F(3)(f).
[F. C. No. 4104/CCIT-IV/2013-14]
B. K. MISRA, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax
foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2334-—thou chek fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956
dk 31½ dh /kkjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ohñ dsñ 'kekZ] izca/k funs'kd] Hkkjrh; thou
chek fuxe dks 01 uoEcj] 2013 ds vijkg~u ls mudh vfèof"kZrk
dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] mDr fuxe
ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ ,&15011@10@2012&chek&I]
fiz;k dqekj] funs'kd ¼chek½
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2013
S.O. 2334.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of
1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri V. K.
Sharma, Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of
India as a Member of the said Corporation with effect from
the afternoon of 1st November, 2013 till the date of his
superannuation or till further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. A-15011/10/2012-Ins.I]
PRIYA KUMAR, Director (Insurance)
ubZ fnYyh] 7 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2335-—thou chek fuxe vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956
dk 31½ dh /kkjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsanzh;
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk ] Jherh m"kk laxoku] izca/k funs'kd] Hkkjrh; thou
chek fuxe dks 01 uoEcj] 2013 ds vijkg~u ls mudh vf/kof"kZrk
dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] mDr fuxe
ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ ,&15011@10@2012&chek&I]
fiz;k dqekj] funs'kd ¼chek½
New Delhi, the 7th November, 2013
S.O. 2335.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of
1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Smt. Usha
Sangwan Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation
of India as a Member of the said Corporation with effect
from the afternoon of 1st November, 2013 till the date of her
superannuation or till further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. A-15011/10/2012-Ins.I]
PRIYA KUMAR, Director (Insurance)
Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 1 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2336-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 248@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@27@92&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 1st October, 2013
S.O. 2336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 248/97)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of South Eastern Railway, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/
10/2013.
[No. L-41012/27/92-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/248/97
6188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Presiding Officer,
SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Y. Rambabu,
S/o Shri Sanyasi,
Purana Bhilai-3,
Distt. Durg
....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
South Eastern Railway,
Bilaspur-495004
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 2nd day of May, 2013
1. As per letter dated 2-9-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/
27/92-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of DRM,
S.E. Railway, Bilaspur in terminating the services of
Shri Y. Rambabu is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief is the workman entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted his statement of
claim at page 9/1 to 9/3 of record. The case of Ist party
workman is that he was given temporary status from
14-2-90. His services were terminated without assigning
reasons. Principles of natural justice were not followed. He
was not given notice before termination of services. That
he was subsequently intimated that services of 150
employees were terminated on the ground that they have
obtained employment producing false certificate. That it
cast stigma on him. He has also referred to the judgements
and orders in other matters by CAT, Jabalpur. That his
services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.
Act and prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/5. It is case of IInd party that Ist party was engaged as
casual Gangman from 14-2-90 subject to conditions that if
the documents produced by him are found false at any
time during their engagement, their service would be
terminated automatically without any notice. The service
certificate produced by him was found bogus. His services
is terminated from 29-8-90 as per conditions in the deptt.
rules and services. 150 candidates were terminated
including the Ist party workman.
4. It is submitted that Ist party workman was not
holding civil post under Union of India nor he held any
civil post earlier. The case of the applicant was of forgery
with the Railway Administration. He was not an employee,
he is not entitled to protection under I.D. Act, 1947. It is
reiterated that Ist party workman was engaged as casual
gangman on daily rate of pay. He was posted under the
CPWI Abhanpur on 14-2-90. The workman was engaged
subject to the condition laid down in the appointment letter.
As the service certificate is found false after verification,
his services are terminated from 29-8-90. The above facts
are the repeated in the Written Statement. The certificate of
service produced by employees found genuine after
verification of service. That out of 861 casual candidates,
services of 150 casual candidates were terminated as the
certificate produced by them were found false after
verification. Other contentions of Ist party workman are
denied. It is denied that Ist party workman is entitled to
reinstatement. That workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service. IInd party prayed for rejection of the
relief prayed by Ist party workman.
5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at page 15/1 to
15/3. It is not correct that the workman was not employed
only on the basis of the past service card. There is no rule
or regulation in Railway requiring production of casual
labour card for the purpose of appointment. Workman was
not aware of the said documents. He denies that he had
submitted false and fabricated document of service card. It
is denied that his claim is not permissible under I.D. Act. It
is submitted that he had not obtained appointment by
producing false card. That the termination on the allegation
of producing false service card casting stigma and therefore
Departmental Enquiry is necessary. He further submits that
principles of natural justice was violated and terminated
his services.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:
(i) Whether the action of
In Affirmative
the management of South
Eastern Railway, Bilaspur
Division in terminating the
services of Shri Y. Rambabu,
S/o Shri Sanyasi is justified?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Ist party workman is not
workman is entitled to?
entitled to relief prayed
by him.
REASONS
7. Ist party workman is challenging his termination
for the allegations being produced false service certificate/
casual labour card. It is contended by him that he was not
given any opportunity before terminating the services nor
enquiry was held, no notice was issued, principles of natural
justice violated, action of management is violative of Article
20 of the Constitution of India. All those contentions are
denied by IInd party. However IInd party has not disputed
that Ist party workman was engaged as casual labour from
14-2-90 and his services were terminated from 29-8-90. Ist
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6189
party workman filed affidavit of evidence covering the
contentions in the statement of claim. That he was
appointed against regular and permanent vacancy. His
appointment was in accordance with law. There was no
condition that past service certificates would be submitted.
It is deemed that the past certificate produced by him was
false. That no enquiry was held before termination of his
service. Any such report was not made available to him. In
his cross-examination, he says that before his appointment
in Railway, he was working in Bhilai Steel Plant. He had
received ceritificate. It was submitted by him at the time of
appointment in Railway that he had produced certificate
received by him. He was appointed as per the conditions in
appointment order. He was unable to tell whether he was
appointed temporarily. The appointment order Exhibit W-1
clearly refers to engagement as casual workman on daily
rate of pay. That the candidates who attend the temporary
status and got CPC Scale pay will be eligible to get the CPS
Scale of pay. The Ist party workman hardly worked for 2
months 4 days on establishment of IInd party. He does not
hold any regular post. He is not appointed against Civil
Post.
8. The evidence of management's witness Shri R.S.
Bepari on affidavit has stated that the false casual gangmen
after bifurcation from Bilaspur Division, all cases of Raipur
Division related to false cases of gangmen were transferred
to Raipur. Similar cases were filed before CAT, Jabalpur
and the matters were taken before Hon'ble High Court,
Chhattisgarh. Which were remitted back by to CAT, Jabalpur
and are pending. That appointment were made with the
condition that if the certificate submitted by them were
false, their services will be automatically terminated. The
files and documents were stolen from the chamber of
Administrative Officer, Shri Bhasker Rao by breaking the
lock of the Almirah. FIR was filed by the management. In
his cross-examination, the management's witness says that
he was not working when the employee were discharged.
The engagement letter were given as casual gangman. The
fake certificate were stolen from the office of the Railway.
He was unable to tell from which place those certificates
were issued. For security of record, no guard was posted.
Deliberation was made and certificates were found fake.
He was unable to tell the name of the Verifying Officer.
That he had seen verification report and report on its basis.
In view of the verification report, documents were found
fake. In case of casual employee, it is not necessary to hold
departmental enquiry.
9. Learned counsel for Ist party workman Mr. Shashi
heavily emphasized that the employee was not given
opportunity of hearing. That even 240 days service is not
completed. The dispute is tenable. That the services of Ist
party workman are terminated on the ground that he
submitted false certificate casting stigma, no enquiry was
held, no opportunity of hearing was given and therefore
the allegation of cheating, forgery were made. Therefore
the termination of service is illegal. In reply, learned counsel
for IInd party management supports the order of
termination. That Ist party workman has not completed 240
days, he is not holding civil post. Ist party workman is not
entitled to protection of article 311 of the constitution of
India. That his services are not governed by CCS Rules
and prays for rejection of relief prayed by Ist party
workman.
10. Learned counsel for Ist party Mr. Shashi relies
on—
Ratio held in the case of Nepal Singh Versus State of
U.P. reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1459. Their
Lordship of the Apex Court held an order terminating the
services of a temporary Government servant and ex facie
innocuous in that it doesnot cast any stigma on the
Government Servant or visits him with penal consequences
must be regarded as effecting a termination simpliciter, but
it is discovered on the basis of material adduced that
although innocent in its terms the order was passed infact
with a view to punishing the Government servant, it is a
punitive order which can be passed only after complying
with Article 311.
From reading para-2 of the judgement, it is clear that
case before their Lordship was relating to temporary Sub
Inspector of Police posted at Shajapur. Ist party workman
is not holding any civil post, he was not regular employee
of the Railway. Therefore Article 311 is not applicable in
the present case.
From reading of Article 311, it is clear that the said
article only extends protection to the person who is member
of Civil Service of Union and All India Service or Civil
Service of State or holds a civil post under Union of a
State. Therefore the ratio in above cited case cannot be
applied to the case at my hand.
11. Next reliance is placed by Mr. Shashi in ratio held
in case of—
Shri Anoop Jaiswal versus Government of India and
another reported in 1984(2) Supreme Court Cases 369. Their
Lordship held order punitive in nature which in absence of
any proper enquiry amounted to violation of Article 311(2)
of the Constitution, hence the order is liable to be set aside
reinstated in service with full benefits. The case before
their Lordship relate to appointment of probationer as IPS
Officer. Delay was alleged on his part for P.T./unarmed
combat practice. The workman was engaged as casual
labour hardly worked for about 2 months 4 days, was not
holding any civil post therefore the ratio in above cited
case cannot be applied to the present case at hand.
In case of Bhagwan Singh Rawat versus State of MP
and others reported in 2003(4) M.P.H.T. 309, the allegation
against petitioner is of making demand of illegal
gratification. Removal from the post of Agriculture Member.
6190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It was held by his Lordship that until unless petitioner is
found guilty of demanding illegal gratification and charge
is established petitioner could not be fastened with the
penalty of removal.
As the workman is not holding any civil post neither
he is regular employee of the Railway, the ratio held in the
case cannot be applied to the present case at hand.
Reliance is placed on ratio held in case of Radha
Mohan Goswami and others versus State of Madhya
Pradesh and others reported in 2004(2) M.P.H.T. 49. His
Lordship considering the petitioners were appointed on
daily wage basis, the same persons were appointed on
daily wage. In compliance of these orders they joined their
posts. Suddenly order of regularization in favour of
employees cancelled on 10-6-2003. Against this
cancellation, his Lordship held right accrued to petitioners
when the order was passed on 3-6-2003. An administrative
order having adverse effect on accrued right of employee
without giving him opportunity of hearing is unsustainable.
Hence order dated 10-6-2003 cancelling order of
regularization dated 3-6-03 was quashed.
In present case, Ist party workman was never
regularized. The facts of above cited case are not
comparable. The facts of the above said case cannot be
beneficially applied to the case at hand.
12. Counsel for IInd party Shri Tripathi has produced
copy of Indian Railway Establishment.
Para 2001 Clause 1(b) provides that casual labours
are also engaged on Railways for execution of Railway
projects, such as new lines, doubling, conversion,
construction of buildings, track renewals, route relay
interlocking Railway electrification, Setting up of new units
etc. Casual Labour so engaged are referred to as project
Casual Labour. Such of those casual labour engaged on
open line (revenue) works, who continue to do the same
work for which they were engaged or other work of the
same type for more than 120 days without a break will be
treated as temporary on completion of 120 days continuous
employment."
However Para-2004 of the said manual provides that
notice is necessary under any statutory obligation, no
notice is required for termination of service of casual labour.
Condition in Exhibit M-1 shows that if the service
certificate produced by such gangman found false after
verification. The services are liable to be terminated without
notice. Ist party workman accepted the said appointment
order and joined the service therefore said condition No. 1
is binding on him. He cannot be permitted to claim contrary
to the said condition. That the copies of judgement in
several matter by Hon'ble CAT, Ahmedabad and Jabalpur
are produced on record but the judgement in R/191/91 by
CGIT, Jabalpur, the facts are not comparable and the
jurisdiction of CAT is wide whereas the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal is limited to decide the reference under I.D. Act.
Therefore the judgements delivered by CAT in different
cases are not binding.
13. Rule 3(1) of CCS Rules clearly provides that those
rules are not applicable to the Railway servant.
14. The legal position with respect to the jurisdiction,
powers of Central Administrative Tribunal together
provided in Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal's
Act, 1985 is clear that the casual labours acquiring
temporary status doesnot become a temporary Railway
Servant or a member of Railway Service Card holder under
Railway. Section 14(1)(A) is not attracted to the
consideration of the Tribunal.
15. Learned counsel for Ist party Mr. Shashi during
further course of argument submitted that Ist party workman
is covered under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. The establishment
of IInd party is covered as Industry under Section 2(j) of
the I.D. Act. That the dispute defined under Section 2(k)
covers difference between employees employer between
employers and workman etc. The appropriate Government
is Central Government, reference is made. The reference is
tenable. The services were terminated without notice or
giving opportunity of hearing. Therefore the termination
of service of Ist party workman is illegal. Chapter V-A of
I.D. Act dealing with retrenchment under Section 25-B of
I.D. Act provides continuous service within meaning of
clause (1) for a period of one year if the employee worked
for 240 days during preceding 12 calendar months. Ist party
workman has not completed 240 days continuous service
therefore he is not covered as workman under Section 25(B)
of I.D. Act. For said reason, Ist party workman is not entitled
to protection under Section 25-F clause (a), (b) of I.D. Act.
He is not entitled to notice prior to his termination or
retrenchment compensation provided under clause (b) of
Section 25-F. That when service certificate produced by
him is found false, no notice is required as per the condition
in Exhibit M-1. For above reasons, I record finding on Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
16. Point No. 2 — In view of my finding in Point No.
1 that the termination of services of Ist party workman is
legal, the workman is not entitled to any relief prayed by
him. Accordingly I record in my finding on point No. 2.
17. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Termination of Ist party workman Shri Y. Rambabu,
S/o Shri Sanyasi by IInd party management is legal.
(2) Reliefs prayed by Ist party workman Shri Y.
Rambabu is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6191
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2337-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 06@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30-9-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@108@06&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013
S.O. 2337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2007)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Guwahati now is shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Vijaya Bank and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 30.09.2013.
[No. L-12012/108/2006-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.
Present : Mr. L.C. DEY, M.A., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati
Ref. Case No. 06 of 2007
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—
The Management of Vijaya Bank, Regional Office,
Guwahati.
Versus
Their Workmen Shri Shyamal Kumar Lodh.
APPEARANCES
Management representatives :
Mr. D. Banerjee, Probationery Manager (Law)
Workmen representative :
None appeared
Date of Award: 20.09.2013
AWARD
1. This Reference case has been initiated, on an
Industrial Dispute existed between the employer in relation
to the Management of the Vijaya Bank and their workman
Sri Shyamal Kumar Lodh, which was referred to by the
Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India,
New Delhi vide their letter No. L-12012/108/2006-IR(B-II),
dated 28.05.2007 in respect of the matter specified in the
Schedule which is mentioned below:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Vijaya
Bank in dismissing Shri Shyamal Kumar Lodh from
service w.e.f. 30.08.1996 is legal and justified? If not,
what relief is Shri Lodh entitled to?”
2. After registration this Reference notices were
served upon the workman and the Management directing
them to exchange their copies of written statement and
document between them. Accordingly the Management
appeared and submitted their W.S. with a copy to the
workman. The workman appeared and submitted petition
u/s 36(3), 36(4) of the I.D. Act, 1947 with prayer for
restraining the Management from engaging legal
practitioner and the said petition was allowed bearing both
the sides. Thereafter the workman submitted a petition on
22.11.07 for staying of this proceeding stating that during
pendency, of the Misc. Case No. 6/95 before the Labour
Court, Assam, Dibrugarh, the Management Vijaya Bank
had dismissed the workman vide order dated 30.8.96. The
workman challenged the said order of dismissal dated
30.8.96 before the Labour Court u/s 33(A) of the I.D. Act,
1947 and accordingly the petition was allowed by the learned
Labour Court, Dibrugarh vide its order dt. 18.9.96 in Misc.
Case No. 9/97 staying the order of dismissal as aforesaid.
While the Management, during the pendency of the Misc.
Case No. 6/95 stopped payment of subsistence allowance
of the workman, and challenged the jurisdiction of the
Labour Court, Dibrugarh to pass the orders dated 18.5.95,
12.6.96, 12.7.95 and 17.10.96 before the Hon’ble High Court
by filing Writ Petitions and the Hon’ble High Court by a
common judgement passed the order dated 10.1.2007
holding that the learned Labour Court, Dibrugarh was
competent and has jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order.
While the Management challenged the aforesaid order
dated 10.1.2007 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ
Appeal Nos. 381/2001 and 11/2002, before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide SLP(C) No. 7850/2007 and SLP(C) 7851/
2007, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the
operation of the common judgement and the orders passed
by the Hon’ble High Court in the above mentioned Writ
Appeal; and hence the workman prayed to stay this
proceeding. My learned predecessor upon hearing both
the sides allowed the petition and passed order staying
further proceeding of this Reference. Subsequently, upon
filing a representation by the workman S.K. Lodh to the
Desk Officer, In-Charge, I.R.-B-II, Room No. 127, Shram
Shakti Bhawan, Ministry of Labour, Government of India,
New Delhi-1, for transferring this Reference to the Labour
Court, Dibrugarh, the Ministry of Labour and Employment
vide their letter No. L-12012/108/2006-IR(B-II) dated
11.10.2010 rejected the prayer of the workman holding that
6192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the judgment dated 6.7.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 4211 and
4212 of 2007 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
quoted by the workman in his representation is not
connected to the present Reference pending in the CGIT-
Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati. Subsequently my learned
predecessor vide his order dated 17.09.2010 vacated the
order of stay of the Reference reviewing the order passed
by this Tribunal on 22.07.2008. Thereafter notices were
served upon both the parties. Upon which the Management
appeared and submitted Addl. W.S. while the workman did
not appear and submitted a petition by Post praying for
stay of the proceeding which was rejected vide order dated
02.05.2011. Again notice was served upon the workman
directing him to submit his claim statement and to contest
the proceeding vide order dated 01.10.2012. On receipt of
the said notice the workman sent another representation
stating that he was not in a position to appear before this
Tribunal nor could engage any lawyer due to non
compliance of the order of the learned Labour Court,
Dibrugarh by the Management regarding payment of
subsistence allowance. In the mean time the Management
submitted a petition for hearing of the proceeding exparte
on the gound of causing delay by the workman.
Accordingly notice was issued upon the workman
forwarding a copy of the petition submitted by the
Management asking him to appear before this Court and to
show cause as to why the prayer for hearing the case exparte
should not be granted. The workman acknowledging the
receipt of the show cause notice requested for directing
the Management of send him the relevant copies of the
order dated 7.5.2012, 25.6.2012, 2.8.2012, 6.9.2012, 1.10.2012
and 12.11.2012 passed by this Tribunal. Finding no
provision to direct the Management to send the copies of
the aforesaid orders passed by this Tribunal the petition of
the workman was rejected and once again the workman
was given an opportunity to submit his reply/objection, if
any, on the prayer for exparte hearing, while the workman
submitted his objection petition by post but he did not
appear. On persual of the objection filed by the workman
and the petition submitted by the Management with prayer
for hearing the Reference ex-parte & after hearing the
Management the prayer of the Management for hearing
the reference ex-parte was allowed. Hence the case
proceeded ex-parte against the workman.
3. The case of the Management, in short, as it appears
from the Written Statement and the Additional W.S.
submitted by them is as follows:
The workman Shyamal Kumar Lodh joined Vijaya
Bank as Clerk on 26.07.1982. On 12.08.94 the workman while
discharging his duties in cash counter of Vijaya Bank,
Tinsukia Branch, accepted Rs. 18,400 at about 12.15 P.M.
from the customer named Md. Kurban Ali and subsequently
returned the same with shortage of Rs. 2,000 to the customer
stating that he would not receive the cash twice in a day to
the credit of his Savings Account No. 4342 maintaining at
the said Branch while the said customer came to the Senior
Manager, Mr. T. Nazir Ahmed and lodged a written
complaint. Then the Branch Manager sent the Assistant
Manager Mr. K. L. Sutradhar to the cash counter for enquiry.
Accordingly Mr. Sutradhar went to the cash counter while
the workman pushed out Mr. K.L. Sutradhar, Asstt. manager
from the cabin and locked the door from inside, while Mr.
Sutradhar went to the Branch Manager and submitted a
complaint against the workman. At about 1.13 P.M. during
transaction hour the workman without obtaining
permission of the Superior left the cash counter closing
the same and returned at about 1.30 P.M., when the Senior
Manager asked for explanation from the workman on the
allegation received from the customer Md. Kurban Ali and
Mr. K.L. Sutradhar, Asstt. Manager. But the workman did
not submit any reply to the said letter within 3 days i.e. the
stipulated period, then the Senior Manager, reported the
matter to Mr. Rabindra Bhandari, Senior Manager, Vijaya
Bank, Regional Office, Guwahati, who was entrusted by
the Regional Office, Vijaya Bank, Guwahati to enquire into
the matter. Accordingly Mr. Bhandari, Senior Manager
visted Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch on 16.08.94 and made
an enquiry. In course of his enquiry Mr. Bhandari asked
the workman to make his statement but the workan refused
to comply with the order of the Enquiry Officer while the
Enquiry Officer Mr. Bhandari issued a letter to the workman
to submit his statement. Then the workman, in reply,
submitted a letter before Mr. Bhandari stating that the
content of the letter issued by the Senior Manager of
Tinsukia Branch dated 13.08.94 differed and contradicted
with the letter given by the Enquiry Officer, with request
for furnishing the copy of the complaint of the customer,
report of the Asstt. Manager, and mentioned that he did
not commit any mistake on the alleged date of incident. Mr.
Bhandari submitted his report on 19.08.94. On receipt of
which the then DGM (RO), Vijaya Bank, Guwahati Mr. K.B.
Shetty placed the workman under suspension pending
initiation of Disciplinary Proceeding vide his order dated
24.8.94. Subsequently on 8.11.94 the Disciplinary Authority
issued a charge sheet against the workman framing 5
numbers of charges and the same was served to the
workman but the workman did not submit any reply to the
show cause as mentioned in the charge sheet thereafter
the Disciplinary Proceeding was started by the
Management appointing Ranjan Deb, the then Chief
Manager of Dimapur Branch as Enquiry Officer.
Thus the action of the workman in accepting the
cash amounting to Rs. 18,400 from the customer during
business hour and returning the same to the customer
stating that he (workman) would not receive the cash twice
in a day to credit of the customer’s Savings Bank Account
No. 4342 maintaining in the said Branch amounts to breach
of rule of Bank and hence constitute a minor misconduct
within the meaning of sub-clause (d) of Clause 19.5 of
Chapter-XIX of the Bipartite Settlement, 1966; retaining
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6193
the cash amounting to Rs. 18,400 with pay-in-slip and
returning the same to the account holder by the workman
after some time with less of Rs. 2000 is an act of gross
misconduct within the meaning of sub-clause (j) of Clause
19.5 of Chapter-XIX of the Bipartite Settlement 1966; and
the action of pushing Mr. K.L. Sutradhar, Asstt. Branch
Manager out of the cash cabin at about 12.35 P.M. on
12.08.94 by the workman in presence of customers and
displaying disorderly behaviour constitutes an act of gross
misconduct within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of Clause
19.5 of Chapter-XIX of the Bipartite Settlement. Further the
action of the workman in not replying Senior Branch
Manager’s letter dated 12.8.94 and not submitting his
written statement on the pretext that there exist difference
between the content of letter dated 12.08.94 issued by the
Sr. Branch Manager and the letter of Investigating Officer
dated 16.08.94 issued to him amounts to willful
insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable
orders of the official superiors, which constitutes an act of
gross misconduct within the meaning of sub-clause (e) of
Clause 19.5 of Chapter-XIX of the Bipartite Settlement,
1966; and the action of the workman in closing the cash
counter and leaving the branch premises at 1.13 P.M. i.e.
during the business hours on 12.08.1994 without prior
permission of the Senior Officer and returning to the Branch
at about 1.30 P.M. Constitutes an act of gross misconduct
within the meaning of sub-clause-(j) of Clause 19.5 of
Chapter-XIX of the Bipartite Settlement.
The workman choose not to submit his statement of
defence on the charge sheet framed against him even after
extending him all the reasonable opportunities for verifying
the documents/records at the Branches. Accordingly the
Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer and
the Presenting Officer to conduct the Enquiry into the
matter. The workman attended the enquiry on 19.6.95 and
denied the charges levelled against and sought for
adjournment on medical ground. Subsequently the
workman did not participate in the enquiry despite being
provided with ample opportunity to do so by way of
granting the adjournment to the workman. On completion
of enquiry. The enquiry Officer submitted his report dated
11.9.95 holding that all the charges levelled against the
workman are substantive and proved. The Disciplinary
Authority also after careful consideration of the enquiry
proceeding and the evidence placed on record accepted
the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to impose
the punishment of Dismissal from the service of the bank
alongwith other minor punishments with immediate effect
which was communicated to the workman and as per the
Bank’s Service Rule the workman was provided with an
opportunity to make his submission against the proposed
punishment. While the workman submitted his written
submission dated 8.5.96 and after careful consideration of
the reply of the workman along with the findings of the
Enquiry and other documents, the Disciplinary Authority
imposed the punishment of dismissal from the service of
the Bank with immediate effect vide order dated 30.8.1996.
In the mean time the workman approached the Labour
Court of Assam at Dibrugarh in Misc. Case 6/95 with prayer
to direct the Bank not to deduct more than 50% of the loan
installments from his subsistence allowance and to release
the excess deduction. While the Bank put forth a contention
that the State Labour Court of Assam is not having
jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the
workman. But the Labour Court, Dibrugarh passed an order
dated 19.8.95 holding that it has got jurisdiction to entertain
the said application. On being aggrieved by the order
passed by the Labour Court, the Management filed Writ
Petition No. 3735/95 before the Hon’ble High Court
challenging the legality and validity of the order as well as
the proceeding, and the said Writ Petition was allowed
holding that the Labour Court of Assam has got no
jurisdiction to try the subject matter. The workman, on the
other hand, challenged the said order by a Writ Petition
No. 9381/2001 which was dispose of by the Division Bench
of the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 10.1.07 holding
that the Labour Court of Assam, Dibrugarh is competent
and has got the jurisdiction to try the matter relating to
payment of subsistence allowance. The workman filed
another Misc. Case No. 9/97 before the Labour Court,
Assam with prayer for directing the Management to release
the arrear of subsistence allowance in favour of the
workman which was allowed by the Labour Court. Then
the Management preferred a Writ Petition No. 2771/97 which
was allowed by the High Court holding that the Labour
Court has got no jurisdiction to try the case. The workman,
on the other hand, challenged the said order of the Hon’ble
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 11/2002 before the Division
Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Guwahati and the said
Writ Appeal was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court by its
order dt. 10.1.07 holding that the Labour Court of Assam
has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter relating to
the payment of subsistence allowance. The Management
challenged the above orders dated 10.1.07 in Writ Appeal
No. 381/01 and 11/2002 by filing SLP(C) No. 7850 and 7851
of 2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was pleased to pass an interim order dated
7.5.2007 staying the operation of the order passed by the
Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court. The workman
also filed a Misc. Case No. 9/97 before the Labour Court,
Dibrugarh with prayer for staying the order dated 30.8.96
passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the
workman from the service and the learned Labour Court,
Assam passed an order dated 18.9.96 staying the order of
dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The said
order dt. 18.9.96 was challenged by the Management in
Writ Petition No. 4960/96 before the Hon’ble High Court,
and the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court allowed the same
granting liberty to the workman to seek remedy from the
competent Authority. Then the workman raised an Industrial
6194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dispute before the Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh
and on failure to settle the dispute, the A.L.C.(C), Dibrugarh
referred the matter before the appropriate Government
which, in their turn, referred the dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication.
It is pleaded by the Management that the workman
has raised the dispute after lapse of 9 years from the date
of imposition of punishment, without preferring a
departmental appeal against the order of the Disciplinary
Authority and without exercising the statutory remedy
available to him. Further plea of the Management is that
the Vijaya Bank is a Banking Company within the meaning
of Section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Section
2(bb) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for which the
Appropriate Government as per Section 2 (a) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the “Central Government”;
and as no Notification was issued by the Appropriate
Government empowering the State Labour Court, Assam
and hence the dispute raised by the workman before the
Labour Court, Dibrugarh has no jurisdiction to adjudicate.
Further contention of the Management is that the dismissal
of the workman from the service of the Bank resulted from
the bonafide disciplinary action initiated by the
Management of the Bank and hence, the employer-employee
relationship between the workman and the Management
has been ceased and workman’s demand for subsistence
allowance is devoid of any merit and justification and as
such, the allegation of the workman that he has been
illegally dismissed from service of the bank during the
pedency of the Misc. Case No. 6/96 is erroneous as the
Labour Court Assam, Dibrugarh has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the dispute and the same has been remained
inoperative due to the order of the stay passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 7.5.07 in SLP(C) 7850 and 7851
of 2007. The Management in their Addl. W.S. categorically
mentioned that the departmental enquiry against the
workman was conducted in confirmity with the prevailing
guidelines and in compliance with the principles of natural
justice by according sufficient opportunities to the workman
who after attending the domestic enquiry on 19.6.1995 did
not attend in the enquiry on the subsequent dates for the
reason best know to him, inspite of allowing opportunity
to the workman by adjourning the enquiry proceeding twice
on 26.5.95 and 10.7.95. Hence, the Management prayed to
decide the Reference against the workman as the dispute
is bad on account of inordinate delay, latches and is devoid
of any merit and justification.
4. In order to establish their averments raised in their
W.S./Addl. W.S., the Management examined their solitary
witness as MW.1 namely Mr. C.T. Nagaraj, the then Senior
Manager, Itanagar Branch of Vijaya Bank ex-parte. In his
evidence the Management Witness No. 1 stated that at
present he is retired Assistant General Manager, Vijaya
Bank and as per the authorization by Dy. General Manager-
PER (IRD), Head Office, Bangalore appeared before this
Tribunal for deposition, as he is well acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case and as he was the
Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman. He stated that the workman Shyamal
Kumar Lodh while working as Cashier at Vijaya Bank,
Tinsukia Branch refused to accept the cash amounting to
Rs. 18,400/- from the customer named Md. Kurban Ali who
offered the Bank to deposit the same against his Savings
Bank Account No. 4342, on the ground that the said
customer Kurban Ali had earlier deposited an amount of
Rs. 32,700/- to the Bank on the same day against his
aforesaid Savings Bank Account. The workman accepted
the amount at the first instance and returned the amount
with shortage of Rs. 2000/-. In the mean time the customer
Kurban Ali came to the then Senior Manager Mr. T. Nazir
Ahmed and lodged a written complaint alleging that on
that day i.e. on 12.8.94 at about 12 noon he had deposited
Rs. 32,700/- against his S.B. Account No. 4342 and again at
12.15 hours while he came to deposit another amount of
Rs. 18,400/- against the said S.B. Account, he handed over
the cash amount with proper details on pay-in-slip to the
workman who accepted the same amount and kept the same
money in his lower drawer and lateron the workman returned
the money with shortage of Rs. 2000/- saying that he could
not credit the money in the account of the customer Kurban
Ali for the second time. Then his brother requested the
cashier to accept the money but failed. When Kurban Ali
discovered shortage of 4 Nos. of Rs. 500/- denomination
the workman came out and checked the customer Kurban
Ali and his brother but found no money with them. Then
the customer Kurban Ali came to report the matter to the
Senior Branch Manager. In the mean time the workman
came out of his cabin and entered into the bath room after
sometime he returned when the Senior Branch Manager
sent the second Manager to the counter of the workman
for enquiry. Then the second Manager came and wanted
to ask the workman while the workman pushed him out of
the cabin and locked the door from inside and this incident
was witnessed by the customers. Thereafter the second
Manager and the customer Kurban Ali went to the Manager
and explained the incident. The MW.1 has proved his
authorization vide Exhibit-1, Identity vide Exhibit-1(1) and
the complaint submitted by the customer Kurban Ali vide
Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-2(1) which is the translated version of
the complaint. The Asstt. Manager Mr. K.L. Sutradhar also
submitted a written complaint vide Exhibit-3 before the
Senior Manager alleging that as per the direction of the
Senior Manager while he attempted to enter into the cash
counter the workman resisted him and pushed him out of
his chamber showing his anger and temper. Thereafter the
Senior Manager asked for explanation from the workman
on the complaint received from the customer Kurban Ali
and Mr. K.L. Sutradhar, the Asstt. Branch Manager, vide
Exhibit-4. But the workman did not submit any reply to the
said letter within the stipulated period of 3 days while the
Senior Manager reported the matter to the Regional Office,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6195
Vijaya Bank, Guwahati. Accordingly Mr. R. Bhandari, Senior
Manager, Regional Office was deputed to enquire into the
matter. Mr. Bhandari visited the Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia
Branch on 16.8.94 and made an enquiry and on completion
of enquiry submitted his report on 19.8.94 vide Exhibit-5. In
course of enquiry on asking the workman refused the
Enquiry Officer Mr. Bhandari to make his statement and to
comply with the order of the Enquiry Officer, while the
Enquiry Officer issued a letter asking the workman to submit
his statement. Then the workman in reply submitted a letter
before the Enquiry Officer Mr. Bhandari stating that the
content of the letter issued by the Senior Manager of
Tinsukia Branch dated 13.8.94 (Exhibit-17) differed and
contradicted with the letter given by the Enquiry Officer,
and requested the Enquiry Officer for furnishing the copies
of the complaints filed by the customer and the Asstt.
Manager vide Exhibit-6. The Enquiry Officer submitted his
report before the then Dy. General Manager, Regional Office,
Guwahati Mr. K.B. Shetty, who on receipt of the enquiry
report marked as Exhibit-5 placed the workman under
suspension pending initiation disciplinary proceeding vide
his order dated 24.8.94 (Exhibit-7). Subsequently the
Disciplinary Authority issued charge sheet on 8.11.94
against the workman vide Exhibit-8 framing 5 numbers of
charges and the same was served to the workman but the
workman did not submit any reply to the show cause as
mentioned in the charge sheet. Thereafter the Disciplinary
proceeding was initiated by appointing Ranjan Deb, the
then Chief Manager, Dimapur Branch as Enquiry Officer
vide Exhibit-9 and Presenting Officer Mr. C.T. Nagaraj,
(MW.1) vide Exhibit-10. Accordingly the enquiry was
started. The witness concerned has proved the letter dated
12.8.94 submitted by the then Asstt. Manager namely N.S.
Kuntoji, G.C. Biswas and H. Suresh Chandra Hegde, L.R.P.
Mawiwa, Probationary Officer vide Exhibit-13. Wherein the
above mentioned persons jointly made the statement about
the incident took place on 12.8.94. He has proved the letter
dated 12.8.94 issued by the then Arm Guard of Vujaya Bank
namely Upen Saikia vide Exhibit-14, and the explanation
asked for from the workman by the Senior Branch Manager
vide Exhibit-15. M.W.1 also proved the documents viz. the
letter dt. 16.8.94 issued by the Investigating Officer Mr. R.
Bhandari asking the workman to submit the written
statement vide Exhibit-17; extract of the Attendance Register
for the month of August, 1994 in respect of the Vijaya Bank,
Tinsukia Branch vide Exhibit-19; the statement of Account
in respect of the customer Kurban Ali for the period from
6th July, 1994 to 13.8.94 in respect of his S.B. Account No.
4342 vide Exhibit-20; an extract from the movement register
of the staff of Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch, pertaining to
the period with effect from 1.8.94 to 16.8.94 marked as Exhibit-
21; the saving Bank pay-in-slip in respect of S.B. Account
No. 4342 of Md. Kurban Ali vide Exhibit-23; and Exhibit-24,
Exhibit-24(1), 24(2), 24(3), 24(4), 24(5), 24(6), 24(7), 24(8) the
statements of Upendra Chandra Saikia, L.R.P. Maiwa, Prabir
Karmakar, H.P. Mazumder, Md. Ahshan Ali, Subrata Dutta,
G.C. Biswas, H.S.C. Hegde, N.K.S. Kuntoji respectively. The
Management witness No. 1 has again proved the
proceeding of the enquiry held on 19th and 20th June, 1995
and on 10.7.95 against the workman vide Exhibit-25 vide
Exhibit-26 and Exhibit-27. He has also proved the letter
dated 19.7.1994 submitted by the Assistant Manager, Vijaya
Bank, Tinsukia Branch, to the Branch Manager informing
the incident regarding putting of signature in the
Attendance Register by the workman. He further proved
the letter No. OR: TNA: 94 dated 7.7.1994 issued by the
Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch
addressing the Assistant General Manager, Guwahati
narrating the insubordination of the workman; the office
note regarding punctuality, discipline and movement policy
in respect of the Officer and Staff of Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia
Branch issued by the Senior Branch Manager which was
circulated to all the Officer and staff of the Branch wherein
the workman did not sign unless he was supplied with a
copy of the same vide Exhibit-30; the letter dated 8.7.1994
issued by the then Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank,
Tinsukia Branch address to Sri S.K. Lodh regarding his
disobedience, unpunctual and irregular attendance and
unauthorized absence from the duties which is marked as
Exhibit-31; the letters dated 9.7.1994 and 11.7.1994 issued
by the then Senior Branch Manager to the Assistant General
Manager, Regional Office, Guwahati regarding misconduct,
disobedience, non-completion of allotted work, unpunctual
and irregular attendance, unauthorized absence from duties
vide Exhibit-33 and Exhibit-34 respectively; the letters
written by the workman addressing the Branch Manager,
Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch at different time vide Exhibit-
35, Exhibits-35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5) and 35(6)
respectively. The M.W. 1 has proved the letter dated 13.7.94
written by Sri D. Bhattacharjee, Clerk, Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia
Branch narrating the episode took place on 13.7.94 at 10
A.M. in the office of the Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch
while he went to put his signature on the Attendance
Register at that time the workman asked the Manager to
supply the Attendance Register to his (workman) table so
that he could put his signature thereon, vide Exhibit-36;
the letter dated 13.7.94 addressed to the workman informing
about his unpunctuality and indiscipline in due discharge
of his duty vide Exhibit-37; the letter dated 19.7.94 issued
by the Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia
Branch asking the workman to produce any unqualified
medical certificate and also pointing out the fact that the
workman put his signature on the Attendance Register on
19.7.94 by force ignoring the direction; the proceedings of
enquiry conducted on 12.7.95 against the workman vide
Exhibit-39; the letter dated 12.7.95 written by the MW. 1
himself as Presenting Officer forwarding all the documents
related to the enquiry proceeding, which were issued to
the workman by Registered Post with A/D vide Exhibit-40
and Exhibit-40(1) the A/D which were returned after service;
the letter issued by the Enquiry Officer Mr. R. Deb to the
workman forwarding the proceeding of exparte proceeding
6196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and asked him to submit his written brief, if any, within 30
days giving him an opportunity vide Exhibit-41; the written
brief on the departmental enquiry held against the workman
prepared by the M.W. 1 himself vide Exhibit-42 which was
forwarded to the workman vide Exhibit-43 whereupon
Exhibit-43(1) is his signature.
The M.W. 1 further stated that the final report (Exhibit-
44) on the enquiry held by Mr. R. Deb, Enquiry Officer and
the findings on the enquiry proceeding was forwarded to
the workman vide Exhibit-41 & 43, upon which the workman
submitted letter dated 24.2.95 before the Disciplinary
Authority denying all the charges and prayed for granting
subsistence allowance vide Exhibit-45. Then the
Disciplinary Authority proposed punishment against the
workman vide Exhibit-46 and on receipt of the said letter
(Exhibit-46) the workman submitted a petition dated 4.4.96
with prayer for allowing him 45 days time to file his reply/
objection in details and also supplying a copy of the official
notification about the Bank nomination to the Office of the
Disciplinary Authority to enable him to submit his reply/
objection vide Exhibit-47. Then the Disciplinary Authority
vide letter No. ZOC:DAC:PKK: 10410:96 dated 12.4.96
rejecting the prayer for time for 45 days directed the
workman to submit his representation within 10 days vide
Exhibit-48, while the workman submitted his representation
vide Exhibit-49. Thereafter Sri B. Dernna Rai, Deputy General
Manager, Disciplinary Authority, Vijaya Bank, Zonal Office,
Kolkata prepared a final proceeding in the matter of
Disciplinary proceeding against the workman including the
details and final report of the proceeding against the
workman together with the final order imposing of
punishment vide Exhibit-50 (in 35 pages).
5. On careful scrutiny of the pleading as well as the
evidence adduced by the Management of Vijaya Bank,
along with the documents it appears that the workman S.K.
Lodh was working as Cashier at Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia
Branch and on 30.8.96 he was dismissed by the Management
of Vijaya Bank after holding a departmental enquiry and
finding the following charges proved against the workman:
(a) on 12.8.94 at about 12-15 P.M. the workman
accepting the cash amount of Rs. 18,400/- from
the customer namely Md. Kurban Ali but
returned the same to the customer stating that
he would not receive the cash twice in a day to
the credit of the S.B. Account of Customer
Kurban Ali, which amount to breach of rule of
business of the Bank and hence constitutes
minor misconduct within the meaning of sub-
clause (d) of Clause 19-7 of Chapter XIX of the
Bipartite Settlement, 1966.
(b) The workman accepting the cash amounting to
Rs. 18,400/- along with the savings bank pay-in-
slip dated 12.8.94 from the customer Md. Kurban
Ali on 12.8.94 and retaining the same amount in
the cash counter for a while and subsequently
returned the amount to the customer with
shortage of 4 currency notes of Rs. 500/-
denomination i.e. total of Rs. 2,000/- tantamount
to exhibiting lack of integrity thereby tarnishing
the image of the bank.
(c) The workman pushed out of the cash cabin Mr.
K.L. Sutradhar, Assistant Branch Manager of
Tinsukia Branch at about 12-35 PM on 12.8.94 in
presence of the customers of the bank, with
warning not to enter his cash cabin without
permission which amounts to displaying
disorderly behaviour in the premises of the bank
and belittling the personality of the Asstt. Branch
Manager and hence, constitute a gross
misconduct.
(d) The workman did not reply to the Senior
Manager’s letter dated 12.8.94 nor did he submit
his written statement to the Investigating Officer
during the period of investigation into the
incident took place at the Tinsukia Branch with
regard to the allegations made against the
workman, on the pretext that there exist some
difference in the contents of the letter No.
OR:TNA:LD:No. 795:94 dated 12.08.94 of the
Investigating Officer issued to the workman,
which amounts to willful insubordination and
disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders
of the official superior, constitutes a gross
misconduct and,
(e) The action of the workman is closing the cash
counter leaving the Branch premises on 1-13
P.M. i.e. during the business hours on 12.8.94
without taking prior permission of the Senior
Branch Manager, Asstt. Manager of the Branch
and returning to the Branch at about 1-30 P.M.,
amounts to dereliction of duty, which is
prejudicial to the interest of the bank and hence,
constitutes a gross misconduct.
6. The vital and material point before this Tribunal is
to determine whether the Management has committed any
illegality, irregularity and violated the principles of Natural
Justice in holding the enquiry proceeding as well as in
imposing punishment of dismissal against the workman.
From the record of Enquiry Proceeding (Exhibit-11,
Exhibit-25, Exhibit-26, Exhibit-27, and Exhibit-39) it appears
that Md. Kurban Ali, the holder of Savings Bank A/c No.
4342 of Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch submitted a complaint
vide Exhibit-2(1) before the Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank,
Tinsukia Branch on 12.8.94 alleging that on that day at
about 12 noon he had credited Rs. 32.700/- to his S.B.
Account No. 4342 and again at 12-15 P.M. when he came to
the Bank to credit Rs. 18,400/- to his account he handed
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6197
over the cash with proper details of notes on a pay-in-slip
to the cashier who has taken the amount and kept the same
in his counter; and lateron the said cashier returned the
money with shortage of Rs. 2000 (Rs. 500 denomination)
saying that he could not credit the money in the same
account second time and on asking about the shortage of
Rs. 2000 by Md. Kurban Ali the workman came out of his
counter and checked him along with his brother but they
did not have any money with them which was missing.
Then he went to report the matter to the Manager and by
that time the Cashier had already came out of his cabin and
went to the bath room. On return of the cashier from the
bath room the Manager sent the Second Manager to the
cashier counter for enquiry and then Mr. K.L. Sutradhar,
Asstt. Manager went to cash counter and wanted to ask
the cashier while the cashier pushed out the Second
Manager from his cabin and locked up the door from inside
thereafter the customer along with his brother and the
Assistant Manager went to the Sr. Branch Manager and
explained the incident took place with them as well as with
the Second Manager. He submitted written complaint. The
Assistant Manager Mr. K.L. Sutradhar also submitted
complaints before the Senior Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank,
Tinsukia Branch on 12.8.94 alleging that as per the
instruction of the Senior Manager he went to enquiry about
the happenings in the cash counter of the workman with
the customer Kurban Ali and to check the cash i.e. cash
shortage and refused to receive cash twice in a day, while
the workman raised from his seat and angrily pushed the
Assistant Manager out of the cash cabin in front of the
customer standing in the counter and warned him not to
come again in the cash cabin without his prior permission
for which he ashamed and felt insulted and insecured vide
Exhibit-3. Thereafter the Senior Branch Manager, issued
notice asking the workman for explanation within three
days from the date of issue of this letter vide Exhibit-4 but
the workman did not submit any reply to the said notice
after expiry of the stipulated period. Then the Senior
Manager referred the matter to the Regional Office, Vijaya
Bank, Guwahati which entrusted Mr. R. Bhandari, Senior
Manager to investigate the matter and accordingly Mr.
Bhandari went to Tinsukia Branch and started enquiry. In
course of his enquiry, the workman was asked to submit
his statement but he refused to do so while Mr. Bhandari
issued a letter asking the workman to submit his written
statement vide Exhibit-17. The workman in turn wrote letter
to Mr. Bhandari, Senior Manager with request to supply
him with the copies of complaint letter submitted by Md.
Kurban Ali and the report of Mr. K.L. Sutradhar, Assistant
Branch Manager. On completion of enquiry Mr. R. Bhandari
submitted his report on 19.8.94 vide Exhibit-5. On receipt of
report submitted by Mr. R. Bhandari the Disciplinary
Authority vide their letter dated 24.8.94 placed the workman
under suspension vide Exhibit-7 with immediate effect and
initiated the enquiry proceeding. Accordingly charge sheet
was framed against the workman vide Exhibit-8 and Mr. R.
Deb, Chief Manager, Vijaya Bank, Dimapur Branch and Mr.
C.T. Nagraj, Manager, Vijaya Bank, New Itanagar Branch
as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively vide
Exhibit-9 and Exhibit-10. The charge framed against the
workman was supplied the workman but the workman did
not submit any reply to show cause as mentioned in the
charge sheet. In course of enquiry proceeding the
Presenting Officer Mr. C.T. Nagraj forwarded all the relevant
documents to the workman vide Exhibit-40 which was
received by the workman vide Exhibit-40(1). On completion
of enquiry ex-parte, the Enquiry Officer forwarded the
enquiry proceeding vide Exhibit-11 and Exhibit-26 held on
10.7.95, 11.7.95 and 12.7.95 at Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch
to the workman by Registered Post, asking the workman to
submit his written brief, if any within 30 days from the date
of issue of the letter dated 12.7.95 (Exhibit-41). The
Presenting Officer also forwarded his written brief regarding
the departmental enquiry to the workman vide Exhibit-43.
But the workman did not submit any written brief/comment
on the enquiry. After perusing the entire proceeding along
with the statements of the witnesses recorded at the time
of enquiry proceeding and the documents produced by
the Presenting Officer, Enquiry Officer submitted the
enquiry report and the findings vide Exhibit-44.
7. On careful consideration of the enquiry proceeding
along with its findings vide Exhibit-44 (in 6 pages) it is
found that the proceeding of the departmental enquiry was
started on 19.6.95 and on that day the workman was present
and faced the enquiry which was adjourned till 20.6.95. But
due to absence of the workman on 20.6.95 the enquiry
proceeding was again adjourned till 10.7.95 and notice was
also issued upon the workman but he did not attend the
enquiry on 10.7.95. Hence the Enquiry Officer proceeded
with the enquiry in absence of the workman and recorded
the statements of Management witnesses namely
(1) Mr. Rabindra Bhandari who hold the preliminary enquiry,
(2) Mr. Hari Prasanna Mazumder, Clerk working at Tinsukia
Branch, Vijaya Bank; (3) Subrta Dutta, Clerk of Tinsukia
Branch; (4) Mr. Upen Chandra Saikia, Armed Guard, who
was working at the Tinsukia Branch at the relevant time;
(5) Md. Kurban Ali, the account holder of Saving Bank
Account No. 4342 of Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch;
(6) Mr. K.L. Sutradhar, the then Assistant Branch Manager,
Tinsukia Branch of the Management Bank, (7) Mr. Suresh
Chandra Hegde, Assistant Manager, Tinsukia Branch, (8)
Mr. G.C. Biswas, Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia
Branch; (9) Mr. T. Nazir Ahmed, Senior Branch Manager,
Vijaya Bank. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses
as aforesaid it appears that the witness No. 5, Kurban Ali
and Witness No. 6, Mr. K.L. Sutradhar, the then Assistant
Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia Branch, who lodged
the written complaint against the workman Sri S.K. Lodh
regarding the incident took place on 12.8.94 vide Exhibit-2/
2(1) and Exhibit-3 respectively before the Senior Branch
Manager; had categorically narrated the details of the
6198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
incident corroborating their earlier statements made in the
written complaint as well as the statements made before
the Investigating Officer, Mr. R. Bhandari, in course of
preliminary enquiry. The witness No. 1, Mr. R. Bhandari
has also proved the contents of his report on preliminary
investigation, in course of making his statement before the
Enquiry Officer. The witness No. 3, Sri Subrata Dutta, clerk
also supported the contents of the complaint raised by the
account holder Kurban Ali. The Management witness No.
4, Sri Upendra Chandra Saikia, Armed Guard, cagtegorically
narrated the story before the Enquiry Officer stating that at
the time of occurrence he was present at the gate of the
Bank and on hearing altercation between the workman S.K.
Lodh and the customer he came to the spot while the
customer complained that he handed over to the workman
an amount of Rs. 18,400 to deposit the same in their account
and after some time the workman returned the money with
a short of 4 numbers of notes of Rs. 500 denomination, and
on quarry by customer the workman came out of his cabin
and searched the pockets and bags of the customer and
found nothing. Then he advised the customer to meet the
Senior Branch Manager. The witness No. 7 Mr. H. Suresh
Chandra Hegde, Asstt. Manager, Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia
Branch in course of the enquiry stated that on the fateful
day while he was discharging his duties in the Branch he
witnessed the discussion between the workman and one
customer outside the cash counter in presence of the Armed
Guard, Sri Saikia, then he called Saikia who reported him
the customer was complaining that there was a shortage
on some cash amount. In the mean time the customer went
to the Senior Branch Manager’s cabin while the Senior
Branch Manager instructed Mr. Sutradhar to find out the
fact while Mr. Sutradhar entered inside the cash counter
and immediately came out with a very dull face and on
asking, Mr. Sutradhar told Mr. H.S.C. Hegde that when
Mr. Sutradhar entered into the cash cabin to find out the
shortage as alleged by the customer he was pushed out of
the cash cabin by the workman. Mr. Sutradhar also said to
Mr. Hegde that the workman would shows his political
affiliation threatening that he can do anything in Tinsukia,
and spoke in a humiliating manner on the reserve
community stating that he was not serving under them,
and the workman imposed upon his seniority to officers
belonging to reserved community resulting in
fearpsychososis amongst the officers. The witness No. 8,
Sri G.C. Biswas, Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank, Tinsukia
Branch, as eye witness to the incident said that he noticed
some discussion took place between the workman and
Kurban Ali and his man in front of the Armed Guard, Mr.
U.C. Saikia who reported that there was discrepancy of Rs.
2000 from the amount which deposited by the customer to
the cash counter. At that time he noticed that Mr. K.L.
Sutradhar, Assistant Branch Manager went to the cash
cabin of the workman while he also went there and at that
time the workman pushed out Mr. K.L. Sutradhar out of the
cabin. He also added that the action of the workman on
Mr. K.L. Sutradhar was much humiliating and insulting.
The witness No. 9, Sri. T.N. Ahmed, Senior Branch
Manager made his details statement before the Enquiry
Officer regarding the incident took place on 12.8.94 at about
12-30 P.M. while the customer Kurban Ali went to him and
complained that the workman after accepting the cash
amount returned the money after a while, saying that the
customer had already remitted once during the day and
after receiving the amount the customer found shortage of
Rs. 2000 of Rs. 500 rupee denomination note. While he
entrusted Mr. K.L. Sutradhar, the then Assistant Branch
Manager to make necessary enquiry about the complaint
of the customer Kurban Ali and to verify the cash with
document and after sometime Mr. Sutradhar returned with
pale and fearing in his face and reported that the workman
had pushed him outside the cash cabin and warned him
not to enter into the cash cabin in future. Then Mr. K.L.
Sutradhar submitted complaint before the Senior Branch
Manager. He also mentioned that the customer also felt
insulted for physical search of his pocket and belongings
by the workman and the shortfall of Rs. 2000 meanwhile
the workman was seen going out of the Branch premises at
about 1-13 P.M. without his permission. The workman
entered the Movement Register and left office at about
1-30 P.M. he returned but failed to make any entry in the
Movement Register as per the procedure being followed at
the Branch. He said that the workman left the Bank without
any authority and without obtaining prior permission and
the Assistant Branch Manager, K.L.Sutradhar was
apprehensive of physical harassment and sought for
protection. He also said that he issued letter to the workman
on 12.8.94 calling for explanation on the incident but the
workman did not submit any reply. Thereafter he reported
the matter to the Regional Office, Guwahati who deputed
Mr. R. Bhandari, Senior Manager, Regional Office,
Guwahati to conduct investigation on the incident. Mr. T.
Nazir Ahmed also mentioned that he had been noticing
that the workman was disobeying the orders of superior,
not completing the day to day work allotted to him, loitering
the Branch premises during the office hour very much rude
and arrogant in his behavior and no improvement was there
in the workman inspite of repeated advice given by him.
The said witness also narrated some incident took place in
the month of July, 1994 when there was shortage of staff he
asked the workman to attend the clearing department which
the workman refused; and in the month of July, 1994 he
issued letter to the workman in this regard. Mr. Ahmed
further said that another incident took place regarding
signing on the Attendance Register forcibly by the workman
and snatching it from the custody of the Assistant Branch
Manager ignoring his advice; the workman also refused to
sign on the Office Notification issued by Mr. Ahmed. Mr.
Ahmed added that prior to the incident the general behavior
of the workman was not satisfactory. He has proved as
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6199
many as 12 numbers of documents in course of the enquiry
proceeding regarding his letter/notice issued by him to the
workman and others. Thus it is clear that in course of the
proceeding of the enquiry the witnesses have fully proved
all the allegations raised in the charges framed against the
workman by the Management.
On completion of enquiry the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report. It is also found on record that the
Presenting Officer submitted his written brief (Exhibit-42)
in the departmental enquiry to the workman vide Exhibit-
43. The Enquiry proceeding was also forwarded by the
Enquiry Officer to the workman. The entire proceeding of
the enquiry along with relevant documents were forwarded
to the workman vide Exhibit-40 and Exhibit-41 which was
received as it appear from the A/D card marked as Exhibit-
40(1). The workman submitted a letter dated 24.2.95 to the
Disciplinary Authority denying all the charges and prayed
for granting subsistence allowance vide Exhibit-45 while
the Disciplinary Authority after examining the enquiry
proceeding and the findings of the Enquiry Officer proposed
punishment against the workman vide Exhibit-46 which
was forwarded to the workman who, in turn, submitted
another petition dated 4.4.1996 with prayer for allowing
him at least 45 days time for submission of his reply but the
Disciplinary Authority rejected the prayer of the workman
and with direction to submit his representation within 10
days vide Exhibit-48. On receipt of the reply submitted by
the workman vide Exhibit-49, the Disciplinary Authority
rejected the reply/representation of the workman and
preparing the final proceeding on the enquiry came to a
conclusion that all the charges framed against the workman
have been proved and accordingly punishment was
imposed against the workman vide Exhibit-50 (35 pages).
Accordingly the workman was dismissed from the service
of the Bank with effect from 30.8.1996 along with other
minor punishment.
8. From my above discussion it is found that the
workman was allowed sufficient opportunities to defend
himself in the Departmental Proceeding but inspite of having
knowledge & getting opportunities the workman has
willfully abstained from appearing before the Enquiry
Authority. The workman was also supplied with the entire
proceeding along with the findings of the Enquiry Officer
and the brief of the enquiry submitted by the Presenting
Officer and he was given sufficient opportunities to
represent himself as to the punishment proposed to be
imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. It is also
found that the charges framed against him on the allegation
raised against the workman regarding the incident took
place on 12.8.1994 found to be well established. Beside
some other allegations were also raised on the misconduct,
unpunctuality, disobedience and some acts against the
decorum and discipline as well as the dignity of the employer
institution was also found well established. Thus it is crystal
clear that there is no irregularity, illegality and violation of
Natural Justice done by the Management of Vijaya Bank in
holding the Disciplinary Proceeding against the workman
as well in imposing punishment of dismissal from the service
of the Bank against the workman is found. In this regard I
am inclined to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd.-vs—Pt. Ram Sarup,
wherein it was held “If full and free opportunity was given
to the respondents to present themselves at the enquiry
and defend themselves it could not be said that the enquiry
was anything but fair; no principles of natural justice were
violated and the management was at liberty to come to its
own conclusions in regard to the culpability of the
respondents and also to determine what punishment
should be meted out to the respondents for the misconduct
and insubordination proved against them.”
In Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman
and Nicobar Island—vs—Munnu Barrick and Ors. reported
in (2005) 2 SCC 237, wherein it was held that “the principles
of natural justice can not be put in a strait-jacket formula; it
must be viewed with flexibility; in a given case, where a
deviation takes place as regard compliance of the principles
of natural justice, the Court may insist upon proof of
prejudice before setting aside the order impugned before
it. ...................................... Concept of natural justice has
undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of
natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in
a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied
from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute.
What particular rule of natural justice should be implied
and what its context should be in a given case must depend
to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case,
the frame-work of the statute under which the enquiry is
held.”
In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur-vs—Nemi Chand
Nalwaya, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1931, wherein it was
decided that the “Courts can interfere with the finding in
disciplinary matters, where principles of natural justice or
statutory regulations have been violated or if order found
arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous
consideration; and loss of confidence in employee,
constitutes relevant factor in considering whether
punishment of termination from service imposed on Bank
employee was shockingly excessive or disproportionate
to the gravity of proved misconduct; and the Court shall
not act as an Appellate Court and reassess evidence led in
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on ground that another view
is possible on material on record.
9. In the present reference the Management Bank on
receipt of the complaint observing all the formalities initiated
the departmental proceeding against the workman and the
workman was allowed sufficient opportunities to take part
in the enquiry proceeding but he willfully restrained himself
from defending him, and hence the proceeding was held
ex-parte and finally the charges framed against the workman
6200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
were proved. There is also nothing to show that the enquiry
was held and concluded and the finding arrived at in
violation of principles of law and natural justice. Further
the act of the workman has affected the dignity and
reputation of the Bank and in derogation of the order and
discipline of the employer which constitute gross
misconduct on the part of the workman.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and having regard to the discussion and my findings
as above and having regard to the ratio of the cases of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, it can safely
be held that there is no illegality, irregularity and violation
of natural justice in holding departmental enquiry as well
as arriving at the findings of the enquiry and the imposition
of the punishment of dismissal from service of the workman
Sri Shyamal Kumar Lodh by the Management of Vijaya
Bank. As such, I find no scope to interfere with the
punishment imposed by the management.
11. In the result, this Reference is answered ex-parte
in negative against the workman. As such, the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
Send the Award to the Government as per procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
20th day of September, 2013 at Guwahati.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2338-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cWSad vkWQ
cM+kSnk ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xqogkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2009½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@76@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013
S.O. 2338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2009)
of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 30/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/76/2008-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present : SHRI L.C. DEY, M.A.,LLB.,
Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:
The Management of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,
Bhangagarh, Guwahati.
Versus
Their Workman Sri Rajani Kalita, Canteen Boy.
Ref. Case No. 02 of 2009.
APPEARANCES
For the Management :
Mr. N. Goswami, Advocate.
Mr. B. Goswami, Advocate.
For the Workman
:
Mr. A. Sarmah, Advocate.
Date of Award : 30.08.2013
AWARD
1. This Reference Case has been initiated on an
Industrial dispute raised between the Management of Bank
of Boroda, Regional Office, G.S. Road, Bhangagarh,
Guwahati, Assam and its workman Sri Rajani Kalita Canteen
Boy, which was referred by the Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Government of India, vide their Order No. L-
12012/76/2008-IR (B-II); Dated: 06/02/2009. The Schedule
of the Reference is as under:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of management of Bank of
Boroda in terminating the services of Shri Rajani
Kalita, Canteen boy instead of regularizing him is
legal and justified? To what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
2. The case of the workman, in short, as it appears
from his claim statement, is that the workman Rajani Kalita
was engaged by the Management of Bank of Boroda as
Canteen Boy from September, 1987 and the canteen was
run by the Management through a Committee where
representative of the Management and the employees were
there and the Management supplied cooking utensils,
chairs and tables, eating dishes, gas and remuneration to
the cooks. The workman appeared in the interview
conducted by the Management in July, 1987 for selection
to the post of Grade-IV employees but he was not appointed
against Grade-IV Post but as a Casual in the Canteen and
he was initially paid a daily wage of Rs. 25 with successive
rise up to Rs. 35, Rs. 40 and lastly in 1995 to Rs. 50 and
thereafter his engagement was discontinued. His condition
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6201
of service was that he did not get weekly off wages, medical
leve while the other two casuals in the canteen were given
weekly off wages, annual bonus, etc. In the year 2001 the
workman suffered in an accident while going to the house
of the cashier on official duties, he was laid off for 4 months
without any wages nor the cost of medical treatment as
allowed to him. Subsequently, on 28.4.2008 the workman
was told not to do any work in the Canteen as the Canteen
was closed. Thus it was a case of refusal to employ and
therefore refreshment within the meaning of Section 2(00)/
25F, of Industrial Dispute Act. The Management did neither
issued the notice nor paid notice wages and also no
compensation. Hence, the Management applying the hire
and fire, the workman was disengaged in violation of law.
Thus the workman prays for relief of reinstatement with
full back wages.
3. The Management, on the other hand submitted
written objection stating inter-alia, that the Central
Government has made this Reference assuming certain facts
which did not exist as the order of Reference shows that
the order of Reference the Government has decided the
employer-employee relationship existing and there was a
termination but it is factually incorrect. Hence, the
Reference has been made mechanically without any
application of mind and without considering the relevent
materials. As such, the order of Reference is bad in law as
well as void abinitio and has no legs in the eye of law. The
claimant has not been appointed by the Bank therefore
question of termination does not arise. The Management
mentioned that the workman has not come with clean had
and suppressed the relevant and material fact; and the
employment of the claimant as well as the alleged
termination were not admitted and highly disputed
question and this disputed question could not been decided
by the Central Government in terms of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Irrigation Karmachari
Sangh reported in AIR 1985, SC 960. The Management
further pleaded that the reference shows that the Central
Government usurped the authority by deciding that material
fact this again without jurisdiction and hence, the Reference
is totally misconceived. The Management without prejudice
to the above mentioned preliminary objection submitted
their replies against the claim statement submitted by the
workman which are as follow:—
1. That the application of the workman is not based
on truth and as such the same is liable to be rejected. The
Management save and except what are specifically,
admitted, all other statements made by the workman denied
stating that the Management did never engage the workman
in its Canteen as Canteen Boy from 1987 and the Bank has
no obligation to run a canteen or to provide canteen
facilities to its staff members. However, the facility of
providing tea, snacks etc. to other members was in existence
at certain Branches for which utensils are to be provided
by the Bank, such canteen used to be managed by the
Committee of staff members working at the respective
branch and the canteen and canteen boy system wherever
it existed have been stopped/discontinued in terms of
Tripartite settlement dated 20.02.2008. The Management
further stated that there is no record of the Management in
any of the Branch calling Sri Kalita the workman for
interview, and hence, the question of appointing the
workman does not arise as he was not called for interview
at any point of time. The workman used to supply water,
etc. for Guwahati (M) Branch of the Bank during the period
of 15.05.1995 to 10.05.2001 intermittently as and when
required for which he was paid contractual amount in cash,
and he was never officially engaged by A.T. Road Branch
as such, his name does not appear in the salary register. On
casual occasion as per contingencies and needs of the
Branch Sri Kalita has worked in the Canteen of A.T. Road
Branch on ad hoc basic for odd Jobs, such as, carrying,
supplying water, etc. and payment was made to him through
pay cash vouchers according to the job done and as he
was not an employee of the Bank extension of benefits to
him does not arise. The Management also denied the
Statements of the workman that he met an accident in the
year 2001 while he was going to the house of the Cashier
on official duty.
The Management averred that when a person is
engaged on daily wage, the contract of engagement service
begins in the morning and comes to an automatic end at
the end of the day an such engagement did not get any
employer employee relationship, such disengagement of
the claimant can not be termed as retrenchement within the
meaning of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act. The
Management said that the Bank is having definite rule for
appointment of sub-staff and a person who is engaged on
temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement without
following the laid down procedure and that too by an
authority who has not been authorized to recruit any person
including temporary employee, would not get appointment
on regular basis. Further any claim for regularization
dependent upon the laid down eligibility criteria i.e. the
candidate has to be duly sponsored by Employment
Exchange and is fufilling the prescribed criteria of
educational qualification and age. It is further mentioned
that if the Bank is directed to consider the appointment of
the workman who was not selected under the rules then he
would get the benefit of being appointed to the post without
the due qualification or without facing any competition
from eligible candidates and against the enhanced
principles of euqual opportunity for all which would be
highly illegal and invalid. In this connection the
Management relied upon the judgementy delivered in
Secretary, State of Karnataka and other-vs-Umadevi and
ors. reported.
Further plea of the Management is that on 20.2.2008
the Management has entered Tripartite Settlement under
Section 12(3) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 with the Award
6202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Staff Union before the ALC (C), Kolakta in the matter of
abolition of Canteen Boys System in Bank’s Eastern Zone
and Bihar-Orissa and Jharkhand Zone and absorption of
casual/temporary Canteen Boys. In terms of the said
tripartite Settlement all temporary/casual Canteen Boys who
have been found to be eligible for absorption in Bank’s
service have already been absorbed in the Bank Service
but the workman never engaged/appointed as Canteen
Boys at any of the branches of the Bank as is evident from
the fact that his name is not appearing in the list of
temporary/casual person to be considered for absorption
under the Tripartite Settlement. Under the above
circumstances and Management prayed to dismiss the claim
of the workman as he is not entitled to any relief.
2. The workman by filing Addl. Claim statement stated
that the objection filed by the Management are poor and
unsustainable in law as well as fact as the Reference is
made mechanically and without application of mind. He
categorically mentioned that his name was sponsored by
the Employment Exchange and he was informed by the
Employment Exchange the date of interview. Accordingly
he went to the bank and the officials of the Bank while
checking his card retained it and he was interviewed but
not selected for any Grade-IV Post, and engaged him as
casual without any appointment letter, wage rate and other
terms and conditions of engagement in the canteen. He
also denied that he was engaged as Paniwala occasionally.
His engagement was continuous without any break since
he joined as Canteen Boy in September, 1987 and there
existed employer-employee relationship and he rendered
continuous service for 21 years 7 months in the
Management Bank. According to the workman it is not
correct to say that his case falls in one of the excepted
clauses of Section 2(oo) 1, 1 Act, 1947; and he was perfectly
healthy, young in age and there was no valid cause of
refusal of his employment by the Management. He also
said that he was not serve with any notice nor one month’s
wage in lieu of notice and compensation @ 15 days wages
for every year of service exceeding six months. He again
said that his attendance was maintained by the Head Peon
of A. T. Road Branch of Bank of Boroda in the Postage
Register.
3. During the pendency of the proceeding the
workman examined himself alone while the Management
examined 2 witnesses and at the stage of cross-examination
of the Management witness No. 2 the workman submitted
Petition No. 563/13 dated 21.8.2013 stating that his daughter
Smt. Jumi Kalita appeared before the Management for a job
for Grade-IV Post and there is a good chance of her
appointment and as such, he is not willing to proceed further
and prayed for adjournment. Subsequently by another
petition No. 646/13 dated 30.8.2013 the workman prayed
for allowing him to withdraw the case in order to demise
the dispute between the workman and the Management
for the sake of betterment of his daughter’s appointment/
service. The workman also submitted a copy of the
appointment letter issued by the Management and the
joining report submitted by his daugher Smti Jumi Kalita.
In this connection statement of the workman has been
recorded on oath, wherein the workman stated that he was
working in the Bank of Baroda as daily worker and due to
his discharge from service he raised this dispute which
was referred by the Ministry; and during the pendency of
this reference he amicably discussed with the Management
of the Bank of Baroda and in the mean time his daughter
Smt. Jumi Kalita appeared before the Interview for the post
of part time Sweeper in the bank of Baroda and she came
out successfully and accordingly she was appointed as
part time Sweeper for a period of six months against regular
vacancy. He also mentioned that his daughter had already
joined in her service on 24.8.2013, and as his daughter has
been appointed and has been working in the bank of Baroda
under the Management he is not inclined to proceed with
the case further. As such the workman is willing to withdraw
the case in order to cut the root of the dispute. Henceforth,
he shall have no any claim on this Reference.
4. The workman Rajani Kalita, in his Evidence-in-
Affidavit stated that he was engaged as Canteen Boy by
the Management of the Bank of Baroda as casual in 1987
and since then he continued to service as Canteen Boy;
and initially he was given remuneration of Rs. 25/- with
successive rise to Rs. 35/-, Rs. 40/- and Rs. 50/-. He was
engaged as monthly paid daily rated worker through
voucher and his attendance was recorded which was
maintained by the Head Peon of the Bank in the Postage
Register which are in the possession and power of the A.T.
Road Branch of the Bank. He also added that he was not
engaged by any written order and as this engagement was
a oral with effect from 20.4.2008. On the plea that the Canteen
was closed. He submitted that since he rendered
continuous service for 20 years 7 months 5 days one
month’s written notice of disengagement was required to
be served on him or wages for one month in lieu of notice
and compensation at 15 days wages for every completed
year of service or part thereof exceeding six months be
paid. But the Management did not issue any notice nor did
pay notice pay and compensation before his
disengagement.
During his cross-examination the workman stated
that he was a casual employee under the Management and
payment was made on weekly basis through cash vouchers.
While he has specifically stated that in para-4 of his claim
statement that the payment was made on daily basis. He
categorically denied the suggestion tendered by the
Management that no interview took place before his
appointment, nor any Attendance Register was maintained
in Postage Register from September, 1987 to 20.4.2008.
5. The Management Witness No. 1, Shri Ladu Kishore
Behera in his evidence mentioned that he was a Senior
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6203
Manager, HRM, Regional Office, Bank of Baroda, G.S. Road,
Guwahati and he was dealing with the present case as he
was conversant with the same and on being duly authorized
by the Management he had adduced the evidence. He
categorically mentioned that the workman was not been
appointed by the Management and there is no relationship
of employer-employee. The Management witness No. 1
said that the workman was not appointed as Canteen Boy
from September, 1987 as the bank has no obligation to run
and maintain or provide canteen facility to its staff members
and the canteen used by the staff used to be management
by the committee of staff members working at the respective
branch. As per a Tripartite Settlement dated 20.2.2008 the
canteen system and the system of canteen boys, where it
existed, has been stopped and discontinued in terms of
Tripartite Settlement dated 20.2.2008. There is also no record
of the Management that the workman was called for
interview and appointed him as casual in the Canteen and
the question of appointing the workman in Grade-IV and
appearing his name in the attendance register does not
arise as he was not called for interview at any point of time.
He further said that the workman was never officially
engaged by A.T. Road Branch of the Bank and as such, his
name does not appear in the salary register. On casual
occasions as per contingencies and the need of the Bank
the workman had worked in the Canteen of A.T. Road
Branch on adhoc basis for odd jobs, such as carrying,
supplying water etc. and payment was made to him through
pay cash vouchers according to the job done, and as he
was not the employee of the Bank extension of benefits
like medical allowance as claimed by him does not arise
and he was engaged on daily wage basis. The Management
witness No. 1 further added that the Bank is having definite
rule for appointment for sub-staff and a person engaged
on temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement without
following the laid down procedure and that too by an
authority who has been authorized to recruit any person
including the temporary employees would not get
appointment of regular post. He added that if the
Management is directed to consider the appointment of
the workman who was not selected under the rules then he
would get the benefit of being appointed to the post without
the due qualification or without facing any competition
from eligible candidates and against the enhanced
principles of equal opportunity for all and it would be highly
illegal and invalid and it would amount to a backdoor entry.
Hence, the witness concerned prayed to dismiss the claim
of the workman.
In his cross-examination the Management witness
No. 1 stated that the workman was allotted a space in their
office just to serve tea and snacks to the employees but
they do not pay any money from the Bank and hence
question of vouchers does not arise and he confirmed that
the workman was not a casual or temporary worker of their
Bank and he could not say since when the workman was
continued his canteen service as there is no record. He
also did not know about the letter dated 23.5.87 sponsoring
the name of the workman for allowing him to participate in
recruitment process.
The Management witness No. 1, Mr. Rupak Saha,
the Senior Manager, HRM, Regional Office, Bank of Baroda,
G.S. Road, Guwahati stated that his predecessor has filed
photocopies of some pages of Register recording payment
made to the workman by cash vouchers for the period from
01.01.05 to 16.02.06 and at the time of filing the evidence on
Affidavit by his predecessor the said register was not
traceable and hence, it could not be proved. Subsequently
as per order dated 14.12.09 passed by this Hon’ble Court
the Management filed the said photocopies of Postage
Register recording payment made to the workman by cash
vouchers and thereafter the said Register was misplaced in
the Branch. Subsequently it has been traced out and proved
as Exhibit-3, 3(1) to 3(10) for the period from 01.01.2006 to
16.02.2006. the Management witness No. 2 has proved the
documents marked as Exhibit-3, the Telephone Bill and the
payment of concurrent Auditors which is a miscellaneous
Register for the period from 01.01.2005 to 17.2.2006. He has
also proved the Memorandum of Settlement vide Exhibit-4
arrived at between the Management of Bank of Baroda,
representative of Eastern Regional Council of Bank of
Baroda Employees Association, Representative of Bank of
Baroda Karamchari Samiti, Paschim Banga, over proposed
call for strike in the office of West Bengal on 03.04.2007
u/s 12 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947, in course of conciliation
proceeding held on 20.2.2008 before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Kolkata.
6. From the evidence of both the sides along with the
documents as well as the statement of the workman recorded
on 30.8.2013 it is revealed that the workman was engaged
as casual worker in the canteen of the Bank of Baroda, A.T.
Road Branch, Guwahati and his job was purely casual on
daily rated wages, Exhibit-3 (1) to Exhibit-3 (10) shows that
the wages was paid to the workman on daily system
through vouchers. Exhibit-4 is the Memorandum proved
by the Management wherein it is clear that a settlement
was arrived at between the Management of the Bank and
their workman represented by Eastern Regional Council of
Bank of Baroda Employees Association, Representative of
Bank of Baroda Eastern States Employees Association,
and the Representative of Bank of Baroda karamchari Samiti,
Paschim Banga over proposed call for strike in the
Branches/Office of West Bengal on 3.4.2007. During the
course of conciliation proceeding held on 20.2.2008 the
canteen boy system was abolished with immediate effect
and no canteen boy would be recruited/engaged either on
permanent basis or temporary/casual basis; and on
abolition of the canteen boy system all the existing
permanent canteen boys would be coverted/re-designated
as full time or part time Peaons in their respective scale.
Canteen Boys/Sweeper was also set down wherein the
6204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
casual/temporary/full time/part time canteen boys who were
sponsored by the Employment Exchange and were working
in continuous basis known as regular and the casual
canteen boys would be absorbed by the Bank as full time/
part time Peon subject to fulfilment of certain conditions as
stipulated in Clause-7 of the said Settlement. In the instant
case the workman has not been able to produce document
to show that he was absorbed by the Management as part
time or full time/casual canteen boy rather he himself stated
that he was paid daily based wages weekly through
vouchers. Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-3 (1) to Exhibit-3 (10) shows
that the workman was paid @ Rs. 50 sometimes for 3 days,
sometimes for 2 days. The evidence of Management also
shows that the workman was engaged purely on casual
basis on need of the Bank for the purpose of carrying and
loading water, etc. in the canteen of the Bank which was
sponsored by the staff of the canteen and not by the
Management. Thus it is crystal clear that the workman has
not been able to establish that there was relationship of
employer-employee.
7. Further the latest development of the reference as
regards prayer for withdrawal of the proceeding made by
the workman in the event of appointment of his daughter
Smt. Jumi Kalita, it is revealed that the workman is not
willing to proceed with the case and with a view to cut root
of the dispute as well as for the betterment of the service of
his daughter. The workman also categorically relinquished
all his claim/reliefs made in this Reference.
8. In view of the above discussion and having regard
to my findings arrived at as above it is held that the workman
has failed to prove his contention that he was appointed
by the Management as canteen boy and he had been
working regularly since September, 1987 till his
disengagement and that the Management in violation of
provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act the workman was
not appointed as per any provision of the rule of the
Management and as there was no valid employer and
employee relationship exists. Accordingly this Reference
is disposed of without granting any relief to the workman
as prayed for.
Send the no relief Award to the Ministry as per
procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
30th day of August, 2013 at Guwahati.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2339-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj flaMhdsV cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ”V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; caxykSj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 74@2008½ dks izdkf’'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30@9@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@74@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013
S.O. 2339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CR. No.-74/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 30.09.2013.
[No. L-12011/74/2008-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED : 19th September, 2013
Present : Shri S. N. NAVALGUND,
Presiding Officer
CR No. 74/2008
I Party
II Party
Shri Anantha Krishna,
The Asst. General Manager,
Syndicate Bank
Syndicate Bank,
Employees Union,
Regional Office,
C/o Syndicate Bank,
Neeligin Road,
Supermarket,
HUBLI.
HUBLI.
APPEARANCE
I Party
:
Shri M. Rama Rao,
Authorised Representative
II Party
:
Shri Ramesh Upadhayay,
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12011/
74/2008-IR (B-II) dated 24.10.2008 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the claim of Syndicate Bank Employees
Union to reimburse the missing cash of Rs. 60,000/-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6205
to Sri Ravindra R. Dhawale is legal and justified?
What relief the workman is entitled to?”
2. On receipt of teh reference while registering it is
CR 74/2008 notices were issued to both the sides the I
party entered his appearance through Sh. M. Rama Rao,
General Secretary, Dharwad District Bank Employees
Association and II party through Ramesh Upadhayay
Advocate and the claim statement signed by Sh. Ravindra
R. Dhawale workman covered in the reference and M.
Ananthakrishna claims to be Authorised Representatives
of the I Party Union came to be filed on 20.05.2010 and the
Counter Statement for the II party signed by its Assistant
General Manager, Regional Office came to be filed on
21.07.2010.
3. In the Claim Statement it is alleged the I Party who
was working in the II Party Cash Department at AA Circle,
Shimoga Branch on 09.10.2006 due to absence of Smt.
Jasinta, Attender who was assisting him, Sh. Vinayak,
Attender was entrusted her work relating to cash bundles
wrapping etc. and at about 1230 p.m. Sh. Vinayak came to
cash cabin where he was working as Cashier and opened
the second drawer of the cash cabin and taken out 10
bundles of Rs. 100 denomination notes for wrapping and
then he kept two bundles on single lock bos and two
bundles on stitching table and informing him that gum
tape being exhausted he would bring it from the concerned
officer left the cash cabin and then he turned to his back
side and saw only four bundles and not 10 bundles of cash
and he called Sh. Vinayak who was standing beside Sh.
Vijaya Kumar, Officer and asked him about another six
bundles of cash and as he expressed being not aware of
the same immediately he complained it to Sh. Vijaya Kumar,
Officer of shortage of six bundles of Rs. 100.00 denomination
amounting to Rs. 60,000.00 taken by Sh. Vinayaka from
cash cabin and officer directed him to close the cash counter
and took the cash for tally and observed Rs. 60,00,000 as
shortage and later Sh. M.P. Prabhu, Manager who came to
the branch and asked him to reimburse Rs. 60,000,00
otherwise he would be suspended and left with no
alternative he took loan from Vijayakumar, Officer through
cheques on his OD No. 438/2005 and paid the amount and
subsequently reimbursed the same by raising jewel loan
on the very next day. It is further alleged that he complained
the Branch Manager in writing on the same day and
requested to enquire into the matter but no action was
taken either by complaining to the police or taking up the
matter with higher authorities and thereby he has been
made a scape goat and as the manager did not initiate any
action on 12.10.2006 again he complained to the Branch
manager with a request to make necessary enquiries since
he did not respond in any manner he wrote one more letter
on 04.11.2006 to the Branch Manager to investigate into
the matter which was also ignored. It is furthere alleged
that the I Party workman on his independent investigation
found that Sh. Vinayak, Sub-staff had taken substantial
loans from outside and was in finanancial problems since
2000 and several arrest warrants were being issued against
him by the courts of Shimoga for the recovery of loans
given by M/s. H.R. financiers, Shimoga but knowing the
said fact the Branch Manager had not initiated any
Disciplinary Action against him and after he reported the
injustice caused to him to the I Party union it took up the
matter to the Regional Manager, Hubli for the II party with
letter dated 20.12.2006 to enquire into the matter which was
ignored whereas the Head Office of the II party replied to
the letter stating that its workman is asked to file police
complaint in his individual capacity and thereafter the
Assistant General Manager, Hubli wrote a letter on
20.08.2007 informing that it is for him to lodge the police
compalint in his individual capacity if he desires. Thus, it is
contended that II party having not investigated into loss
of Rs. 60000.00 it is liable to reimburse the said amount to
the workman. inter alia, in the counter statement filed for
the II party it is contended on 09.10.2006 the workman
complained of cash shortage of Rs. 60000.00 stating that
he had given 10 packets of 100 Rs. Notes denomination to
the Attender but he gave him only four packets and is
claiming having handed over all the 10 packets and when
this fact was informed by the Branch Manager to the
Regional Office he was advised to follow the procedure in
the manual of instructions which include keeping the
employee/cashier under suspension in case of non-
reimbursement of cash before end of the day lodging of
police complaint etc. and as on the same day he voluntarily
made good the shortage the Branch Manager did not
proceed to keep him under suspension or to file Police
Complaint or to initiate any Disciplinary Action in the matter.
It is further contended that after making good the alleged
shortage the I Party workman requested for enquiry and
though it was not necessary to hold the enquiry as there
was no loss to the bank considering his representation
one of its Manager was deputed on 11.10.2006 and as he
could not fix any responsibility to the Attender no further
action was taken. It is further contended that on 23.11.2006
when I Party workman approached the Nodal IR Cell, upudi
along with another membr of SBEU they clarified about the
matter and permission was given to him to lodge police
complaint in his individual capacity but he did not report
having filed any complaint. Thus it is contended the I Party
workman who was the custodian of the cash after reporting
shortage of Rs. 60000.00 on his own since made it good to
tally the cash at the end of the day if at all he had grievance
against the attender it was for him in his individual capacity
to take action against him as such it is not responsible to
reimburse the said amount.
4. In order to substantiate the claim of the I Party
Union the Authorised Representative while filling the
affidavit of the workman Sh. Ravindra R. Dhawale while
examing him on oath as WW 1 got exhibited Cash Tallying
worksheet dated 09.10.2006 prepared by himself and Officer
6206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vijaya Kumar; Xerox copy of the cheque given by Vijaya
Kumar on 09.10.2006 amounting to Rs. 60,000.00; carbon
copy of the letter addressed by I party to the Branch
manager with sketch of the branch premises prepared by
him; copies of two letters addressed to Branch Manager
dated 12.10.2006 and 04.11.2006; copies of letters addressed
by the I Party Union to the Regional Manager, Regional
Office, Hubli, the General Manager (P), Syndicate Bank,
Head Office, Manipal and Com. Anil Kumar Srivastava,
General Secretary—Syndicate Bank Employees Union,
Circle Office—Lucknow; letter received by him from AGM
advising him to lodge the complaint in his individual
capacity dated 20.08.2007; letter of authorisation issued in
favour of Sh. Anantha krishna by the State Secretary,
Syndicate Bank Employees Union dated 21.01.2008; copy
of the conciliation petition submitted to ALC(C), Humbli
dated 21.01.2008; copy of the reply given by the AGM of
the II Party to the ALC(C), Hubli dated 11.04.2008; copy of
the Rejoinder given to ALC(C), Hubli dated 06.05.2008;
copy of the investigation report submitted by P.B. Sharma
with statement of Satyanarayana and V.K. Rao; three bank
circulars dated 18.03.2008, 03.04.1992 and 07.01.2006;
certified copy of the proceedings before the Principal Civil
Judge, Shimoga in Execution Case No. 126/2001, 304/2001
and 126/2001 in relation to recovery of money from Sh.
Vinayak; a letter received by him from the State Secretary,
SBEU authorising him and M. Ananthakrishna to make
representation before this tribunal dated 31.03.2010 as Ex
W-1 to Ex W-25. He also while filling the affidavit of M.
Anantakrishna examined him on oath WW 2 and in his
evidence got exhibited Xerox copies of the application filed
by the I party to AGM, II Party under RTI application dated
01.12.2010 and reply received from PIO dated 21.12.2010 as
Ex W-26 and Ex W-27. inter alia, the learned advocate
appearing for the II Party while filling the affidavit of T.
Satyanarayana, incharge Branch manager of AA Circle,
Shimoga on 09.10.2006 examined him on oath as MW1.
5. With the above pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence when the matter was posted for arguments the
authorised representative of the I party filed written
arguments reiterating what is stated in the claim statement
and counsel for II party addressed his oral arguments.
6. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides
in the light of the arguments put forward by both the sides
I have arrived at conclusion the claim of the I Party Union
to reimburse the missing of Cash of Rs. 60000.00 to Sh.
Ravindra R. Dhawale is unsustainable and the reference is
liable to be rejected for the following.
REASONS
7. The facts not in dispute are being that on the
particular day i.e. 09.10.2006 Sh. Ravindra R. Dhawale who
was cashier reported to the incharge Branch Manager
Sh. Satyanarayana MW 1 about cash shortage of
Rs. 60000.00 stating that Sh. Vinayak, Attender who came
inside the cabin took 10 bundles of Rs. 100.00 denomination
notes for wrapping and keeping two bundles on single
lock box and another two on stitching table informing that
gum tape being exhausted he shall secure the same left the
cash cabin and did not come back and when he turn to his
back side he saw only four bundles and not the 10 bundles
he called Vijayakumar and asked him as he said that he
returned all the 10 bundles and inturn the incharge Branch
Manager when reported it to Regional Office, Hubli he was
advised to follow the procedure laid down in the manual of
instruction which include to keep the cashier under
suspension in case of non-reimbursement of cash before
the end of the day, lodging of police complaint etc. and as
Cashier Ravindra R. Dhawale voluntarily made good by
taking load from Officer Vijayakumar he did not proceed to
initiate any action like keeping the cashier under suspension
or filing police complaint and later when the cashier made
representations to enquire into the matter it was got
investigated through Manager, Security Cell, Regional
Office, Hubil and as he could not make out or fix the
responsibility on the attender the cashier was given
permission to file complaint to the jurisdictional police in
his individual capacity. Since it is not in dispute the cashier
was the custodian of the cash and he who initially reported
shortage of Rs. 60,000.00 stating that the attender Sh.
Vinayaka who had come in his cabin taken out 10 bundles
of Rs. 100.00 note denomination for wrapping keeping only
two bundles on single lock box and two bundles on
stitching table went out saying that gum tape is exhausted
and he would bring the same and when he turned back and
found only four bundles being there and on enquiry with
Vinayaka he is claiming that he has wrapped and kept all
the 10 bundles, when the Branch manager was instructed
by the Regional Office to take action as provided under the
Bank Manual he himself made good that alleged shortage
by taking money from the Officer Vijayakumar and on his
representation he was also permitted to file a complaint in
his individual capacity against Vinayaka but he did not
venture to file such complaint. It was vehemently argued
by the authorised representative of the I party taking me
through the Bank Circular dated 07.01.2006 copy of which
is produced at Ex W-21 that it was the duty of the Branch
manager to make a police complaint immediately which
would have brought out the truth and as he has failed to
perform his duties the II party is liable to reimburse the
amount to the workman. But with due to respect to the
authorised representative of the I party clause (a) of the
said circular since makes it clear that the complaint to the
police need not be lodged in cases where the amount is
recovered and/or where recovery is not doubtful, in the
instant case immediately when the Regional Office
instructed the incharge Branch manager to initiate action
the I Party workman i.e., the cashier having made good the
amount the Branch Manager was not obliged or was
required to lodge the complaint as per the circular. If at all
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6207
the I party workman i.e., the cashier was certain that the
Attendar Vinayaka had knocked off six bundles of Rs. 100.00
denomination notes amounting to Rs. 60,000.00 from the
cabine when he was permitted by the Bank to file complaint
to the police in his individual capacity he would have filed
a complaint and as he failed to lodge a complaint it suggest
that he himself was neither sure attendar Vinayaka knocked
off that amount or how that much of the amount was found
short by him. Under these circumstances, the claim of the I
party Union that this amount is to be reimbursed by the II
Party bank do not stand to reason. In the result, I have
arrived at conclusion the claim of Syndicate Bank
Employees Union to reimburse the missing cash of Rs.
60000.00 to Sh. Ravindra R. Dhawale Cashier is not legal
and justified. Accordingly, I pass the following.
ORDER
The Reference is Rejected holding that the claim of
Syndicate Bank Employees Union to reimburse the missing
cash of Rs. 60000.00 to Sh. Ravindra R. Dhawale is not
legal and justified and that he is not entitle to any relief.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 19h September 2013)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2340-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj luVZy cSad vkQ
bafM;k ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼99@11½ esa izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10-10-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@40@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2013
S.O. 2340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 99/11) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
KANPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Central Bank of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/10/2013.
[No. L- 12011/40/2011- IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 99 of 11
Between:
Sri S.K. Rai Assistant Secretary,
Central Bank State Staff Association
C/o Sri A.U. Ansari,
CTO, Urdu Bazar Branch,
Central Bank of India, Gorakhpur.
And
The Deputy General Manager,
Central Bank of India Zoanl Office,
Aklash Deep 23, Vidhan Sabha Marg,
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification No. L-12011/40/11 IR-B-II dated 11.11.11, has
referred the dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, Gorakhpur, in illegally deducting Rs. 6000/-
from the salary account of Sri A. U. Ansari, CTO/SWO
Branch Office Urdu Bazar Gorakhpur without giving any
notice to him about the deduction is just fair and legal? Hat
relief the 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, but
none appeared in the case from their side nor they filed any
claim statement. On the other hand opposite party
appeared and filed letter of authority.
4. Therefore, from the couduct of the Union it is
crystal clear that they are 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 Union holding that the union is not entitled for
any relief pursuant to the present reference.
6. Reference is answered accordingly.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh 10 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2341-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼5@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@193@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
6208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2013
S.O. 2341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 5/2001) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of South Eastern Railway, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/10/2013.
[No. L- 41012/193/2000-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/5/2001
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri B. Rama Rao, Ex. Pointsman-B,
S.E.Rly, Nr. Rly. Station,
Nowrozbad, Distt. Umaria (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Sourth Eastern Railway,
Bilaspur
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of September, 2013
As per letter dated 30-11-2000 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/
193/2000-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of South
Eastern Railway, Bilaspur (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri B. Rama Rao, Ex. Pointsman-B w.e.f.
4-1-95 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties, Ist party LRs of workman proceeded exparte on
25-2-2011. No statement of claim is filed on behalf of
workman.
3. Exparte Written Statement is filed by management.
It is case of IInd party that chargesheet was issued to
workman on 1-2-90 was pasted on notice board in presence
of two witnesses. It was also sent to his address by RPAD.
The letter was received undelivered. The letter was
redirected to Nowrozabad. It was returned to the sender
undelivered. The order of appointment of Enquiry Officer
dated 17-8-90 was also sent to the address which was
received back with the remark that party was on long sick
from 3-9-89. That Railway took action on the chargesheet
dated 16-1-90 appointing Enquiry Officer. Despite of
receiving copies of both the documents, false allegation
are made against Railway failed to provide documents to
the workman. The attitude is not proper. The Enquiry Officer
draw findings without giving opportunity to delinquent is
denied. That final defence statement dated 23-1-92 brought
on record that there was no defence in the enquiry
Proceeding despite of providing reasonable opportunity.
In this representation dated 6-6-98 workman had admitted
receipt of memorandum dated 16-1-90. The delinquent was
made aware to have defence Asstt. It is not obligatory for
Enquiry Officer to ask delinquent workman to bring Defence
Asstt. That no representation was received from workman.
The written statement filed by IInd party is vague as to the
charge against delinquent and the details of the enquiry
conducted against the 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
In Affirmative
the management of South
Eastern Railway, Bilaspur
(MP) in terminating the
services of Shri B. Rama
Rao, Ex. Pointsman-B
w.e.f. 4-1-95 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by workman is
workman is entitled to?”
rejected.
REASONS
5. The workman has not filed statement of claim
neither adduced evidence to substantiate his grievance.
6. The management’s witness R. Shankaran filed
affidavit of his evidence. His evidence shows that major
penalty chargesheet was issued to the workman. The
workman did not participate in the Enquiry Proceedings
contradictory stands were taken by the workman. The
evidence of management’s witness remained unchallenged.
Copies of documents are produced by IInd party alongwith
Written Statement. As workman has failed to file statement
of claim or adduce evidence, the action of management
terminating services of workman cannot be said illegal.
Therefore I answer Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. Point No. 2- In view of my findings in Point No. 1,
relief prayed by workman deserves to be rejected.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of South Eastern
Railway, Bilaspur (MP) in terminating the services
of Shri B. Rama Rao, Ex. Pointsman-B w.e.f.
4-1-95 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6209
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2342-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼98@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@13@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2013
S.O. 2342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 98/2002) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Railway, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/10/2013.
[No. L-41012/13/2002-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/98/2002
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Harprasad Kushwah,
R/o Bilgayya Ward,
Behind Alka Maternity Home,
Bina (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Bhopal (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 12th day of September, 2013
As per letter dated 19-6-2002 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/
13/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of DRM,
Central Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services
of Shri Harprasad Kushwah w.e.f. 16-2-2000 after
conducting the domestic enquiry is justified? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted his statement of
claim at Page 4 of the record. The case of workman is that
on 6-5-94, information was received on telephone about
distribution of bogus reservation ticket from Reservation
counter, Guna Junction for the train Kota to Bina. That he
was not on duty on 6-5-94. To take revenge, he was handed
over to Railway Police, he was arrested. Thereafter Ist party
workman was suspended. That in violation of the rules,
caused harassment to him. That he was acquitted by CGM
Court on 31-9-2000. Said judgment was overlooked by
Railway authorities at Bhopal. That the Railway authorities
had themselves fabricated proceeding contrary to the
judgment dated 16-2-2000 disobeying said judgment that
the termination of his service is illegal. Ist party workman
has filed Statement of Claim in person without help of the
legal professioner.
3. IInd party management filed reply at Page 5/1 to 5/
3. IInd party submits that Ist party was terminated on 16-2-
2000. It was found that he could not be continued in service
because of the serious nature of allegation against him.
The workman suppressed/concealed material facts. That
workman was suspended as he was sent to Jain. That
acquittal of workman is matter of record. The allegation
made against IInd party are false, allegations is vague. IInd
party admitted the services of Ist party workman were
terminated on 16-2-2000 for his unauthorized absence. The
IInd party relies copy of chargesheet dated 26-10-98 and
termination dated 16-2-2000. It is submitted that the workman
is not entitled to any relief.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
management of DRM,
In Negative
Central Railway, Bhopal in
terminating the services of
Shri Harprasad Kushwah
w.e.f. 16-2-2000 after conducting
the domestic enquiry is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final Order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5. Before dealing with the reasons, I make it clear that
the workman prosecuted his claim in presence. The pleading
are not proper. Though the IInd party is represented through
Advocate, the pleadings are not happy. The details of the
Enquiry Proceedings are absolutely not pleaded by IInd
party though the documents in that regard are produced.
6. IInd party has not taken care to prove the
documents in the record of Enquiry proceedings. Only zeroz
copies of some documents are produced alongwith list.
The copy of termination order dated 16-2-2000 produced
on record shows that the services of Ist party workman
were terminated as the representation was not received in
6210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reply to the enquiry report in connection with the major
penalty chargesheet dated 26-10-98. The workman was held
guilty of the charges of misconduct under Rule 18, 19 of
the RS(D&A) Rules 1968. The document at Page 5/5 along
with list shows charge against workman was he was absent.
Ist party workman Harprasad Kushwah was absent without
information from 6-10-94. The chargesheet was issued to
him under Rule 3-I, II, III of Rly. Conduct Rules 1966.
Workman has not challenged legality of the enquiry
conducted against him therefore no preliminary issue in
that regard is to be framed. The evidence is adduced by
workman filing his affidavit at Page 8. In his affidavit
workman has stated that he was working in Rly. from 1-1-66
as porter from 1-6-71, he was made permanent. That on 6-5-
94, at the schedule time of Kota Bina train, he was on rest.
He claims ignorance about Railway reservation tickets. He
was assisted by RPF and thereafter he was suspended.
One more affidavit is filed by workman at Page 9 about is
arrest by GRPF. That he was suspended. He was not paid
salary. The evidence in both affidavit of workman remains
unchallenged as the counsel for IInd party did not take
pains to cross-examine him.
7. Management filed evidence of affidavit of witness
Shri D.D. Ahirwar. He claims to be conversant with the
facts of the case that workman was dismissed from
16-2-2000 for unauthorized absence. Charges as per
memorandum dated 26-10-98 were proved. Copies of
chargesheet and dismissal order already filed. That SF-5
dated 28-5-94 was issued to workman for selling tickets at
Guna Station. He remained in police custody till 15-5-94.
He was acquitted by Court. No further action was initiated.
The services of applicant has been terminated for
unauthorized absence. Management's witness in his cross-
examination says that workman was not handed over to
police by him, he was arrested by GRPF. He denies that the
judgment of court was not obeyed. He denies that services
of workman are illegally terminated. As stated above, the
IInd party has not produced record of Enquiry proceedings.
The documents in Enquiry proceedings are not proved.
8. Management produced documents Exhibit M-1.
The order of termination of service of Ist party workman is
reviewed on 28-9-10 and workman is allowed 60% pension
and compassionate allowance w.e.f. 16-2-2000. The copy
of applications dated 9-8-2010 submitted by workman is
produced. The copy of order dated 28-9-10 is also produced.
9. The evidence of Ist party workman that he was in
Railway service from 1966, he was made permanent in 1971
is not shattered as the workman was not cross-examined.
There is no evidence on record from IInd party who was
appointed as Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer when the
enquiry was fixed, whether the workman was given
opportunity to cross-examine the management's witness
in Enquiry proceedings. In absence of such evidence, the
order of removal from service of workman cannot be said
legal. There is no evidence whether the management had
considered service record of Ist party workman while
passing the order of removal from service for unauthorized
absence. Whether any kind of leave was to his credit was
also not considered while passing the order of removal
from service. As per the documents produced on record,
workman was served with chargesheet for his unauthorized
absence from 6-10-94. The copies of documents produced
by management includes the Enquiry Report but the
evidence of management's witness is silent about it. For
above reasons, the order of dismissal from service dated
16-2-2000 cannot be said legal. For above reasons, I record
my findings in Point No. 1 in Negative.
10. Point No. 2-In view of my finding in Point No.
1, question arise as to what relief the workman is entitled,
the order of dismissal is not legal as management has
not proved the Departmental Enquiry held against
workman. The workman was in employment of IInd party
from 1966 remained unchallenged. The workman himself
submitted that he was arrested by GRPF and was
acquitted by CGM Court. However the copies of
judgment is not produced by either parties. The acquittal
of workman is also not in dispute as management witness
in his affidavit has stated about acquittal of workman in
the year 2000.
11. Counsel for IInd party did not point out the
punishment prescribed for unauthorized absence under
the rules. The unauthorized absence cannot be said grave
misconduct causing any loss to justify the highest
punishment of dismissal of service. The evidence of
management witness does not show that any notice was
issued to Ist party to join duty and workman refused to
join the duty therefore gravity of misconduct is reduced.
Documents produced by management that workman is
allowed 60% family pension as per order dated 28-9-10 on
application submitted by workman himself. However
evidence of both parties in that regard is silent. Workman
himself accepted pensionary benefits. Therefore no
interference in said order is called for.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of DRM, Central
Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri
Harprasad Kushwah w.e.f. 16-2-2000 after
conducting the domestic enquiry is illegal.
(2) IInd party shall provide pensionary benefit as per
order dated 28-9-2010 (Exhibit M-1). And any other
reliefs under rule after dismissal orders is set-aside.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2343-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQ
bankSj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6211
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 75@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@10@2013 izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@48@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2013
S.O. 2343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 75/2006) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Indore and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/48/2006-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/75/2006
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Ramnagvanshi, General Secretary,
Prathadith Karamchari Kalyan Manch,
F-I, Karambhumi, Tripti Vihar,
Indore Road, Ujjain (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
Regional Office,
765/766, Nagpur Road, Mahanadda,
Gorakhpur, Jabalpur (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 17.11.2006 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/
48/2006-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of General Manager, State Bank
of Indore, Jabalpur in not keeping Shri Rajendra Yadav
as daily wage peon from 9-4-99 to 21-8-04 without
regularizing him is just and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued
to the parties. Ist party filed statement of claim at page
3/1 to 3/4. The case of Ist party is that he was engaged by
Branch Manager Vinod Jain on daily wages Rs. 35/- against
vacant post of peon from 9-4-99. He was peforming his
services honestly without any complaints. His wages were
increased to Rs. 40,50,55,60,65, 70 per day. He was not
paid wages for Sunday and holidays. That he has
completed 240 days continuous service during each of
year. His services were terminated without notice or
paying retrenchment compensation from 21-8-04. As given
details he was working under the Branch Manager. On
failure of Conciliation Proceedings, report was submitted
to the Govt. of India and dispute is referred for
adjudication. Workman submits that he is covered a
workman under Section 25-A of I.D. Act as he was working
for more than 240 days during each of the calendar years.
His services are terminated without notice or paying
retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25-F
of I.D. Act. He submits that principles of last come Ist go
was not followed. IInd party violated Section 25-G of I. D.
Act. That after termination of his services, IInd party
employed other persons as such committed violation of
Section 25-H of I.D. Act. On such grounds, workman prays
for reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/8. It is submitted that IInd party Bank carries its business
as per directions of RBI issued time to time. The employees
are appointed after approval of Govt. of India. That public
notice used to be issued for appointment from regular
employees, peons, messengers, security guards. The
appointment of sub staff in violation of such rules is not
permitted as it amounts to back door entry.
4. IInd party denies that workman was required to
work whole day. According to IInd party, Ist party was
engaged on daily wages for cleaning work of toilet for 1-2
hours per day as per exigency. There is no question of
regularization of his services as he was working for 1-2
hours. IInd party denies that workman was continuously
working for 240 days in a year. That IInd party has no
power to appoint permanent peon. There is no employer,
employee relationship between workman and IInd party.
IInd party referred to various judgments by Hon'ble Supreme
Court and submits that workman is not entitled to relief
claimed by him. That workman was not appointed following
recruitment rules. On such grounds, he prays for rejection
of claim of workman. In additional pleadings, it is submitted
that the dispute is raised by Shri Ramnagwanshi, Secretary
of Daily Wage Bank employees Union is terminated from
service therefore he is not competent to raise the dispute
on behalf of workman. On such grounds, IInd party prays
for rejection of claim of workman.
5. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/4.
Earlier contentions in statement of claim are reiterated. Ist
party claims that he was working for more than 240 days
during each of the year, his services are terminated in
violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D. Act. He prays for his
reinstatement.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
6212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of
Termination of
General Manager,
services of
State Bank of
Shri Rajendra Yadav
Indore, Jabalpur in
by IInd party
not keeping
management is illegal.
Shri Rajendra Yadav as
Daily wage peon from
9-4-99 to 21-8-04 without
regularizing him is just
and legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Ist party workman is challenging order of his
termination. He claims that he was engaged on daily wages
from 9-4-99 by the Branch Manager against vacant post of
peon. He was continuously working till 24-8-04. During
each of the year he had worked for more than 240 days, his
services are terminated without notice, without
retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. All those contentions of workman are denied by
the IInd party. IInd party submits that workman was
engaged on daily wages for 1-2 hours morning for cleaning
of toilet, for bringing drinking water etc.
8. Though application is filed by IInd party that the
claim submitted by Shri Ramnagwanshi claiming to be
General Secretary of Daily Wages Bank employees union
is not tenable and Ist party has submitted objection in
engaging Advocate invoking Section 36(3) of I.D. Act, when
matter came for hearing, respective objections were not
pressed by both the sides.
9. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence consistent
with his pleadings in Statement of Claim that he was working
on daily wages from 9-4-99 till 21-8-04, wages were increased
from Rs. 35 to 70 per day. His services is terminated without
paying notice in violation of Section 25-F. He was working
for more than 240 days during each of the year. He was
paid minimum wages of Rs. 100/-. In his crossexamination,
Ist party says that there were three permanent peons
working as Daftry. Cash peon, Messenger, he was not
issued appointment letter. He was paid weekly wages. That
he was supplied documents to the effect that he was
working for more than 240 days in a year. In his cross-
examination, it is not challenging that the workman was
working more than 240 days during every calendar year. In
his further cross-examination, he further says that he had
passed 8th standard, he was not interviewed for the post
of peon. He was paid daily wages. Once he was paid bonus,
he claims ignorance about rules of recruitment. He denies
that he was working 2 hours in a day. He had not received
appointment letter or order of termination. He admits that
he was paid minimum bonus Rs. 100.
10.The case of IInd party is that workman was
engaged on daily wages as per exigency for cleaning work
and filling drinking water. The evidence of the
management's witness Harishankar Parasar on affidavit is
mostly devoted that the Union is not competent to raise
the dispute. It is denied that workman was continuously
working from 9-04-99 to 21-8-04. That the workman was
engaged on daily wages, he was working for 2 hours. In his
cross-examination, management's witness says that he was
not posted in the branch where workman was working.
The witness has no personal knowledge about working of
the workman. The vouchers produced by workman were
verified from office but said documents were not found. He
has stated in his evidence that workman was working for 2
hours a day after enquiry from staff. Shri Devendra Khare,
Daftary, Hiralal, any of them are not examined as
management's witness. Thus evidence of management's
witness is here-say evidence. It cannot be preferred to the
evidence of the workman. The management's witness in
his further cross-examination says payments were made to
the workman under miscellaneous head. However no
register is maintained. Permission is not required for
engaging casual labours, muster roll is not maintained.
Workman was paid Rs. 50/- as per oral agreement. He has
stated that no bonus is paid to the workman though in the
Written Statement, IInd party has admitted payment of
bonus. That bonus register is maintained in the Bank. They
have not seen bonus register as he did not find it. That
Bonous Register is same for all the employees. The evidence
of workman and the evidence of management's witness are
tested on probability. The evidence of workman appears
congent and reliable consistent with the pleadings. From
evidence discussed above, it is clear that the workman was
engaged as daily wage employee. He was working as part
time employee in the Bank. His service are terminated
without issuing notice or paying retrenchment
compensation as such termination of services of workman
in violation of Section 25-F is illegal. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
11.Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1
as termination of workman in violation of Section 25-F is
illegal, question arises to what relief the workman is entitled?
The evidence shows that Ist party workman was not
appointed following recruitment process. The post was
not advertised, no appointment letter was issued. Therefore
the workman is not entitled for reinstatement. As
termination of workman is in violation of Section 25-F, the
reasonable compensation would meet the ends of justice.
Considering length of working as part time employee for
about 5 years by the workman, compensation Rs. 30,000/-
would be appropriate to meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly I record my finding on Point No. 2.
12.In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of General Manager, State Bank of Indore,
Jabalpur in not keeping Shri Rajendra Yadav as
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6213
Daily wage peon from 9-4-99 to 21-8-04 without
regularizing him is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 30,000 to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to
workman within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall
carry 9% interest per annum from the date of award till
its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 10 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2344-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947
dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos izca/k
ra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ'V
vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 63@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 10@10@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@277@95&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th October, 2013
S.O. 2344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/97) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Railway, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 10/10/2013.
[No. L-41012/277/95-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/63/97
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Dinesh Kumar Gadbar,
s/o Shri Khatlal,
C/o Shri Ram Singh Mehra, Ganda Nala,
Naya Area Harijan, Itarsi,
Distt. Hoshangabad (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager (P)
Central Railway,
Bhopal
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 4-3-97 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/
277/95-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of DRM(P),
Central Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services
of Shri Dinesh Kumar Gadbar S/o Shri Khatlal w.e.f.
Oct-91 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/3. The case of workman is that he was
appointed on vacant post of Khalasi from 1-4-90. He was
satisfactorily performing his duties from 1-8-91. His
services were discontinued by oral order. His services were
terminated without issuing any chargesheet, holding
enquiry. He was not given opportunity of hearing. He has
completed 240 days continuous service. He was not paid
retrenchment compensation. He was not appointed on
compassionate ground after death of his father Khetlal. He
prays to set-aside order of his termination and prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/3. Claim of workman is denied outright. However the IInd
party admitted that workman was engaged during the period
1-4-90 to 28-7-90 at casual labour. He had worked for 67
days as waterman. That the workman was not continuously
working as claimed by him. He was working only for summer
season. His services were not terminated, no question of
holding enquiry arise as Ist party had worked only for 67
days. On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of
claim.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 3 reiterating his
contention in statement of claim. It is denied that he had
worked only for 67 days as claimed by IInd party
management.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of DRM(P),
Central Railway, Bhopal in
terminating the services of
Shri Dinesh Kumar Gadbar
S/o Shri Khatlal w.e.f. Oct-
91 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is
rejected.
REASONS
6. Ist party workman submits that his services were
terminated without notice or praying retrenchment
compensation. He had worked for more than 240 days.
6214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F.
IInd party denied above contentions of workman. It is
submitted by IInd party. Ist party worked only for 67 days.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence consistent with his
pleadings in statement of claim. In his cross-examination,
workman says he had received appointment letter, its zerox
copy is produced on record. But it was not letter of
appointment. That appointment letter is not produced in
record. The Identity Card is produced. In Exhibit W-1, the
date of appointment is shown 6-4-90, in Exhibit W-2 name
of Ist party workman is appearing. He was appointed on
compassionate basis to supply drinking water during
summer. Exhibit W-3 is certificate of 10th of Damodar who
died on 6-9-89.
7. Written notes of argument are submitted by both
the parties in support of their contentions. However evidence
on record is not sufficient to hold that the workman was
continuously working for more than 240 days. The workman
is not covered under Section 25 (B) of I.D. Act, therefore the
termination of service without notice or payment of
retrenchment compensation cannot be said illegal. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No. 2-Relief prayed by workman deserved to
be rejected.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of DRM(P), Central
Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri
Dinesh Kumar Gadbar S/o Shri Khatlal w.e.f.
Oct. 91 is illegal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2345-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947
dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad
izca/kra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ'V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼113@95½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@10@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@13@94&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 113/95) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/13/94-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/113/95
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Chouhan Singh Chouhan,
Post Office Tamot,
Tehsil Goharganj,
Distt. Raisen (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Manager,
Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Hoshangabad (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 9-6-95 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/
13/94-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Kshetriya
Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad in terminating the
services of Shri Chouhan Singh Chouhan is justified
or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman Chouhan Singh Chouhan
filed his statement of claim at Page 2/1 to 2/6. The case of
Ist party workman is that his services are wrongly
terminating. He was working as peon with IInd party Bank
from 1988. His name was sponsored through Employment
Exchange for the recruitment process on the basis of
recommendations, he was appointed as daily rated
messenger/peon. He was paid bonus and salary by IInd
Party. He received bonus for 254 days. He was continuously
working from his initial appointment in 1989 till
discontinuation of his service from 20-8-91. He had
submitted representation by letter dated 6-12-93. It was
not considered. It is further submitted that after termination
of his service, IInd party has employed IInd party No. 3
junior to him. The services are retrenched out of personal
bias. He was getting monthly salary therefore they have
been treated as regular employee instead daily rated. That
his services are terminated for allowing back door entry to
junior persons. The action of the management is arbitrary,
illegal. He has right of regularization in service. IInd party
admitted payment of bonus for 251 days. It is submitted
that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.
The termination of his service is illegal. On such grounds,
he prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party Bank filed Written Statement on
28-6-95. It is submitted that Ist party workman was working
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6215
as party time peon on daily wages from 12-7-89 to 20-8-91.
He had worked for 62 days in 1989, 206 days in 1990 and
153 days in 1991. On 14-15/2/91, the interview for the post
of part time messengers was held. The names of the
candidates were received from Employment Exchange
Hoshangabad. Ist party workman was also interviewed but
it doesnot give right of employment to him. That as per
information received from Bank. Ist party workman had
worked only for 239 days and bonus was paid for 251 days
only. Recovery proceeding was initiated. On such grounds,
it is submitted that the claim of workman for regularization
of service is not tenable.
4. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/4
reiterating his contention that he was paid bonus for 251
days. He was continuously working for more than 240 days.
His services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. His services were terminated without hearing and
in violation of natural justice. It is reiterated for his
reinstatement in service.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of themj for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Kshetriya
Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad
in terminating the service of
Shri
Chouhan
Singh
Chouhan is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Ist party workman claims that his services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. he had
worked continuously for 254 days as peon inthe Bank. His
name was sponsored through Employment Exchange. His
services were terminated without notice, no retrenchment
compensation was paid. Management denies above
contentions of the workman. It is submitted that workman
has not completed 240 days continuous service rather as
per information received from Bank, the workman had
worked only for 239 days. Bonus was wrongly paid for 251
days. Parties are in serious dispute about 1st party
continuously worked for 240 days. The burden lies on
workman to substantiate his claim. In his affidavit of
evidence, workman has stated that the contents of
statement of claim are correct. In his cross-examination,
workman says appointment letter was not given to him. He
started working from 1-4-90. Saving Account was in his
name, salary was deposited in his account every month.
That for 3 days, he had gone to tour. Allowances were paid
to him. Said period was considered while calculating
working days. However in his further cross-examination in
para-6, workman says that he worked for 62 days in 1989,
206 days in 1990 and 153 days in 1991. During 1989 to 1990,
he did not worke for few days. Management filed affidavit
of witness Shri S.P. Tiwari. The witness of the management
has also stated about working days of the workman as 62
days in 1989, 206 days in 1990 and 153 days in 1991 That
bonus for 251 days was paid to workman by mistake and
recovery proceeding were initiated. In his cross-
examination, management's witness denied that the
workman was continuously working from 1989 to 1991.
Bonus was paid for 251 days though working days were
239 days. Therefore the burden lies on the management to
prove that the bonus was wrongly paid for 251 days instead
of 239 days. Management has not examined any witness
on the point. The evidence of the workman is supported
by the document about payment of bonus for 251 dasy.
The document Exhibit M-6 produced by management
shows working days of workman as 251 days. The
Admission in cross-examination of workman about his
working days cannot destroy the documentary evidence
produced by management Exhibit M-6. The evidence of
management about 239 working dasy of workman is not
consistent. Management's witness in his cross-examination
is cogent how 251 days were wrongly calculated instead of
239 days. Therefore the evidence of workman that he
completed 240 days continuous service deserves to be
accepted.
7. In his cross-examination management's witness in
ipara-9 says that the services of workman were terminated
wihout notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid to
him. Thus termination of service of workman in violation of
Section 25-F is established. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No. 2 In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of service of workman in violation of Section
25-F is established, the question arises to what relief to the
workman is entitled. The workman in his cross-examination
has admitted that he has not received letter of appointment.
The workman hardly worked for 251 days. His services
were discontinued in 1991. There is no evidence that
appointment of workman was made in the said post. Claim
of the workman for reinstatement cannot be allowed. The
documents Exhibit M-1 is copy of letter received from
employment exchange, M-2 was enclosed. Exhibit M-5 is
letter issued ot Virendra Kumar Vishwakarma on 17-8-92.
The letter of appointment on several conditions as part
time messenger. From document Exhibit M-5, it is clear that
Virendra Kumar Vishwakarma was not appointed on regular
basis. Though the termination of service of workan is
illegal,considering 251 working days of the workman, his
reinstatement with back wages would not be proper rather
allowing reasonable compensation would be appropriate.
In my considered view, considering age of the workman,
the working days of workman, compensation Rs. 75,000
would be appropirate. Accordingly I record my finding on
Point No. 2.
6216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Kshetriya Gramin
Bank, Hoshangabad in terminating the service of
Shri Chouhan Singh Chouhan is illegal.
(2) Management is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 75,000 to the workman Shri Chouhan Singh
Chouhan.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2346-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nqxZ jtuhxk
xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k]tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ ¼lanHkZ la[;k 105@97½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@37@96&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Awarde (Ref. No. 105/
97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management in of Durg Rajandgaon Gramin
Bank and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 11/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/37/96-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO.CGIT/LC/R/105/97
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Daua Ram Sahu,
S/o Shri Nammulal Sahu,
Thana Dongergaon,
Distt. Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh
....Workman
Versus
Chairman,
Durg Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank,
MP Housing Board shopping Centre,
GE Road,
Raipur Chhattisgarh
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 25-3-97 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-12012/37/96-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Durg
Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank in relation to their Kokpur
branch in refusing employment to Shri Daua Ram
Sahu S/o Nammulal Sahu Messenger w.e.f. 3-2-91 is
lawful and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/3. Case of workman is that he was employed as
messenger/farash on daily wages in Kokpur branch from
8-12-86. He was paid wages fixed from time to time by
Collector. He continued to work till 1988. Again he was re-
employed from 29-9-89 till 19-1-91. He had completed 240
days continuous service including holiday and Sundays.
That as per circular dated 18-10-84 by Govt. of India,
Ministry of Finance qualification for appointment of
messengers is 40 Lakhs wer prescribed as per circular
dated 22-5-87 by NABARD. The branches having business
more than 30 Lakhs were allowed full time messengers and
regularization of their services. That Union of India being
Principal Employer of employees working in Regional Rural
Banks accepted recommendations of national Industrial
Tribunal on 22-2-91 for regularization of the services of
messenger/sweeper.
3. Durg Rajnandgaon Regional Rural Bank has been
regularizing daily wage messagers from 1989 holding
interviews. His services were not regularized instead his
services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.
Act. On such grounds, workman prays for his
reinstatement. Statement of claim is not signed by the
workman but bear signature of his counsel.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/
5 Relief prayed by workman are opposed. That one
Yadunandan Srivastava was working on daily wages in
Kokar branch in 1985 from 9-12-96, he was not on duty.
Therefore 1st party workman was temporarily engaged for
cleaning of Bank premises and filling drinking water. Wages
Rs. 5 per day were paid to him. That workman not completed
240 days service during any of the year. His working days
are shown in para-3 of the Written Statement. That the
guidelines issued provides full time messengers to the
branches having business 30 Lakhs per annum. The
minimum and maximum age is also prescribed. Workman
was not fulfilling those conditions. He has not completed
240 days service. Kukar branch had no business of 30
Lakhs per annum. Workman has not passed 8th standard
as usch he is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. The Services
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6217
of Shri Damodar Patel were regularized as part time
messenger cum cleaner in 1987 and posted to Kokar branch
from 1-2-91. It is submitted that public has right of
employment in the Banks. If the services of workman re-
regularized, it would amount to back door entry which is
not permissible. On such ground, IInd party prays for
rejection of claim.
5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3
reiterating his contentions in Statement of Claim filed by
him. The management filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/3
reiterating its earlier contentions in the Written Statment.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Durg
Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank
in relation to their Kokpur
branch
in
refusing
employment to Shri Daua
Ram Sahu S/o Nammulal
Sahu Messenger w.e.f.
3-2-91 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is
rejected.
REASONS
7. Though the workman is challenging termination
of his services by IInd party filed statement of claim and
rejoinder, workman failed to adduce evidence. Evidence of
workman is closed on 28-12-2010. Management filed
affidavit of evidence of witness Shri Sanjay Kadam covering
most of the point in written Statement filed by management.
The workman remained absent and failed to cross-examine
witness of management. As per evidence of management
workman has not completed 240 days service. The breakup
of working days is shown in para-5 of affidavit. Workman
is not covered under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act therefore he is
not entitled to protection under Section 25-F of I.D. Act.
therefore termination of services of workman cannot be
said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Durg Rajnandgaon
Gramin Bank in relation to their Kokpur branch in
refusing employment to Shri Daua Ram Sahu S/o
Nammulal Sahu Messenger w.e.f. 3-2-91 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2347-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bankSj izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 67@07½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-10-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@42@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 67/07)
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 Indore
and their workman, received by the Central Government
on 11.10.2013.
[No. L-12012/42/2007-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/67/07
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Santosh Kumar Laxminarayana Yadav,
Golbazaar Ward No. 23,
Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh),
....Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager (Pancham),
State Bank of Indore,
Zonal Office, National Highway,
Telibandha,
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 25th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 20.7.07 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/
42/2007-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Santosh
Kumar Laxmi Narayan Yadav w.e.f. 25.5.06 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?"
6218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. The case of workman is that he was engaged
as peon from 20.9.99 on daily wages Rs. 50 by the Branch
Manager. His wages were increased to Rs. 60, 70, 75, 90,
100 & 110. He was paid wages for six days in a week. He
was not paid wages for Sundays. That he had completed
240 days continuous service every year. His services were
terminated without notice on 25.5.06, retrenchment
compensation was not paid, pay in lieu of notice was not
paid to him. That he is covered as workman under Section
25B of I.D. Act. This services are terminated in violation of
Section 25F of I.D. Act. He had rendered unblemished
service for 7 years. The principles of last come first go was
not followed by IInd party while terminating his services.
After his termination, IInd party engaged other daily wage
employees. He was not given opportunity for re-
employment. IInd party violated Section 25F of I.D. Act on
such ground, Ist party prayed for reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/10, It is submitted that the State Bank of India is
established under the Banking Company's Act 1959. The
business of the Bank is controlled as per directions of RBI.
The sub staff in Class-III, IV are appointed as per the rules
with approval of Govt. of India. The post are required to be
advertised. The names from Employment Exchange are
called. Such procedure are not followed. It is denied that
workman was appointed on the post of peon.
4. As per IInd party daily wage employees are engaged
by bank for working 1-2 hours in morning, 2 hours in evening
as regular peons are not doing such work. The workman
was engaged as part time daily wage basis. He was paid
wages. He is not regular employee of the Bank. He is not
entitled for reinstatement, he is not entitled to protection of
provision under I.D. Act, merely for completion of 240 days,
he is not entitled for regularization. IInd party referred ratio
held in different cases by the Courts and submits that Ist
party workman is not entitled to reinstatement. That General
Secretary Ram Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of SBI,
as such he is not competent to represent workman.
5. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3 reiterating
his claim about termination of his services in violation of
Section 25F of I.D. Act.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of State Bank of
Indore in terminating the services
of Shri Santosh Kumar Laxmi
Narayan Yadav w.e.f. 25.5.06 is
legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
order
REASONS
7. Before dealing with the dispute under reference in
merit, I make it clear that though objection is taken for
engaging Advocate by the management and IInd party
has objected authority of Shri Ram Nagwanshi, General
Secretary of Union to represent the workman. Both parties
did not raise above point.
8. The termination of services of workman is
challenged for violation of Section 25F of I.D. Act. IInd
party submits that workman was engaged as part time daily
wager. He has not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman has filed affidavit of evidence. In para-3 of
affidavit, he has stated that he was working for more than
280 days every year from 29.9.99 till 2006. That his services
were terminated in violation of Section 25F. He was paid
bonus by the IInd party. In his cross-examination, it is not
challenged that the workman had completed 240 days
continuous service. The workman in his cross-examination
says that he was working in the Bank from 20.9.99 till 27.5.06
but documents are not with him. He was opening Bank,
was doing cleaning work, was delivering dak. The cross-
examination appears in the nature of confirmation of work
rather than challenging his working in the Bank.
9. Management witness Shri Chandra Shekhar
Kumbhalwar filed affidavit of evidence. In para-3 of the
affidavit he has stated that workman had not worked 240
days in any year. Workman was engaged for cleaning work,
he was working one hour morning, one hour evening,
wages were paid to him for said work, his name was not
sponsored from Employment Exchange. In his cross-
examination, management witness says he was not working
in the Branch during 1999 to 2006. He had not obtained any
information from earlier Branch Managers working in the
branch. His affidavit of evidence is filed after examining
the record. The name of workman was not appearing in
attedance register, pay register/salary register. He claims
ignorance whether bonus was paid to the workman.
However he admitted payment of bonus as per document
Exhibit W-1. Other suggestions in his cross-examination
are denied. He claims ignorance about payment of gratuity.
He claims ignorance for how many days the workman was
working. The documents is not produced that the workman
is working only for 1 hour morning and 1 hour evening.
10. If evidence of witnesses is properly appreciated,
the evidence of workman is not challenged that he had
completed 240 days continuous service. Evidence of
management's witness shows that he has no personal
knowledge as he was not working in the branch during
relevant period. Therefore the evidence of management's
witness cannot be preferred to the evidence of workman.
11. Learned counsel for workman Shri Tripathi
submits that burden lies on workman to prove that he was
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6219
working more than 240 days during calendar months
preceding his termination. The ratio held in case of State of
Karnataka and another versus S.T. Hadimani reported in
2002(3) Supreme Court Cases 25, Krishna Bhagyajal Nigam
Ltd. versus Mohd. Rafi reported in 2006(9) Supreme Court
Cases 697 & State of Haryana Versus Ramesh Kumar
reported in 2008 (11) Supreme Court Cases 435 supports
above arguments. However evidence discussed above is
clear that there was no challenge to the evidence of
workman that he had completed 240 days continous service.
The evidence of management's witness is not based on
record. He has not enquired from his predecessor therefore
the evidence is sufficient to hold that workman had worked
for more than 240 days during 12 calendar months prior to
his termination. He was part time daily wager. He is entitled
to protection of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The termination of
his service is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
12. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
question arises whether the workman is entitled to
reinstatement with back wages. Evidence shows workman
was not appointed following recruitment process. He was
working as part time daily wager. Considering termination
of his services in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act,
reinstatement with back wages would not be proper,
reasonable compensation for termination of his service in
violation of Section 25-F would be appropriate. In my
considered view, considering period of service rendered
by workman from 99 to 2006, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000
would be adequate. Accordingly I record my finding in
Point No. 2.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of Indore
in terminating the services of Shri Santosh Kumar
Laxmi Narayan Yadav w.e.f. 25-5-06 is illegal.
(2) IInd party management is directed to pay
Compensation Rs. 1,50,000/- to the workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2348-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 11@10@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@96@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 98/99) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Centeral Railway, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/10/2013.
[No. L-41012/96/98-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/98/99
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Arun Prakash,
S/o Rambux, R/O New Garibi Line,
Ward No. 11, Bada Pipal,
Itarsi
Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager (P),
Central Railway,
Habibganj,
Bhopal (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 18th day of September 2013
1. As per letter dated 25-2-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section - 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.
L-41012/96/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the management of DRM,
Central Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services
of Shri Arun Prakash S/o Rambux w.e.f. 26-8-91 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 2/2 to 2/8. The case of workman is that he was working
as Gangman on Central Railway as a permanent employee
of the Central Railway after due test and medical fitness on
11-8-86. He was posted to work under PWI, Central Railway,
BIR station. That he had entered in Railway service on
11-7-83. He worked as Khalasi under Inspector of Works,
Central Railway, Itarsi on daily wage basis. He was posted
as Gangman from 11-8-96. He was not allowed any kind of
leave by PWI BIR. He was not granted medical treatment
by Railway doctor. He was putting up at Bir without the
6220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
provision of Railway quarter though it was essential as per
Railway Rules. That family members of applicant was not
putting up at Bir due to proper quarter and he was sick,
hence he had to leave BIR and proceed for Agra. That he
received treatment from Dr. H.B. Singh at Agra. He had also
informed PWI BIR by postcard about his treatment at Agra.
That he received treatment from Dr. H.B. Singh during the
period 8-9-87 to 27-8-88. That he had produced Medical
Certificate before PWI BIR while reporting on duty. He was
allowed to resume duty and then send to Railway Doctor
for medical examination about his fitness for duties.
3. Workman further submits that he was found fit by
the Doctor and Certificate No. 22 was received on 28-9-88
by Medical Officer, Central Railway Bhopal. There was no
adverse remark. The chargesheet was issued to him on
13-9-88 by Asstt. Engineer through PWI BIR on the
allegations related to absence from duty from 8-9-87 to 27-8-88.
4. Ist party workman submits that enquiry was
conducted without following proper procedure. He was
not allowed proper opportunity for his defence. Principles
of natural justice were violated, copies of enquiry
Proceedings were not supplied to him. Other grounds are
alleged by him and enquiry conducted against workman is
found illegal and management was granted permission to
prove misconduct adducing evidence. Other details are
not narrated. Ist party workman submits appeal preferred
by him to DRM was rejected without assigning reason.
That he had submitted representation to General Manager.
It was not properly considered. That termination of his
services is not proper, justified. He prays for his
reinstatement in service with consequential benefits.
5. IInd party management filed Written Statement at
Page 4/1 to 4/5 IInd party submits that workman remained
absent from duty without sanctioned leave. As such his
absence from duty was not authorized. Railway quarters
were limited, it could not be provided to workman. It is
denied that the applicant was transferred to BIR as
Gangman. It is reiterated that workman was posted at
Khandwa in Bhopal Division. It is denied that the Ist party
workman had produced Medical Certificate, fitness
certificate. It is denied that after his joining, he was send
for medical checkup. Rather it is submitted that after joining,
certificate No. 22 issued by Medical Officer was submitted.
The chargesheet was issued to the workman. Enquiry was
conducted following rules. Principles of natural justice were
followed. Enquiry is legal. The punishment of termination
of service is legal. IInd party prays for rejection of claim of
workman.
6. Ist party workman filed exhaustive rejoinder at Page
6/1 to 6/11 reiterating his contentions in statement of claim.
He has also pleaded about production of his Medical
Certificate receiving treatment from Doctor H.B. Singh at
Agra. That the punishment of removal is illegal. The enquiry
conducted against workman is not proper.
7. The enquiry is found illegal by my predecessor as
per order dated 5-5-2011. The management was permitted
to prove misconduct adducing evidence.
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 misconduct of
In Affirmative
unauthorized absence is
proved by the management?
(ii) Whether the punishment of
Punishment of
termination from service of
termination of
Ist Party workman is proper?
service of Ist party
workman is illegal.
(iii) If so, to what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
9. As stated above, enquiry conducted against
workman was found illegal by my predecessor as per order
dated 5-5-2011. Other issues are not found on record.
Therefore the points for determination framed above relates
to the proving of misconduct by management, legality of
the termination from service and reliefs to the workman the
entitled. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri Ramlal.
Above witness of the management stated that he was
working as Time Keeper PWI (BIR) during 84 to 89. He
knows workman. He was unauthorisely absent from duty
from 8-9-87 to 27-8-88. His evidence is further devoted about
taking entries, about absence from duty on sick leave. If
the employee remains absent, the wages are not paid, the
payment of wages is shown in the wage sheet. The above
witness in his cross-examination says that affidavit of his
evidence is prepared looking to the attendance register.
During the relevant period, he was working as Asstt. Time
Keeper. When the labour was absent any intimation was
not given to him. Leave Register was maintained. He had
seen entries in the leave register while preparing affidavit.
It does not show that the workman submitted sick
certificate. The evidence about absence of workman from
duty is not shattered in cross-examination of the witness.
The workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He has stated
that he had asked for leave from PWI BIR as he was not
feeling well, he was not provided Railway quarter. His family
was living at his home. During his sickness, he had
contacted Railway Medical Officer Harda but he refused to
put him in sick leave. That he received treatment from Private
Doctor. He was allowed to leave hqr. by PWI BIR. That he
received treatment from Dr. H.B. Singh Agra from 8-9-87 to
27-8-88. That he was sent for Medical Examination to DMO,
Bhopal. He was granted certificate No. 22 dated 28-9-88. In
his cross-examination, workman admits that Railway
employee first used to take treatment in Railway Hospital.
In case he is not cured, such employee used to be referred
to other hospital. He has submitted application for leave to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6221
PWI BIR. That his statement in affidavit that he orally
informed PWI and proceeded on leave is true. Thus the
evidence of workman about submitting application for leave
is not consistent and can hardly be relied. Workman in his
further cross-examination says that he was ill and he was
at his home at Itarsi. He had visited Itarsi Hospital. It is true
that employees working at BIR, Nepanagar, Khandwa
Railway Hospital Khandwa is made available. He admits
that certificate of fitness used to be issued by Railway
Hospital Itarsi and he had been referred for medical
examination. He denies that he had not produced any
document from Railway Hospital Itarsi. He admits that
attendance was marked in CMR sheet. As per entry in CMR,
payment-sheet was prepared by Time Keeper and
accordingly were paid. The evidence of workman about
submitting application for leave on permission to leave
headquarter by PWI is not cogent and reliable.
10. The documents produced by management at the
stage of argument are admitted by workman and marked as
Exhibit W-3 & W-4. The document Exhibit W-4 is certificate
issued by Dr. H.B. Singh dated 28-8-88. That the workman
was suffering from acute psychosis. He was under treatment
during the period 8-9-87 to 27-8-88. Above certificate
produced by management is admitted. There is no reason
to discard said certificate produced by the management.
From above certificate, it is clear that workman was suffering
from acute psychosis (illness).
11. Certain documents produced by parties needs to
be considered. Exhibit W-2 produced by workman himself
to letter issued by Railway about rejection of his appeal,
Copy of Railway Establishment Rule, Medical Attendance
Rules, Private Medical Certificate is produced on record.
The relevant rules provide where the Railway servant
remains on medical leave upto and including 3 days duration
and reported back for duty with a Fitness Certificate from
the Railway medical Officer, subject to the condition that
the employee furnishes declaration that he had not suffered
during this period from eye disease. In other cases when
the duration of sickness is more than three days, the
Railway employee should be put back to duty within 24
hours on his producing fitness certificate from a Private
Medical Practitioner. The absence from duty of workman is
proved from evidence of management's witness and
attendance sheets which seems 388 days. Therefore the
rules discussed above do not permit workman to resume
duty on producing certificate issued by Private Doctors.
The attendance sheets produced on record, entries against
name of Ist party workman Shri Arun Prakash S/o Rambux
do not bear sick marks. The absence from duties for period
stated above is Indisputed. What workman is claiming while
he had applied for leave, leave was not granted. He had
requested permission to leave headquarter from PWI BIR
but above contentions of the workman are not
substantiated from evidence of any witness and there is
absolutely no evidence to support above claim of workman.
Therefore undisputed absence from duties, without
satisfactory explanation for permission to leave headquarter,
without application for grant of leave certainly is a
misconduct. As such the misconduct against workman is
proved therefore I record my finding on Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
12. Point No. 2—
In view of my finding in Point No. 1, the absence of
Ist party workman for 388 days without permission, without
sanctioned leave has been established, question is whether
the punishment of termination for absence from duty for
such period is justified and legal? The disciplinary authority
has not discussed why punishment of termination from
service is imposed on the workman. The Railway Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules by Shri M.L.J and made
available. Rule-6 provides—
"Penalties and Disciplinary Authorities provides
minor penalties—
(i)
Censure,
(ii)
Withholding of his promotion for a specific
period,
(iii)
Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of
any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Govt.
or Railway Administration by negligence or
breach of orders,
(iii-a)
withholding of the privilege Passes or Privilege
Ticket orders or both,
(b)
reduction to a lower stage
(iv)
withholding of increments of pay for a specific
period.
Major Penalties—
(v)
Reduction to the lower stage,
(vi)
Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade,
post or service,
(vii)
Compulsory retirement,
(viii)
Removal from service,
(ix)
Dismissal from service
Competent Authority absolutely did not give any
reason why only punishment of termination of service is
imposed.
13. The evidence on record shows that for absence
form duties of workman any kind of loss was not caused to
the Railway even the documents produced by management
Exhibit M-1 the certificate issued by Dr. H.B. Singh so that
the workman was suffering from acute psychosis during
the relevant period. When the workman was suffering from
acute psychosis, he had received treatment from Private
Doctor, instead of Railway hospital as per rules of the
Railway Administration. The violation of such rules cannot
6222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
be said intentional if the treatment would have been
provided in Railway hospital to the workman, there would
have been no necessity for him to go to Agra and received
treatment from Private Doctor. The management has not
adduced evidence that the treatment for the illness of acute
psychosis is available in hospitals at Nepanagar, Khandwa
etc. Above discussion clearly shows that absence from
duty could not be a serious misconduct when the employee
himself was suffering from illness. Therefore the
punishment of termination of service imposed by the
competent authority without assigning reasons cannot be
said proper or justified.
14. Learned counsel for workman Pranay Choubey
relies on ratio held in case of Shri Gopal Prasad Thakur
versus State of Jharkhand and ors reported in W.P.No.
4919 of 2005 by Jharkhand High Court. In para-8 of the
judgement, his Lordship has observed factual matrix about
the charges related to the each other. Charge No. 2 itself
makes clear that charges for unauthorized absence from
service from 5-11-99 to 9-11-99, salary of petitioner was
withheld. With respect of charge No. 3,4 I find that
petitioner has already been punished. It appear that charge
no. 3,4 have been included in the charge memo dated 16-1-
2000 only for the purpose of looking into the past
misconduct of the petitioner. In the net result, only charge
No. 1 which relates to unauthorized absence from 5-11-99
to 9-11-99 was left for consideration by the Inquiry Officer.
The Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that charge
No. 1 is found true against the petitioner. The facts of
above cited case are not comparable and therefore the
judgment that conversion of punishment from dismissal to
compulsory retirement cannot be beneficially applied to
case at before me.
15. The facts of the present case is not comparable,
Ist party was basent from duty for 388 days. He had not
submitted application for leave, he has not produced
evidence about permission to leave headquarter and
therefore his absence amounts to misconduct. However
the punishment of removal from service, dismissal from
service are the extreme punishments. To be specific, the
punishment of dismissal from service causes civil death of
the employee and also affects to hold family of the
employee. Therefore the termination from service of
workman cannot be sustained, it deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
16. Next question is whether the back wages claimed
by workman be allowed. Misconduct is proved. For proved
misconduct, awarding back wages be amount to the
premium. The workman had service of hardly 2-3 years
prior to his absence from duty. No evidence is adduced of
the kind of leave was to his credit. Different rules are
provided in Railway Rules. The leave to his credit needs to
be compensated. Keeping above aspects in view, and
proved misconduct of the workman, reinstatement of
workman without backwages with continuity of service
would be appropriate. Accordingly I hold and pass the
following award—
(1) The action of the management of DRM, Central
Railway, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri
Arun Prakash S/o Rambux w.e.f. 26-8-91 is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate the workman in
service with continuity of service without back
wages but Ist party workman would be entitled to
payment of wages for leave at his credit prior to
termination of his service. IInd party is directed
to pay wages for the leave in credit within 30 days.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2349-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 73@98 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@205@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th October, 2013
S.O. 2349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 73/98) of the
Cent.Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of State Bank of Inida and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/205/97-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Dilharan Lal Yadav,
S/o Shri Roosu Ram Yadav,
Gram Jonki,
PO Sakari,
Bilaspur (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Reginal Manager,
State Bank of India,
Regional Officer, Region-II,
Nehru Nagar,
Bilaspur (MP)
....Management
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6223
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 29-4-98 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/
205/97-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Inida, Kothari Branch, distt. Bilaspur in terminating
the service of Shri Dilharan Lal Yadav S/o Roosu
Ram Ex-Waterman from service of the Bank w.e.f. 31-
10-96 is justified? if not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 6/1 to 6/3. The case of Ist party workman is that he
was employed termporarily on daily wages as waterman in
Kothari Branch of SBI from 1-9-89. He was doing work of
water man and messenger boy. He was working for 9 years.
His service record was satisfactory. He worked with
devotion and honesty. The Branch Manager had issued
certifcate commending his contribution and cooperation
in loan recovery campaign. That in 1995, the Branch
Manager recommended his name for appointment as part
time basis. Considering his hard work and cooperative
nature. That in 1996, Branch Manager recommended the
workman for appointment on 1/3rd pay as part time
workman according to clause No. 3a(a) of Chapter II of
handbook on staff matter. That he worked till October 96
for all 465 days in each of the calender year from 1992 till
1995. That his services were terminated without giving any
reasons, no notice issued to him. Retrenchment
compensation was not given. He was not paid salary in
lieu of notice. That his services are terminated in violation
of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. on such grounds, the workman
prays for reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/
8. The claim of Ist party workman is denied. IInd party
submits that workman was employed as temporary
employee as waterman for storing and filling water at Kothari
branch of the Bank. He was engaged from 1989 to 1996.
When occasion arose, he also did work of sweeper cum
farrash. His services were utilised intermittently. He has
also worked as messenger and other miscellaneous works.
The details of working days are given. In 1989 he worked
for 3 days, in 1990 for 13 days, in 1991 for 13 days, in 1993
for 13 days, in 1994 for 11 days, in 1995 for 31 days and in
1996 for 28 days. As such the workman had worked for
total 112 days during 1989 to 1996. He was engaged for
specific work. His discontinuation is covered under section
2(oo) (bb) of I.D. Act. It is submitted that workman had not
completed 240 days continuous service therefore notice of
termination was not preferred. Workman was working 2
hours thrice a day. The branch was converted into satellite
office w.e.f. 31-10-96. There was no need of storage water
supply at the branch etc. the work is not available as such
discontinuation of services of workman is legal.
4. Rejoinder is filed by workman at Page 9/1 to 9/2
reiterating his contention in statement of claim.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of State Bank
of India, Kothari Brnach,
distt. Bilaspur in terminating
the service of Shri Dilharan
Lal Yadav S/o Roosu Ram
Ex-Waterman from service
of the Bank w.e.f. 31-10-96
is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?
workman is
rejected.
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his serivce
on the ground of violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He
has filed affidavit of evidence covering the contentions in
Statement of claim. That his services were terminated
without notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid
to him. The letters issued by Manager are produced. In his
cross-examination workman says that in 1989 he worked
for 3 days, in 1991 for 13 days, in 1993 for 5 days, in 1995 for
11 days and in 1996 for 13 days. He was doing other
miscellaneous work. In his further cross-examination, he
claims ignorance whether after change in the Bank work,
whether the Bank is workikng for 2 hours in 3 days in a
week. The evidence of workman in cross-examination
clearly shows that workman had completed 240 days
continuous service during 12 calendar months preceding
to his retrenchment.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of Shri J.K.
Day supporting most of the contentions in Written Statement
filed by the management. That Ist party workman had worked
for 50 days temporary messenger, he worked for 112 days
during 1981 to 1996. He had not completed 240 days
continuous service. Evidence of management witness remained
unchallenged as workman and his Advocate were absent and
failed to cross-examine the witness. Thus I find no reason to
disbelieve evidence of management's witness. The evidence
in cross-examination of Ist party workman corroborate
evidence of management's witness as workman has not,
completed 240 days continuous service during preceding 12
months of his termination. He is not entitled to notice or
retrenchement compensation provided under Section 25-F,
clause 1(a)(b) of I.D. Act. As he is not covered as workman
6224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
under Section 25-B of I.D. Act, he is not entitled to claim relief
under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore termination of
services of workman cannot be said illegal. For above reasons
I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of India,
Kothari Branch, distt. Bilaspur in terminating the service
of Shri Dilharan Lal Yadav S/o Roosu Ram Ex-Waterman
from service of the Bank w.e.f. 31-10-96 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed to workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2350-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] 1947
dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
gSnjkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 197@95 dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@149@94&vkbZ vkj ¼ch-I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 197/95) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/149/94-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/197/95
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Sanjay Kumar Lokhande,
128/2, Sarvahara Nagar, Indore
....Workman
Versus
Regional Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Kolaba, Mumbai
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 27-10-95 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/
149/94-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Hyderabad in terminating the services of Shri
Sanjay Kumar Lokhande, Peon Indore Branch w.e.f.
18.3.89 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at page 6/1 to 6/5. The case of Ist party is that there were
clear vacancy of 2 post of peon in branch office of IInd
party at Indore. Vide order dated 10.1.89 Branch Manager
called list of 40 eligible person from Employment Exchange
for 2 vacant posts of peon. List was furnished on 25.9.88.
Only 20% from said list. Only 20% from said list were called
for interview. Subsequently IInd interview was held of 10
candidates out of 20. Remaining candidates were not
considered. Final interview was partly taken. Ist party had
scored highest mark. He was selected for post of peon.
The Head Office instructed IInd party by Telephonic
message to utilize his services alongwith one Rajendra
Kumar. After selection the Branch Manager filed letter dated
18.1.1999 informing Employment Exchange office that Ist
Party was selected for post of peon. His name was truck
from list of unemployed persons. Ist party however did not
receive letter of appointment. He was engaged but the
workman was not specific, period was not specified by
IInd party.
3. There were clear vacancies despite of it, his services
were terminated by IInd party without issuing notice. No
reasons were given for termination of his service. That
termination of his services were in violation of Section 25-G
of I.D. Act. One Pawan Kumar and Rajendra Kumar was
not sponsored by Employment Exchange required as per
the rules. They were selected showing favour. It is alleged
that IInd party violated Articles 14, 16, 21 of constitution.
Provisions of Section 25 T, 25 U & 34 of I.D. Act are violated
by IInd party. That his several applications were not
considered by IInd party for reinstatement. On such
grounds, he prays for his reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/4. The relief prayed by Ist party are opposed. IInd party
submits that Ist party worked on daily wages on contractual
basis only for three days unless the workman works for
240 days during the calendar his termination does not
amount to retrenchement. The reference is not tenable.
Violation of Section 25-F, G & H is denied. That applicant
had not worked even for 50 days during 12 calender months
preceding his termination.
5. It is submitted by IInd Party that Ist party workman
was appointed purely on daily wage basis. After his name
was sponsored through Employment Exchange against
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6225
two vacant post of peon. He joined his duty on 20.1.1989.
His services were on temporary basis to meet their
increased work load. He was paid wages proportionately
as daily wage peon. Ist party worked only for 47 days
therefore there is provision of Section 2(o)(o), Section
25-F are not applicable. Those contentions are repeatedly
reiterated by IInd party. It is submitted that there was no
violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D. Act. IInd prays for
rejection of claim.
6. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 13/1 to 13/2
reiterating its contention in his statement of claim. That his
name was sponsored through Employment Exchange for
vacant post. That he could not be dismissed without notice.
7. IInd party submitted reply to rejoinder at Page 11/
1 to 11/2 denying contentions raised by workman that the
name of workman was sponsored for regular appointment
of two vacant post of peon.
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 Affirmative
management of State Bank
of Hyderabad in terminating
the services of Shri Sanjay
Kumar Lokhande, Peon
Indore
Branch
w.e.f
18.3.1989 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?
workman is rejected.
REASONS
9. Though workman is challenging legality of
termination of his service, has submitted his statement of
claim as discussed above. Workman fails to adduce any
evidence to substantiate his claim. His evidence is closed
on 25.2.2011. Management filed affidavit of its witness Ravi
Kumar Shukla. The management's witness has covered most
of the contentions in Written Statement filed by IInd party
that workman had not completed 240 days continuous
service. He had worked on daily wages only 47 days. That
the Ist party workman was engaged purely on daily wage
basis. That provisions of Section 2(oo) read with Section
25-F are not violated. The evidence of management's
witness remained unchallenged as Ist party failed to cross-
examine. I do not find reason to discard unchallenged
evidence of management's witness. Workman failed to
adduce evidence to establish illegality of his termination
of service. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of
Hyderabad in terminating the services of Shri
Sanjay Kumar Lokhande, Peon Indore Branch
w.e.f. 18.3.89 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2351-—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQ
bankSj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 173@2001 dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@265@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2351.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 173/2001)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of Indore and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/265/2001-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/173/2001
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sanghathan,
Indore
....Workman/Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
Zonal Office, Kanchanbagh,
Indore
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 23rd day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 15-11-2001 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/
265/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore, Zonal Office, Kanchanbagh in not giving
6226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
permanent appointment to Shri Santosh Kumar w.e.f.
1.8.94 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled?"
2. After receipt of reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 5/1 to 5/6. The case of Ist Party workman is that his
elder brother was working in State Bank of Indore Branch
Nimadkhedi, Distt. Khandwa from 1.5.92. He was called to
work at Branch Rajgarh from 18.1.94. He was paid wages
Rs. 40/- per day. After the said post of lying vacant, Ist
Party workman was engaged form 1.8.94 for cleaning,
dusting etc. work. That he was performing his duties
honestly with devotion. That he was paid wages in different
names. The payment vouchers were prepared by Ramesh
working as peon. It is further submitted that the IInd Party
instead of submitting reply in the dispute, he was asked to
sign on the documents under the threat that he would be
handed over to police if he fail to sign the documents.
Under such compelling circumstances, he had signed
documents asked by Branch Manager Mr. Tiwari.
3. Ist Party workman further submits that he was
working continuously for more than 240 days since 1.8.94.
He is covered as workman under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act.
He was working in the Bank till 2.7.02. His services were
terminated without notice or paying retrenchment
compensation in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. It is
further submitted that principles of last come, first go were
not followed. Other employees were engaged after
termination of his service. IInd Party violated Section 25-
H, N of I.D. Act on such contentions, Ist party workman is
praying for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to 7/
8. Claim of Ist Party workman is totally denied. IInd Party
submits that daily wagers are engaged whenever there is
work load. Daily wagers have to fulfill certain requirements
of qualification, their names should be sponsored through
Employment Exchange. Panel of daily rates casual labours
is maintained district wise. They are regularized as per their
seniority as and when vacancy arise. That workman was
engaged as daily rated casual labour in Nimkhedi branch
for 2-3 hours. He was not appointed by Bank, no
appointment letter was issued to him. His engagement came
to an end each day after working hours. Ist Party not
undergone recruitment process. There is no employer
employee relationship. IInd Party quoted ratio held in
several case by the Apex Court and other courts and submits
that the Ist Party is not entitled for regularisation. The
reference is bad on the ground of latches/delay. That Union
Secretary Shri Ram Nagwanshi is a dismissed employee of
SBI, he is not competent to represent workman. On such
grounds, IInd Party prays for rejection of claim of Ist party
workman.
5. Ist Party filed rejoinder at page 9/1 to 9/3 reiterating
his contentions in Statement of Claim. That the termination
of his services is illegal. That workman was paid bonus.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(1) Whether the action of the
management of State Bank
In Affirmative
of Indore, Zonal Office,
Kanchanbagh in not giving
permanent appointment to
Shri Santosh Kumar w.e.f.
1-8-94 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is
rejected.
REASONS
7. As per terms of reference, IInd Party Bank not
giving permanent appointment to Shri Santosh Kumar w.e.f.
1-8-94 is referred for adjudication by this Tribunal. However
the statement of claim filed by Ist Party workman refers to
termination of his services from 2-7-02 in violation of Section
25-F, G & H of I.D. Act. Statement of claim is silent about
regularization claimed by workman. The affidavit of
evidence filed by workman is devoted on the point he had
completed 240 days service every year after 1-8-94. That
he was continuously working with the Bank till 2-7-02. His
services were terminated without notice or without paying
retrenchment compensation. His affidavit of evidence is
silent under what Rule or settlement, the workman is
claiming regularisation of his service.
8. In his cross-examination, workman says he was
working as daily wage casual labour, his name was
registered in Employment Exchange. His written test was
not held. That the dispute raised before ALC was he was
terminated from service and he prayed for reinstatement.
That reference is made that his services would be made
permanent. Thus the claim of workman in his statement of
claim and affidavit of evidence is not consistent with the
terms of reference.
9. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Jitendra Kumar Navlakhe covering the contentions of IInd
Party management in its Written Statement are supported
by the witness in his affidavit. That workman has challenged
termination of his service whereas the reference relates to
regularization of his service. That workman was not
continuously working in the Bank from 1-8-94 till 2-7-2002.
In his cross-examination, management's witness says he
had seen attendance register of workman but any
documents are not produced by him. He had no talk with
other Branch Managers Mr. Saxena, Tiwari, Kesharva,
Bamne prior to filing affidavit of evidence. Workman was
paid wages weekly, vouchers were not available. The
evidence of management's witness is in the form of denial
of claim of workman. As stated above, the terms of reference
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6227
and claim of workman are not consistent. The evidence of
workman is clear that he had not undergone selection
process.
10. On the point whether workman is entitled for
regularization. IInd Party relies on ratio held in:—
Case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus
Ashok Ranghba Ambre reported in 2008-2-SCC-717.
Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with the
question of setting aside the termination or violation
of Section 25-F held. The termination doesnot
necessarily follow that workman is entitled to status
of permanency and claims for regular pay scales.
The word regular and regularization donot connote
"permanence".
Next reliance is placed in case of Mahboob Deepak
versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another
reported in 2008(1) Supreme Court Cases 575. Their
Lordship in para-8, 9 of the judgment held respondent
is local authority, no appointment can be made by
lcoal authority without following the provisions of
recruitment rules. Any appointment made in violation
of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of
equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India would be a nullity.
Their Lordship have further held that Appellants claim
for regularization is not sustainable having regard to
the fact that he had not completed 240 days work
and required compliance with the provisions of
Section 6-N of the UP Industrial Disputes, Act, the
workmen should be granted adequate monetary
compensation, so the appellant is entitled to
compensation, notice and notice pay. A sum of Rs.
50,000 by way of damages is made to the appellant."
11. In the present case, ratio held in those cases
cannot be applied as the claim of workman is beyond
terms of reference. The termination of services is not
covered by the reference. Considering the facts and
evidence on record, the ratio relied in Case of Samishta
Dube versus City Board Etawah and another reported in
1999(81)FLR 746, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
versus Ashok Ranghba amber reported in 2008(2) Supreme
Court Cases 717 needs more clear discussion. For reasons
discussed above, I record my finding on Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)Action of the management of State Bank of
Indore, Zonal Office, Kanchanbagh in not giving
permanent appointment to Shri Santosh Kumar w.e.f.
1-8-94 is legal.
(2)Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2352-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQ
bankSj izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 171@2001½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-10-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@279@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2352.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 171/
2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of State Bank of Indore and their workmen,
which was received by the Central Government on
11.10.2013.
[No. L-12012/279/2001-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/171/2001
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Dainik Wetan Bhogi Bank Karamchari Sangthan,
9, Sanwer Road, Hardeo Niwas,
Ujjain
....Workman/Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of Indore
(now merged as State Bank of India),
Zonal Office, Kanchan Bagh,
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of September 2013
1. As per letter dated 15-11-2001 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/
279/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore (merged as State Bank of India) in not
regularizing the services of Shri Ajay Malkar, Daily
wage employee but terminating his services w.e.f.
January 1998 is legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
6228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through Daily Wage Bank Employees Union. The statement
of claim is not properly drafted. It is unusual to see that in
para-11 of statement of claim, one photo of workman with
the other Union office bearer has been affixed in ignorance
of the rules. The Ist party Union has reproduced circular
dated 29-8-89 that powers for appointment of casual
employees is seized to continue. Circular dated 29-8-89,
7-9-92 provides that despite of the circulars were issued,
daily wage employees for cleaning etc. work were continued.
That as per circular dated 24-12-96, casual employee should
not be allowed to work for more than 75 days.
3. Ist party submits that he was working in Rajmohalla
branch, Indore on daily wages Rs. 40 per day from
10-10-94. He was paid wages for six days in a week. The
detailed particulars of payment of wages are shown in Para-
8 that from 10-10-94, he was continuously working till
discontinuation of his service in 1988. That he was paid
wages Rs. 50/- per day. That he had completed 240 days
continuous service during each of the year. Ist party
workman has given details of the meetings of the
conciliation proceeding and discussions taken place
between parties. Ist party further submits that he is covered
as workman under Section 25(N) of I.D. Act. His services
are terminated without paying retrenchment compensation,
without issuing notice in violation of Section 25-F, he was
not paid bonus. Othr employees were employed in his place.
Workman was not given opportunity of employment
violating Section 25-H of I.D. Act. On such ground,
workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/8. The claim of Ist party workman is denied. IInd party
submits that Daily Wages employees are engaged when
there is temporary workload. Daily wages have to fulfil
certain requirements regarding their qualification, age etc.
and also should be sponsored by Employment Exchange.
He was not qualified to be engaged on daily wages. That
he was engaged as daily rated casual labour in Rajmohalla
Branch, Indore for 2-3 hours at the rate agreed by him for
the purpose of cleaning and sweeping of the branch
premises as and when required basis. That the dispute is
not covered under Section 2 of I.D. Act. there is no employee
employer relationship between Ist party and the Bank.
5. Next it is submitted that Shri Ram Nagwanshi is a
dismissed employee and claims to be General Secretary of
the Union representing claim of the workman. As per ratio
held in AIR 1996-SC-Page 1865, he is not competent to be
Union Representative. IInd party referred to the ratio held
in various cases and submits that Ist party workman is not
entitled to regularization. He was not appointed against
sanctioned post. Workman is not entitled to relief claimed
by him as workman has not completed 240 days continuous
service cannot be regularized. On such grounds, IInd party
prays for rejection of claim of workman.
6. Ist party Union has taken objection for engaging
Advocate by IInd party.
7. Rejoinder is filed by Ist party at Page 12/1 to 12/3
reiterating its contention in Statement of Claim. That
workman was allowed to work for six days in a week.
Workman was paid his wages under bogus bills of different
categories. He was not paid retrenchment compensation.
Termination of his service is illegal. Muster roll was not
maintained by IInd party is violation of Section 25-B of I.D.
Act. Bipartite Settlement are not followed. On such
grounds, Ist party prays for his reinstatement.
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
management of State Bank
In Affirmative
of Indore (merged as
State Bank of India) in not
regularizing the services
of Shri Ajay Malkar,
Daily wage employee but
terminating his services
w.e.f. January 1998 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
9. Ist party workman is challenging termination of
his services alleging that IInd party violated Section 25-F,
G & H of I.D. Act. He was not given opportunity and other
person was given opportunity to be engaged in his place.
10. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering
most of his contentions in Statement of Claim. That he was
working in bank from 10-10-94. He worked continuously
for more than 240 days. He was paid wages Rs. 40, 50 per
day. The wages were paid to him after deducting wages for
Sunday. His services were terminated without giving notice,
without paying retrenchment compensation. That the
different kinds of bills were submitted to Branch Manager
and his signatures were obtained on it. Details stated in
Para-3 of the affidavit. The vouchers used to be submitted
with the cashier under different types. In his cross-
examination, workman says that he had not stated to
Nagwanshi while submitting his statement of claim. The
statement of claim is different from the terms of reference.
That he was engaged on daily wages, he was paid Rs. 40
per day. Other 4-5 permanent peons were working in the
Branch. Regular peon gets salary Rs. 10,000 per month. He
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6229
had not received letter of appointment. His attendance was
not maintained in the register by the Bank. He was paid
wages Rs. 50/- per day from 26-10-98. That he was
continously working in the bank from 10-10-94 to 26-10-98.
He had claimed bonus. He claims ignorance how
appointments of regular employees are made.
11. Documents Exhibit W-1 is circular dated 24-12-96.
In case of exigencies, daily wage employees can be engaged
for maximum 75 days. Exhibit W-2 is payment of wages @
Rs. 350 per month. Exhibit W-2(a), 2(b), (c) are about
payment of wages at Rs. 50/- per day.
12. Shri Ram Nagwanshi, Secretary of Union filed
affidavit of his evidence to support claim of workman. He
has stated in his affidavit that from 1994, he was transferred
from Yashwantpur Branch Indore to Rajmohalla Branch
Indore as Asstt. Cashier. He was dealing with payments.
That Ajay Kumar Malkar was paid Rs. 40/- per day from
10-10-98. The witness has further stated in his affidavit
that Shri Ajay Malkar was paid amount in the form of
Rikshaw charge. The wages of Shri Mayaram, Laxmi
Narayan Sharma, Laxmi Narayan Purohit, Pradeep Raverkar
and Dilip were paid in the name of bogus distribution of
letters. The bogus payment in the form of Rikshaw charges
etc. was paid to Shri Ajay Malkar. In his cross-examination
Shri Nagwanshi says that he is hold in authority as Union
Representative for workman and he is also deposing as
witness in his official capacity. The evidence of Shri Ram
Nagwanshi cannot be relied as he is spouting the claim of
Ist party workman. He was working as Asstt. Cashier in
Bank. He was preparing bogus claim of Rikshaw charges in
the names of regular peon. If his evidence is accepted, he
committed illegal acts by preparing illegal bogus vouchers
for payment to the workman. Ist party workman has not
examined any co-worker. He has not proved any other
documents about payment of wages of salary in his name.
The claim of workman based on illegal vouchers and
payments made to him cannot substantiate his claim that
he was continuously working more than 240 days during
each of the calendar year.
13. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri
Harinath denying that workman was continuously working
from 10-10-94 to 16-10-98. That the workman was engaged
for 1-2 hours for cleaning work. In his cross-examination,
management's witness says that his evidence in affidavit
that workman was engaged for 1 hour morning, 1 hour
evening is based on the record. Such record is not
maintained. Again he says that he is not able to tell for how
many days the workman has worked on daily wages, the
record is destroyed.
14. The burden lies on workman to prove that he was
continuously working for more than 240 days. Counsel for
IInd party submits that burden is not discharged. As per
terms of reference, Ist party was terminated in January 1998.
Evidence is adduced that he was working till 26-10-98. The
evidence is not consistent.
15. Reliance is placed by counsel for IInd party on
ratio held in—
"Case of Samishta Dube versus City Board Etawah
and another reported in 1999(81)FLR 746, Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. versus Ashok Ranghba
amber reported in 2008(2) Supreme Court Cases 717.
Their Lordship held setting aside the action of
termination of service violative of Section 25-F
doesnot necessarily follow that the workman is
entitled to status of permanency.
In case of Mahboob Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat,
Gajraula and another reported in 2008(1) Supreme
Court Cases 575. The ratio deals with the adequate
monetary compensation to be paid to workman.
16. From reasons discussed above, evidence
adduced by workman is not cogent to establish that he has
completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12
months from his termination of service. Therefore he is not
entitled to protection under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The
evidence of workman is silent who was employed after
termination of his service. As such violation of Section 25-
H is not made out. Therefore record my findings on Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
17. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of Indore
(merged as StateBank of India) in not regularizing the
services of Shri Ajay Malkar, Daily wage employee but
terminating his services w.e.f. January 1998 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2353-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQ
bankSj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 206@98½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@338@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th October, 2013
S.O. 2353.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 206/98)
6230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Indore and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/338/97-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/lC/R/206/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Daily wages Bank employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
....Workman/Union
Versus
Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore,
Head Office, 5, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of September 2013
1. As per letter dated 1-9-98 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/
338/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of Managing Director, State
Bank of Indore in not regularizing Shri Harikishan
Hariram Dhobi is justified|? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference notices were issued to
the parties. On behalf of Ist party statement of claim is
submitted by Secretary, Daily Wage Bank Employees
Union. The case of Ist party workman is that he was working
on vacant post as peon in SBI Branch Lateri, Distt. Vidisha,
the then Branch Manager R.N. Parse engaged him on daily
wages. From 8 to 10 AM, he was cleaning the branch office
of the Bank, from 10.30 till evening he was required to do
many work in the bank, He rendered services honestly.
That he was required to work six days in a week. For holiday
on Sunday his wages were deducted, he was paid weekly
wages. As such he was working with the IInd party for 8
hours from 1-10-82. He was paid bonus after filing
conciliation proceeding before ALC, Bhopal. During
conciliation proceeding, it was assured that he would not
be discontinued from service. That he had completed 240
days continuous service during each of the year. On such
contentions Ist party prays for regularization of his services
and consequential benefits. During pendency, workman
died, his LR Smt. Ajudibai, widow is substituted on record.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to
9/6. Preliminary objection is raised that claim is not signed
or verified by the workman as such not tenable. Union is
not completent to raise the dispute. No documents is
produced by the Union authorizing it or prosecuting the
reference on behalf of workman. The reference filed against
Managing Director is not tenable. The reference is bad for
non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. That the Union was
not party before ALC in conciliation proceeding therefore
it cannot prosecute the claim of Ist party workman.
4. IInd party denies that workman was required to
work from 8 to 10 AM and at 10.30 till evening continuously
from 1-10-82. It is denied that workman was performing his
duties satisfactorily with devotion. IInd party submits that
as per need, Ist party workman was engaged on daily wages.
The wages were paid as agreed. Workman was not working
for 8 hours claimed by him. The regular appointments were
done following rules for recruitment. The appointment are
made after following selection process. Ist party was not
appointed after following selection process., There was
not vacant post. Workman was not continuously working
as claimed by him. He is not entitled for regularisation as
prayed by him. On such grounds, IInd party praya for
rejection of claim of workman.
5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 13/1 to
13/3. The contentions in Statement of claim filed earlier are
repeated. It is submitted that during pendency Ist party
workman suffered from paralysis on 21.9.02. It is submitted
that IInd party has not paid bonus, gratuity as per the law
despite of completing 240 days service.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of
In Affirmative
Managing Director, State
Bank of Indore is not
regularizing Shri Harikishan
Hariram Dhobi is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
7. Though objection is taken by Ist party Union on
behalf of workman not to permit appearance to Advocate
on behalf of IInd party, IInd party has raised objections
that Secretary of Union is not competent to raise dispute
on behalf of workman, at the time of hearing argument,
both the parties did not press their respective objections.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6231
8. To be precise, workman is claiming regularization
of service contending that he was continuously in service
of the Bank from 1-10-82, he was required to work from 8
AM to 11 AM. The contentions of workman are denied by
management of IInd party. Contention of IInd party that
workman was engaged on daily wages as per exigency of
work and wages as granted by him were paid to him.
Workman has died during pendency therefore question of
regularization of his services has become defunct. The
deceased person cannot be regularised in services. Besides
above evidence on record needs to be considered. In his
affidavit, workman has stated that he was working as peon
in Lateri branch of the Bank of Indore from 1982. He was
paid wages. Wages were increased to Rs. 15,20,30,35,45,60
Every year he completed more than 240 days service in the
Bank. He suffered from paralysis from 21.9.02. In his cross-
examination, he says that after his suffering from paralysis,
he was discontinued from work, he was paid wages for the
days he had worked. That he was working on daily wages.
9. The witness of the management Naresh Kumar
Katakwar in his affidavit of evidence has stated that his
evidence is based on record. He totally denies claim of Ist
party workman that he was working on vacant post of
peon/farash from 1982. According to said witness of
management, workman was doing work of cleaning , bring
drinking water for two hours in morning. Wages were paid
as agreed. That Ist party workman is not eligible for
appointment as peon in the Bank. Management's witness
in his cross-examination says that from 1982 to 2002, he
was not working in the Bank. The bonus was paid to
workman but he was unable to tell the specific period.
Separate application is filed by management of IInd party
for passing no dispute award in view of death of workman
in June 2008. Such application cannot be entertained. The
reference needs to be decided considering the evidence
on record.
10. The pleading in evidence of workman does not
show that he was appointed following selection rules. Mere
completion for 240 days continuous service during each of
the year cannot entitle workman for regularization in service.
11. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shroti relies
on ratio held in
"Case of Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar panchayat,
Gajraula and another reported in Case No. 2008 (1)
Supreme Court Cases 575. Their Lordship of the apex
court dealing with the termination of service of casual
labour/Daily wager/Temporary employee completing
240 days of continuous service in a year. Services
terminated on grounds of misconduct for financial
irregularities without complying with Section 6-N of
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Their Lordship
held Appellant's claim for regularization, held non-
sustainable But having regard to the fact that he had
completed 240 days of work and required compliance
with the provisions of Section 6-N of UP Industrial
Disputes Act, the workmen should be granted
adequate monetary compensation. So appellant
entitled to compensation, notice and notice pay.
Interest of justice will be subserved if payment of a
sum of Rs. 50,000 by way of damages is made to the
appellant."
In present case, services of Ist party workman were
not terminated. The terms of reference are whether the Bank
not regularizing Shri Harikishan Harriram Dhobi is legal?
Therefore the ratio held in above case that on completion
of 240 days continuous service, compensation was allowed
cannot be applied to the present case.
12. Workman was not appointed following
recruitment process therefore he would not be entitled for
regularization in the service. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative. Point No. 2 is
rejected.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of Managing Director, State Bank of Indore
in not regularizing Shri Harikishan Hariram Dhobi is
justified.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2354-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l bZ lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 110@2008½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@80@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2013
S.O. 2354.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 110/08) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Johilla Area of SECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/10/2013.
[No. L-22012/80/2008-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
6232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/110/08
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
The President,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),
Branch Johilla,
PO Nowrozabad,
Distt. Umaria, MP
....Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Johilla Area of SECL,
PO. Nowrozabad,
Distt. Umaria, MP
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 27th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 25-11-08 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-22012/
80/2008-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of M/S. SECL
in not promoting Shri Murat Das from S.D.L. Operator
Cat-V to Excavation Gr. "C" is legal and justified? To
what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notice were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at
Page 2 alongwith documents at Page 2/2 to 2/4. The case of
Union is that promotion were given as per order of
Headquarter of the IInd party. On 10-10-02, Premlal Ticket
No. 612, Shri Attikurehman. T, No. 504, Uttam Singh T. No.
588 and Biharilal T.No. 459 were promoted from Cat-V to
Grade-C-8. That workman Murat Das was not served with
any chargesheet for negligence in duties. Out of malafide,
he was denied promotion. Though the Union had
approached management for his promotion, promotion was
not given to Murat Das therefore the matter was taken to
conciliation and later has been referred.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement. It is submitted
that Murat Das was granted promotion time to time. No
dispute exist for adjudication, Murat Das T. No. 593 was
working in Pinoura Sub Area of Vindya Colliery as SDL
operator. Any irregularity was not committed in the matter
of his promotion. Murat Das was promoted from Category
V to VI, VI to Excavation Gr-C on 1-8-2001. It is denied that
on 10-10-02, promotion to Murat Das was illegally denied
while promotion other employees. It is denied that Murat
Das was denied promotion out of malafide. That the
performance report were called. The performance report of
Murat Das was not satisfactory as compared to other
employees. That Mr. Premlal and Shri Attikurehman were
senior to Murat Das. Therefore there could not be grievance
about their promotions. On such contentions, IInd party
prayed for rejection of the claim under reference.
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
management of M/S. SECL
in not promoting Shri Murat
Das from S.D.L. Operator
Cat-V to Excavation Gr. "C"
is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5. Though Union submitted statement of claim
contending that while other employee were promoted on
10-10-02, Murat Das was illegally denied promotion. The
Union has not examined any witness to support above
contentions. The claim of Union is denied by the
management filing detailed Written Statement. Affidavit of
evidence is filed. Management's witness Shri R.S. Rao
consistent with the Written Statement filed by the
management. That Murat Das was promoted to the post of
SDL operator Cat-V on 1-8-01. That Shri Premlal and Shri
Attikurehman were promoted on 10-10-02 were seniors to
Murat Das. That work of Murat Das was not found
satisfactory therefore he was not promoted alongwith those
employees. The evidence of management's witness
remained unchallenged. Union did not participate in the
reference proceeding and failed to adduce evidence. He
did not cross-examined witness of management. I do not
find reason to disbelieve the unchallenged evidence of
management's witness. Therefore I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of M/S. SECL in not
promoting Shri Murat Das from S.D.L. Operator Cat-V to
Excavation Gr. "C" is justified.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2355-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,l bZ lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6233
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@95½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@471@1994&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2013
S.O. 2355.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/95)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Chirimiri Area of SECL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/10/2013.
[No. L-22012/471/1994-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/69/95
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
President, M.P.K.S.S.,
Chirimiri Area,
NCPH Branch,
Post Handibadi,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Chirimiri Area, SECL,
Post West Chirimiri Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of September 2013
1. As per letter dated 2-5-95 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-
22012(471)/94-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the General Manager, Chirimiri
Area of SECL in superceding Shri Biplab Dasgupta
Accounts Clerk Grade-II by promoting persons junior
to him as Accounts Clerk Grade-I is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union filed statement of claim at page
2/1 to 2/6. The case of Ist party union is that workman
Biplab Dasgupta was employed in IInd party. He was
promoted as clerk Grade-II on 1-3-84. During the period
1-11-84 to 8-6-89, he was deployed in Area headquarters
under control of Addl. Chief Finance Manager in Accounts
Deptt. He was entrusted with the work of consolidation of
Colliery Cost Sheets, preparation of Are Cost sheet and
various statements pertaining to cost and budget section
of the Accounts/Finance Deptt. That he was efficiently
doing his job in Budget section. In 1987 management
visualized programme for imparting accounts education
for deserving candidates in the Area. The workman was
chosen for CIL Accounts Exam Course.
3. That the work of Shri Biplab Dasgupta was
appreciated for his sincerity, honesty and integrity. In 1989,
when impugned promotions for the post of Accounts Clerk
Grade-I were made, Shri Biplab Dasgupta was deserving
promotion to Clerk Grade-II considering his experience and
seniority. However he was transferred to NCPH Colliery.
Instead of workman, Smt. Tuna Shrivastava was promoted
as Accounts clerk Grade-I vide order dated 12-12-89, she
was junior to the workman. She had no requisite experience
in Accounts work, she was doing only typing job.
4. It is further submitted that as per order dated
25-7-90, one Manendra Chakravorty was promoted as
Accounts clerk Grade-I. He is junior to workman Biplab
Dasgupta. That the basis for promotion is seniority-cum-
merit was not followed. The cadre scheme was introduced
from 22-7-85. Different cadres were considered like General
Clerical Cadre, store Personnel Cadre, Loading, dispatch
and Sales Cadre, Cash Personnel Cadre, Accounts Cadre
& Secretarial cadre. Separate promotion scheme was
implemented as claimed by Promotion Committee. Separate
promotion scheme was implemented as claimed by
Promotion Committee. That Smt. Tuna Shrivastava was
dealing to Secretarial Cadre, she could not have been
promoted. The cadre scheme for Accounts Discipline
prescribed/provided that all Graduates from any stream
may opt for horizontal movement to the Accounts Cadre.
Smt. Tuna Shrivastava have opted for Accounts cadre,
she was working as typist in Secretariat Cadre. That
workman was entitled to be considered for promotion on
1-11-87 overlooking his claim arbitrarily, promotion was
denied to him. On such grounds, Union prays that workman
Biplab Dasgupta be considered for promotion to Accounts
Clerk Grade-I from 1-11-1987, his seniority be revised as on
14-12-89.
5. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to 9/
8. Claim of Union is denied. It is submitted that workman
was initially appointed from 13-3-82, he was promoted to
the post of Clerk Grade-II from 1-3-84. Workman joined at
Area Headquarter Chirimiri in November 1984. Then he
was transferred to NCPH Colliery. He worked in said colliery
6234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
till 8-6-99. During said period, he submitted application/
option for change in office cadre to the Accounts Cadre.
The option was put up before the Competent Authority
who disposed off his application that he may work in
Finance Section but he remained in General Cadre and his
case for promotion to higher post will be considered
alongwith other general clerical cadre employees as per
the existing scheme. The said decision was communicated
to him on 19-12-87. Thereafter he was transferred to NCPH
colliery in June 1989. The workman again submitted
representation in 1990. His case was considered and he
was re-designated to the post of Accounts Clerk Grade-II
vide office order dated 9-3-91.
6. That workman again submitted representation for
restoration of his seniority in accounts cadre from
November 1984. His request was not considered. The
decision was communicated to the workman on 14-3-91.
The claim of workman for change of cadre was dismissed
on 4-3-93. His case was again examined by Competent
Authority. The claim for notional seniority was not
accepted. Decision was communicated on 3-3-94. The
workman worked in Accounts Section at G.M. Office from
1-11-1984. Thereafter he was transferred to NCPH colliery.
Smt. Tuna Shrivastava was promoted as Clerk Grade II in
General Cadre from 23-10-82. She was promoted as
Accounts clerk Grade-I on 14-12-89. She was working in
Accounts deptt. from 23-10-82, she was given notional
seniority in Accounts Cadre from 23-10-82. Thus her re-
designation in Accounts Cadre has given retrospective
effect. Shri M. Chakraborthy was promoted as Clerk Grade-
III on 28-8-83, as clerk Grade II on 1-3-84. He was re-
designated in Accounts Cadre Clerk Grade-II from 30-8-86.
He was promoted as Accounts Clerk Grade-I from 25-7-90.
7. In para-11, details of appointment, date of birth
and other particulars of all 3 persons are given. IInd party
submits that re-designation in Accounts Cadre is done on
option basis, orders were issued on the basis of approval
considering the seniority. Other allegations of Union are
denied.
8. The application was filed by management for
impleading Smt. Tuna Shrivastava & M. Chakraborthy as
necessary party.
9. 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
General Manager, Chirimiri
Area of SECL in superceding
Shri Biplab Dasgupta
Accounts clerk Grade-II
by promoting persons
junior to him as Accounts
clerk Grade-I is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
10. The Union has submitted statement of claim
contending that Shri Biplab Dasgupta was illegally denied
promotions overlooking his seniority by IInd party. The
details of the pleadings are narrated above. The Union has
not adduced evidence to substantiate his claim under
reference. Evidence of Ist party was closed on 20-9-2010.
11. Management filed evidence of witness Shri Vijay
Kumar Pandey. His evidence remained unchallenged. The
Union has not participated in the reference proceeding, no
evidence is adduced in support of the grievance of workman
Biplab Dasgupta. Normally the claim of Union could not be
accepted. However pleadings of the IInd party in the Written
Statement are apparently disclosing that the workman was
promoted to Clerk Grade-II to General Cadre from 1-3-84 to
7-6-89. Thereafter he was transferred to NCDC Colliery.
That he was promoted as Accounts Clerk Grade I from
12-12-95. Para 5, 6 of the Written Statement filed by IInd
party shows that the representations of the workman for
seniority in Accounts Cadre from November 1984 was not
accepted. His claim for change of cadre though examined
by Competent Authority observed that management cannot
agree for notional seniority. In para-3 Smt. Tuna Shrivastava
is promoted as Clerk Grade-II in General cadre from
23-10-82, she was promoted as clerk Grade I from 14-12-89.
She was working in Accounts deptt. from 1982. In Para-10
of the Written Statement, it is stated that Mr. M.
Chakraborthy was promoted as Clerk Grade-III. On
28-8-83, he was promoted as Clerk Grade-II from 3-3-84, he
was re-designated in Accounts cadre from 30-10-86. Those
details are also shown in Para-11 of the Written Statement.
That Mr. M. Chakraborthy was promoted as Accounts Clerk
Grade-I on 25-6-90 whereas the workman was promoted as
Accounts Clerk Grade-I on 12-12-95. From the pleading
discussed above in Written Statement filed by management
and the documents produced alongwith Written Statement,
it is clear that seniority of workman was overlooked without
any reasons. Though the workman was working in
Accounts Section from 84 to 98, his request for change of
cadre was not considered. The Cadre scheme was
introduced in 1985. The pleadings are silent that Mr. M.
Chakraborthy was working at Accounts Deptt. he was
promoted on 25-7-90 whereas Shri Biplab Dasgupta was
working in Accounts branch was promoted on 12-12-95.
As per the pleadings in Written Statement filed by IInd
party, it is clear that workman was denied promotion
overlooking his seniority, he should have been promoted
to the post of Accounts clerk Grade-I when Mr. M.
Chakraborthy was promoted. Therefore the action of the
management is not justified. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6235
12. Point No. 2—
In view of my finding in Point No. 1, question arises
to what relief the workman is entitled to? As per the
reasons in Point No. 1 that Mr. Chakraborthy was
promoted on 25-7-90, Shri Biplab Dasgupta though
worked in Accounts section from 84 to 89 was denied
promotion. Therefore benefits of deemed promotion
to the post of Accounts Clerk Grade-I deserves to be
granted to the workman Shri Biplab Dasgupta.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the General Manager, Chirimiri Area of
SECL in superceding Shri Biplab Dasgupta Accounts clerk
Grade-II by promoting persons junior to him as Accounts
clerk Grade-I is not proper.
(2) IInd party is directed to give benefit of deemed
promotion to the post of Grade-I Accounts Clerk to
Shri Biplab Dasgupta from 25-7-90, the date from which
M. Chakraborthy was promoted but without monetary
benefits.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2356-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la- 101@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-10-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@54@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2013
S.O. 2356.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/
2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Bank of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/10/2013.
[No. L-12011/54/2005-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT: K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/101 OF 2005
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF BANK OF INDIA
The Dy. General Manager
Bank of India
Mumbai South Zone
Bol Building
70-80, M.G. Road, Fort
Mumbai-400 023
AND
Their Workmen
Smt. Kashmira H. Kulkarni
Plot No. 101, Flat no. 4
Maya, Shere Punjab
Andheri (E)
Mumbai-400 093
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer
:
Mr. L.L. D'Souza,
Representative.
For the Workman
:
Mr. J.H. Sawant,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 12th August, 2013
AWARD PART-II
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-12011/54/2005-IR (B-II),
dated 22.08.2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the
following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India, Mumbai South Zone, Mumbai in imposing the
compulsory retirement punishment to Smt. Kashmira
Kulkarni w.e.f. 21/09/2004 is justified? If not, what
relief the workman, Smt. Kashmira Kulkarni is entitled
to?"
2. By the Award Part-I dtd. 28/07/2011 this Tribunal
held that the inquiry conducted against the second party
workman was fair and proper and the findings of the Inquiry
Officer were held not perverse.
3. Now following are the remaining issues framed by
my Ld. Predecessor for my determination. I record my
findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr. Issues
Findings
No.
3.
Is the punishment just and proper?
Yes.
4.
What relief the workman is entitled to?
No relief
5.
What order?
As per
order below.
6236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
Issue No. 3 & 4:—
4. The following charges were levelled against the
second party workman and she was held guilty for the said
misconduct. They are:
(1) The workman managed to close here S.B. A/c.
no. 11155 with Bank's Chakala Branch, Andheri
on 3/3/1999 without surrendering the cheque
books and utilized cheque therefrom towards
re-payment of loan of Rs. 90,000, she has availed
subsequently from Pradip Kantilal Bhuta and
another so much so when the cheque was
presented in clearing by Bank Baroda, Vile Parle
Branch, it had to be returned unpaid for the
reasons 'account closed'. The workman not only
acted dishonestly but also tarnished the image
of the bank.
(2) While working with Opera House Branch she
used to issue cheques without keeping funds in
her account and also neglected in managing the
payment before the date the cheque reaches for
encashment and cheque has to be returned
unpaid for reasons 'fund insufficient'. Some six
such instances are given in the written statement.
It amounts to offence under Sec. 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act.
(3) The workman was maintaining O.D. A/c. no. 5822
against NSCs at Bank's Churchgate Branch. The
oustanding debit balance in this account on
11/2/2004 was Rs. 80,615 against drawing limit
of 80,000 Despite this the workman drew a
cheque of Rs. 10,000 in favour of F. Oswal
payable on 11/02/2004. The said cheque had to
be returned unpaid for the reason of 'exceeding
arrangement'. It also amount to dishonestly, lack
of integrity and offence under Sec. 138 of N.I.
Act.
5. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party
submitted that the charges proved against the second party
were not of serious nature though cheques issued by
second party were bounced and she has availed overdraft
facility more than the sanctioned amount. According to
him these charges are not so severe to retire the second
party workman compulsorily from the services. On the other
hand he submitted that some other lesser punishment such
as withholding one or two increments would have sufficed
the purpose.
6. As against this the Ld. Adv. for the first party
submitted that it is not the only misconduct of the workman
to take any lenient view. He pointed out that they have
filed list of documents at page 57 the workman was shown
to have been punished for the similar misconduct of
dishonour of her cheque for insufficient balance in her
account. On 24/04/2003 she had accepted the charges
unconditionally and assured the Bank that such act will
not be repeated in future. Considering her apology and
unconditional acceptance of charges, minor penalty of
"censure" was imposed on the second party. The charge
levelled in the inquiry proceeding was within a year from
the date of her written submission dated 24/04/2003. In the
circumstances the Ld. Adv. for the first party submitted
that the disciplinary authority would have fully justified
even in dismissing the second party workman from the
service. However disciplinary authority has taken lenient
view and awarded much lesser punishment of compulsory
retirement with superannuation benefits.
7. On the point the Ld. Adv. for first party pointed
out that it is not the only misconduct of like nature on the
part of the workman. The workman had committed the same
type of misconduct few months back and had also given
undertaking not to repeat the misconduct of like nature.
Inspite of that she has committed the misconduct of like
nature. She had issued a cheque of the account which was
already closed and the same came to be bounced. She had
also issued a cheque of more amount than the existing
balance in her account and on that ground the cheque of
third party came to be bounced. Bouncing of cheques not
only indicate discredit of the account holder but it amount
to an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. She has also availed excess O/D. The
workman is not a layman but is an employee of a
nationalised bank and such acts not only show discredit
of the account holder but also cause dis-reputation to the
employer Bank. In the light of earlier misconducts these
misconducts can be termed as serious misconducts and
even termination of services would have been justified.
However the disciplinary authority has taken lenient view
and imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with
superannuation benefits.
8. In the circumstances I hold that the punishment is
just and proper and it is proportionate to the proved
misconduct. Therefore it needs no interference. Accordingly
I decide this issue no. 3 in the affirmative. Consequently I
hold that the workman is not entitled to any relief.
Accordingly I decide this issue no. 4 in the negative and
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The reference stands rejected with no order as to
cost.
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2357-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bankSj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6237
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 101@07½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@130@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2013
S.O. 2357.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 101/07)
of the Cent. Govt. 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
14/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/130/2003-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/101/07
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain
....Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of Indore,
(merged as State Bank of India),
Head Office 5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore
The Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore
(merged as State Bank of India),
Head Officer 5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore
....Managements
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 5-10-07 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/
130/2003-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Managing
Director, State Bank of Indore in not granting
appointment on compassionate ground to Smt.
Pawankunmar W/o Late Shri Prakashchand Solanki
after his death i.e. on 4-1-02 and not paying his
consequential benefits is justified? If not, to what
relief she is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party widow of deceased workman filed
statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/4. The case of Ist party
workman is that her husband Prakash Solanki suffered heart
attack on 4-1-2002 while on duty in the bank. He had died
of heart attack leaving his widow, 4 daughter and a son
details given in Para 3. That her husband was working in
State Bank of Indore Branch Sailana from 6-7-96. He was
performing duties of peon. He suffered heart attack and
died while on duty. That the Branch Manager had called
her and forwarded her application for appointment on
compassionate ground. She was told by the Branch
Manager that the record shows her husband was paid
wages in bogus names to Shri Prakash Chandra. She had
received bonus in 2005. She is claiming for appointment on
compassionate ground.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement. Case of IInd
party is that State Bank of Indore is established under
Banking Regulation Act. The Peon, Farrash, Messengers,
security guards are appointed following the rules. The
deceased husband of the Ist party was not appointed
following recruitment rules. He was engaged on daily wages
as per exigency of work during the period 6-7-96 to
4-1-2002. He was working one hour in morning and one
hour in the evening. He was doing cleaning and dusting
work in the Bank. He was not regular employee of the Bank.
His name was sponsored through Employment Exchange.
The deceased was paid wages Rs. 35 per day. Part time
employees or casual employees are not entitled for
appointment on compassionate ground as per scheme
dated 12-12-98. That bonus is paid if employee works for
90 days. Merely on payment of bonus, the workman cannot
be said regular employee. On such ground, IInd party prays
for rejection of claim.
4. State Bank of Indore is merged in State Bank of
India as per Notification dated 28-7-2010.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Managing
Director, State Bank of Indore
is not granting appointment
on compassionate ground to
Smt. Pawankunmar
W/o Late Shri Prakashchand
Solanki after his death i.e. on
4-1-02 and not paying his
consequential benefits is legal?
6238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?
workman is rejected.
REASONS
6. To be precise, Ist party claiming to be widown of
Shri Prakash Solanki who died during course of duty
suffering from heart attack prays for appointment on
compassionate ground does not cover part time casual
employees. Workman has produced documents Exhibit W 1.
Said document shows that bonus Rs. 1825 was paid in
2005 to Ist party workman.
7. Affidavit of evidence is filed by Ist party
Pawankunwar stating that her husband died of heart attack
on 4-1-2002 leaving behind 4 daughters and one son. Her
husband was working in the Bank from 6-7-96 to 4-1-02.
She was told that wages were paid to her husband in name
of Shri Prakash Chand. That her husband had completed
240 days service. In her cross-examination, she has stated
that her husband was paid weekly wages. That she has
prayed for appointment on compassionate ground.
8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Liladhar Gharsar. The witness of the management status
that scheme for compassionate appointment applied to
permanent employee of the Bank. That Shri Prakash Solanki
was engaged as temporary casual workman. He was not
holding permanent post. The scheme is not applicable. In
his cross-examination, management's witness claims
ignorance whether wages were paid in name of Prakash
Chandra and Prakash Singh. The witness of management
was unable to tell why information Prakash Singh was not
stated in his affidavit of evidence. He admits Letter Exhibit
W-3 that the husband of deceased died on 4-1-02 of heart
attack. The document Exhibit M-1 is the copy of scheme of
appointment on compassionate ground. The definition of
employee does not include temporary or casual employee.
The evidence on record shows husband of Ist party widow
was not permanent/regular employee of the Bank therefore
the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground
does not apply in the matter. Ist party is therefore not
entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. For
above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore in not granting appointment on
compassionate ground to Smt. Pawankunmar W/o Late
Shri Prakashchand Solanki after his death i.e. on 4-1-02 and
not paying his consequential benefits is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by Ist party is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2358-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 1947
dk 14 dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 4@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&12012@189@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2013
S.O. 2358.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. 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
14/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/189/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/2007
Presiding Officer : SHRI R. B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road, Ujjain (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 4-12-2006 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/
189/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Dy.
General Manager, State Bank of India in terminating
the services of Shri Chhotelal Kushwah w.e.f. 16-10-
99 and not regularizing his services even after
completing more than 240 days in a calendar year is
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6239
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 3/1 to 3/6. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
working as waterman-cum-messenger at Sultania Road
branch of SBI, Bhopal from 3-5-77 to 25-6-77. Considering
his honest service, he was again allowed to work from
1-6-81 to 26-8-81 as Messenger at TT Nagar Branch Bhopal
for 87 days. He further submits that he was working in
Mahavir Nagar Branch Bhopal during 21-2-83 to 13-10-83.
3. Bipartite settlement was executed between
management and Union on 17-11-87. It was settled that the
casual employees working for 30 days during 1-7-75 to
31-7-88 would be eligible for appointment. That he was
called for interview on 22-9-89. Interview was conducted
on said day. He had received knowledge that he was
selected and he would be appointed on post of messenger
in due course of time when his number will come. It is
further submitted that after his selection as per interview
on 22-9-89, he was working in SBI from 13-12-92 for more
than 300 days in Vidyanchal branch. On 22-5-97, he was
informed that he was transferred from Vindyanchal branch
to Chola Road branch and thereafter he started working in
Chole Road Branch till termination of his service on 16-10-
99. That is services were terminated giving forcible notice
retrenchment. He was not paid gratuity, notice pay. Ist party
workman submits that he had completed more than 240
days continuous service. His services were terminated
without paying retrenchment compensation. Other persons
was employed in his place therefore termination of his
service is illegal. On such grounds, workman prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. Management filed Written Statement at Page 7/1
to 7/9. IInd party raised objection that Shri Ram Nagwanchi
was a dismissed employee of the State Bank of Indore. His
services are terminated, he is not competent to represent
the workman. The reference is not tenable. IInd party
further submits that during 1977 to 1999, Ist party workman
was working for some days. He was working as casual
employee, wages for working days were paid to him. His
discontinuation does not amount to retrenchment. His
discontinuation from service is covered under Section
2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act. That the workman had worked for 46
days in 1977 at Sultania Branch, 80 days in Mahavir Nagar
Branch, Vindyanchal and Chola Road. As per Bipartite
settlement, the workman was called for interview in 1989.
He was not again called for interview in 1997. The list
prepared as per interview in 1989 was valid till 1997. The
workman was not available therefore his services were
terminated from 16-10-99, retrenchment compensation was
paid. Amount of wages, gratuity were also paid to the
workman. Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.
5. Workman filed rejoinder at page 9/1 to 9/3 reiterating
his contentions in Statement of Claim. That in 1977, he
worked for 46 days, 87 days in 1981, 80 days in 1983 and 80
days in 1984-total 293 days. He was interviewed on 22-9-
89. Around 4 years he was called for work at Vindyanchal
branch. He continued to work in said branch from 30-12-92
to 22-5-97. Thereafter he was transferred. He was working
in Chhola branch till 16-10-1999. That he was working at
Vidyanchal branch for 1601 days and at Chola Road branch
for 877 days. Thus he worked for total 2771 days. That his
services are illegally terminated. Other persons are
employed in his place. On such grounds, workman reiterates
for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
6. Considering pleading 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 Dy. General
Manager, State Bank of India
in terminating the services of
Shri Chhotelal Kushwah w.e.f.
16-10-99 and not regularizing
his services even after complet-
ing more than 240 days in a
calendar year is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?
REASONS
7. In support of his claim, workman filed affidavit of
his evidence. In his affidavit of evidence, he was stated
that he was working in Sultania Branch Bhopal, from 3-5-77
to 26-6-77, in TT Nagar from 1-6-81 to 26-8-81-total 87 days.
In Mahavir branch he worked from 21-2-83 to 13-10-83. He
was interviewed on 10-2-86. He was again interviewed on
22-9-89 then he was working in Vindyanchal Branch Bhopal
from 30-12-92 to 25-5-95. He was transferred to Chola Road
Branch and worked till 16-10-91. That his services were
terminated without notice, list of retrenched employee was
not displayed. Other persons were engaged after his
termination.
8. In his cross-examination, workman says that he
was member of Union, he has paid Rs. 1000/- to
Shri Nagwanshi. He had not received appointment letter.
No interview was held before his appointment. He was
paid wages for the working days. From 93 to 97, he was
working in Vindyanchal branch. No interview was held in
that branch. From 97 to 99, he was working at Chola branch.
The evidence of workman is not shattered that he was
working for more than 240 days. His evidence that he was
interviewed on 22-9-89 is not challenged in his cross-
examination. He was working in Vindyanchal branch and
Chola branch is not shattered in his cross-examination.
6240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. The witness of management filed affidavit of his
evidence supporting management's contentions that
workman was engaged as per exigency of work, he was not
working as regular employee during 1977 to 1999. In his
cross-examination, management's witness admits that
workman worked from 23-5-97 to 16-10-97 in Chola branch.
He did not enquire from Branch Manager of Vindyanchal
branch. He further states that the record shows that
workman had also worked in Vindyanchal branch. The
documents Exhibit W-1 to W-7 are admitted from his
evidence in cross-examination. Document Exhibit W-1
shows workman was working for 87 days in 1991. Exhibit
W-1(A) shows workman was working as temporary
messenger in Mahavir Nagar branch from 21-2-83 to 13-10-
83. Exhibit W-1(B) shows that workman was forking for 46
days as waterman in Sultania branch. Exhibit W-2 shows
the interview call was issued to the workman. Exhibit W-3
shows that as per Bipartite settlement, casual employees
working on 30 days to 240 days during 1-7-75 to 31-7-88
were eligible for appointment as regular employee. Exhibit
W-4 is I-Card of workman of Chola Road branch. In W-5,
Branch Manager of Chola Road branch had written to the
Asstt. General Manager that Ist party workman was allowed
to work at Chola branch. He was not responsible for it. The
enquiry may be taken who was responsible for the same
and action may be taken. Document Exhibit W-6 shows
that workman was not called for interview as he was also
interviewed in 1985. Document Exhibit W-7 A to W-7 T are
zerox copies of cheques, different payments made to
workman. The evidence of workman and management is
properly appreciated. The evidence of workman shows that
he was working from 1977 to 1999 for 22 years. Management
has admitted Exhibit W-1 produced by workman. The
retrenchment notice was received on 16-10-99, the services
of workman terminated w.e.f. 16-10-99 as approved
vacancies are not available. The evidence of workman
remained unchallenged after termination of his services,
other persons were engaged. The reasons of termination
of workman cannnot be said proper. The termination of
services of workman who was working for almost 22 years,
he was interviewed in 1989 as per the Bipartite settlement
even after interview he was allowed to work from 1992 to
1997. The management has not produced list of the selected
persons as per interview dated 22-9-89. No evidence is
adduced by the management to establish that the said list
was valid till 1997 whether all the persons in the list were
exhausted. For above reasons, termination of services of
workman amount to illegal and action of the management
is not justified. As such termination of service of workman
is illegal.
10. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Mukesh
Srivastava submitted that the evidence of workman is not
sufficient to establish working of 240 days continuous
service. Workman is bound to establish in support of his
argument. Learned counsel relies in ratio held in
“Case of Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat versus
Gangaben Laljibhai and others Their Lordship of the
Apex Court held that mere affidavit of self serving
statements made by the claimant workman will not
suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed
by law on the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days in a given year.”
In present case, the management's witness has also
admitted in his cross-examination that from 1977 to 1999,
the workman was working in Chola branch, workman was
also working in Vindyanchal branch therefore the ratio in
the above cited case cannot be applied to the case at hand.
Therefore it is clear that termination of services of workman
instead of regularization of s service as per selection on
basis of written test on 22-9-85 is illegal. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
11. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
question arises to what relief the workman is entitled.
Considering the length of service rendered by workman
from 1977 to 1999, after his interview held on 22-9-89, he
was allowed to work in the branch from 1992 to 1997 his
services were not regularized. The workman deserves
reinstatement in service. The evidence adduced by parties
is not cogent about gainful employment of workman
therefore reinstatement with 50% back wages would be
appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding on Point No. 2.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Dy. General
Manager, State Bank of India in terminating the services of
Shri Chhotelal Kushwah w.e.f. 16-10-99 and not regularizing
his services even after completing more than 240 days in a
calendar year is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate the workman
Shri Chhotelal Kushwah with 50% back wages.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2359-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkQ
bankSj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@98½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@158@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2013
S.O. 2359.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/98)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of Indore and their
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6241
workmen, received by the Central Government on
14/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/158/97-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/46/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of India Employees Congress,
9, Sanwer Road, Hardeo Niwas,
Ujjain
....Workman/Union
Versus
Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore,
Head Office, 5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 23.2.98 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-
12012/158/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Firoz
Khan even after his working in the Bank from 2-5-94
to 1-7-96 continuously is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Statement of claim is filed by the Secretary of
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangthan. It does not
appear signature of workman. As per the statement of claim,
the case of Ist party is that Shri Panda, Officer working in
the Bank had engaged workman on daily wages for cleaning
work. During his working from 8 to 10 AM, and again from
10.30 AM till 6 PM, he was working from 2-5-94. In statement
of claim, names of 15 persons are shown as working on
daily wages. The names of permanent employees working
in the Bank. The daily wage employees were working 8
hours per day though they have been paid wages 30 Rs.
per day. The wages has been increased to Rs. 50 per day.
On 13-2-96, daily wage employees prayed for payment of
wages at Collector rate. IInd party annoyed with it,
discontinued their service of daily wage employee. That
the daily wage employee completed 240 days continuous
service during period 2-5-94 to 1-7-96. His services were
terminated in violation of Section 25-F. Retrenchment
compensation was not paid. Other employees were
engaged in their place, they were not given opportunity or
re-employment under Section 25-H of I.D. Act. On such
grounds, Union prays for reinstatement of workman.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to
4/3. It is submitted that the workman Firoz Khan has not
completed 240 days continuous service. He is not covered
as workman. It is denied that said Feroz was interviewed or
appointment letter was given to him. All other contentions
of Union are denied outright. It is submitted that as the
workman has not completed 240 days continuous service,
there was no question of termination of his service issuing
notice. The claim of Union be rejected.
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 Negative
management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Firoz Khan
even after his working in
the Bank from 2-5-94 to
1-7-96 continuously is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5. Ist party union filed statement of claim through
Secretary Shri Ram Nagwanshi. It does not bear signature
of workman. IInd party denied that workman Feroz Khan
has completed 240 days continuous service. Affidavit of
evidence of workman is filed covering all the contentions
in the statement of claim that he was continuously working
from 2-5-94 on wages Rs. 30 per day. His services were
terminated on 13-2-96. Last wages were paid to him Rs. 50
per day. The evidence of workman remained unchallenged.
It appears that after affidavit of evidence was filed as per
direction of Court, the workman had not been made
available for his cross-examination. Management filed
affidavit of witness Shri Deepak Kothari. The contentions
of management are provided in his affidavit that workman
has not completed 240 days continuous service. That the
workman was engaged for cleaning work 1 hour morning
and 1 hour in evening. The wages were paid as agreed. In
his cross-examination, the management's witness says the
working hours stated in his affidavit were as per exigency.
That appointment letter was not issued to workman. There
was not written contract, muster roll was not maintained.
The wages were paid by cheque. He was not working in
Bank during 1994 to 1996. The witness was unable to tell
whether documents produced by workman P-38 to 45, P-46
6242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to P-74 were in the Bank. Management's witness reiterates
that as workman was not engaged by Bank, there was not
question of his termination. The evidence of the workman
remained unchallenged. The management did not take any
steps to recall workman for cross-examination. I find no
reason to disbelieve his unchallenged evidence.
Management's witness was not working in the Bank at
relevant time therefore his evidence appears on hear-say
information. His evidence cannot be preferred to the
evidence of the workman. Workman has produced several
documents alongwith list. The workman was working from
2-5-94 to 1-7-96. Unchallenged evidence deserved to be
accepted. It is established that the workman has completed
240 days continuous service in the Bank. His services are
terminated without notice, without payment of retrenchment
compensation. Termination of his service is in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act, therefore action of management is
not legal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Negative.
6. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
question arises to what relief the workman is entitled. The
workman Feroz Khan was not appointed after following
selection process. He had worked during 2-5-94 to 1-7-96
for about 3 years. There is not evidence that he was working
against sanctioned post therefore his reinstatement with
back wages is not proper. In my considered view, for
violation of Section 25-F, reasonable compensation should
be allowed. Compensation Rs. 40,000/- would be
appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of State Bank of
Indore in terminating the services of Shri Firoz Khan even
after his working in the Bank from 2-5-94 to 1-7-96
continuously is illegal.
(2) Management is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 40,000 to workman Shri Firoz Khan.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 14 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2360-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ lh ,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vlulksy ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@10@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@152@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e-II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 14th October, 2013
S.O. 2360.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Kajora Colliery of
M/s. ECL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 14/10/2013.
[No. L-22012/152/2006-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT : Shri Yanata Kumar Sen, Presiding Officer
Reference No. 31 OF 2007
PARTIES :
The management of
Central Kajora Colliery of M/s. ECL, Burdwan
Versus
The Org. Secy., CRMS (BMM),
Bidhanbag, Burdwan (WB)
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the management :
Shri P.K. Goswami, Ld. Advocate
For the union (Workman) :
Shri Milan Kumar Bandopadhaya, Ld. Representative
Industry : Coal
State : West Bengal
Dated 05.06.2013
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of the
Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). Govt. of India
through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/
152/2006-IR (CM-II) dated 04.05.2007 has been pleased to
refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Union for regularization
of Shri Pradipta Das, General Mazdoor in the post of
Clerk in view of his working in clerical job for him
w.e.f. 05.03.1994 is legal and justified? If so, to what
relief is the workman entitled?"
Having received the Order of Letter No. L-22012/
152/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 04.05.2007 of the above said
reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6243
31 of 2007 was registered on 03.07.2007 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.
It is an admitted fact that the workman Pradipta Das
joined his duty on 12.10.1991 as General Mazdoor in
Category I on compassionate ground due to premature
death of his father M.L. Das. It is further case that the
workman Pradipta Das is a graduate degree holder with
Diploma in Computer Science, and considering his ability
and efficiency, the Management of Central Kajora Colliery,
directed the workman in writing by office Order No. CKC/
Agent/00/94/05 dated 05.03.1994 to prepare LTC/LLTC bill
of the employees and since 2000 he is doing the job of a
clerk as a Time Keeper.
The Learned Lawyer of the workman has referred a
copy of confidential letter of Sr. P.O. Central Kajora Colliery
dated 03.08.1996 written to the Dy. C.P.M. Kajora Area in
which the Sr. P.O. has recommended to consider the case
of the workman on the ground that some other workmen
have already been regularized by the Management on the
observation made by the Hon'ble High Court. The Learned
Lawyer of the workman has further referred letter of
Management of Central Kajora Colliery dated 24.12.2001
and has submitted that the Management (Manager) in his
letter has also stated that the workman Pradipta Das is
working as Grade II from 01.01.2001 and his Superior Officer
found his work as satisfactory. But from perusal of the
written argument dated 29.08.2012 filed on behalf of the
workman I find that the workman has claimed regularisation
of his service as clerk w.e.f. 26.08.1992, but from the office
Order No. CKC/Agent/00/94/05 dated 05.03.1994 the
workman has been directed to prepare LTC/LLTC/bill of
the employee and since 2000 he is doing the job of a clerk
as a Time Keeper. Further from perusal of the Letter No.
CKC/P & IR/0-6/11/1470 dated 19.01.2011 issued by Sr.
Manager (P) which is issued to three persons namely
Subhas Kumar Bhalotia, Pradipta Das and Ram Nandan
Prasad Singh, I find that the Management has directed all
the competent authority to accord approval for their
regularisation as clerk, Grade III with immediate effect as
communicated vide No. K/Dy. CPM/C-6/6/1901 dated
14.01.2011 and all the three persons are directed to produce
certificates, undertakings and the regularisation till the
effect after withdrawal of their court case. I find from the
perusal of the letter that the Management has not disclosed
in the above letter whether any remuneration will be given
to the workman Sudipta Das for his work which he has
done on the written direction of the Management. In my
opinion Column (d) of the above mentioned letter of Sr.
Manager (P) is not legally correct rather it makes clear that
the Management is giving under pressure on the workman
to withdraw the case without claiming any remuneration
for work which he had already done. It is against the
principle of "Natural Justice". In my opinion workman
Sudipta Das is entitled to get 25% extra of his existing
Basic Pay (without any other allowance) from the date of
authorization of the Management to do work of the clerk
(vide Order No. CKC/Agent/00/94/54 dated 05.03.1994) from
05.03.1994.
So, in my opinion the demand of the Union for
regularisation of Pradipta Das, General Mazdoor in the post
of clerk is legal, and moreover, the Management has also
agreed to regularize his job in Grade III as per letter dated
19.01.2011. So, the Management is directed to issue
necessary order for regularisation of the workman as clerk-
III within a month from the receipt of the Award and till
then the workman is entitled to get 25% of his existing
Basic Pay (without any allowance) as remuneration from
05.03.1994.
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 of Labour & Employment, New Delhi for
information and needful.
JAYANTA KUMAR SEN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2361-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj flaMhdsV cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼14@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 15-10-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@44@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2361.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2001)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Syndicate Bank, and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 15/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/44/2001-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
6244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PRAKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
Industrail Dispute No. 14 of 2001
Between—
Shri A. K. Kaushik,
C/o John Rizvi,
Mohalla Danish Mandan,
Amroha,
District J.P. Nagar.
And
The Assistant General Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Zonal Office,
Lucknow.
AWARD
1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide
notification no. L-12012/44/2001 B-II dated 20.07.2001, has
referred the following dispute for adjudication to this
tribunal.
2. Whether the actions of the Syndicate Bank
management in dismissing Sri A.K. Kaushik from service
vide order dated order dated 30.09.99 is just fair and legal?
If not, what relief he is entitled to?
3. It is not in dispute that the workman was in the
regular and permanent employment of the bank. The
management served upon the workman a charge-sheet
dated 15.12.93, which was duly replied by the workman.
Instead of deciding the reply of the charge-sheet by a
reasonable order, the bank appointed Sri Dilip Kumar Arora
as enquiry officer. In the enquriy date was fixed 11.02.97,
but suddenly enquiry officer was changed and one Sri
R.K. Garg, was appointed as enquiry officer. It is also stated
that the entire inquiry was conducted against the rules of
natural justice by the enquiry officer. No witnesses were
produced by the presenting officer during the inquiry
proceedings. After concluding the inquiry the enquiry
officer submitted his inquiry report dated 30.09.99 where in
the charges against the workman were found established.
Based on the enquiry report the services of the workman
were dismissed by the bank vide order dated 30.09.99.
Appeal was also preferred by the workman which too did
not find favour.
4. On the basis of above it has been prayed that the
entire action in the name of domestic inquiry against the
workman is bad in law, therefore, the dismissal order passed
by the opposite party bank is liable to be set aside and he
is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the bank with
full back wages and all consequential benefits.
5. The claim of the workman has been categorically
refuted by the opposite party bank on a number of grounds.
It is alleged that the workman has committed gross
misconduct within the meaning of provisions of para 19(j)
of Bipartite Settlement, therefore, he was served with a
charge-sheet dated 15.12.93 which goes as under:—
6. Smt. Mushtfey Haseena has denied having visited
the branch on 4.1.89 and denied having received any
payment on that day. She has admitted having received
Rs. 6773/- only at the branch on 2.1.88 being the proceeds
of her PDA A/c No. 7639.
7. There was no request from the account holder to
close the account on 04.01.89.
8. Though a clerk was provided to the department
you have not involved him in the process and you
personally prepared the slip OG 28/74 and passed the same
for payment.
9. You have not obtained the signature of Smt.
Mushtfey Haseena on the slip OG 28/74 though she was
affixing her signature in Urdu and instead, passed the slip
for payment with some thumb impressions stating to be
that of Mushtfey Haseena.
10. A narration as photo attested with PD Account
7881 is made on the slip which is observed to be a false and
irrelevant one since PD 7881 was standing in the name of
one Sri Nihal Singh.
11. It is, therefore, evident from the above that you
abused your position in the bank to fraudulent closure of
PD Account 7639 and derived pecuniary advantage of Rs.
7085/- at the cost of the bank making you liable for
disciplinary action.
12. The workman submitted his reply to the above
charges which was not found suitable. Therefore, it was
decided to constitute a departmental inquiry on the
aforesaid charges. Sri R.K. Garg conducted the inquiry and
after providing full opportunities to both the parties to
make their respective claims he concluded the inquiry
holding that the charges levelled against the workman
stands proved. Accordingly he submitted his inquiry report
before the disciplinary authority who after applying his
open mind concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer
which is of date 30.09.99, the workman was dismissed from
the service of the bank with effect from 30.09.99.
13. It is also claimed that no illegality or irregularity
has been committed by the enquiry officer during the
conduct of inquiry against the workman. He followed the
principles of natural justice at each and every stage by
providing adequate opportunity of defense to the workman.
14. It is also stated that since the workman has
deliberately committed serious misconduct under Paragraph
on 9.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement therefore, he was rightly
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6245
charge sheeted. Moreover, he has rightly been punished
on the proved misconduct. The punishment awarded to
the workman fully commensurate with the gravity of proved
misconduct, therefore, it is claimed that punishment
awarded to the workman need not be interfered.
15. On the basis of above, it is prayed that the claim
of the workman is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected
at the hands of this tribunal.
16. The workman has also filed rejoinder but nothing
new has been stated therein.
17. Both the parties have filled respective documents
in support of their case which will be discussed at the time
recording findings on merit of the case.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman
prior to formation of preliminary issue has adduced himself
as w.w.1 and recorded his statement on 01.09.04, but could
not be cross examined.
19. The tribunal considering the request of the parties
has framed a preliminary issued regarding fairness of the
conduct of inquiry. Vide order dated 25.04.12 has decided
that the inquiry held by the workman is vitiated
Management was also given opportunity to prove the
charges a fresh before the tribunal.
20. Thereafter the workman was cross examined by
the bank on his statement.
21. Bank has also adduced evidence of Sri R. K. Garg
Senior Manager as M.W. 1.
22. It is a fact initial burden lies on the management
to prove the charges against the CSE.
23. I have examined the evidence of M.W.1. He is
neither a witness of fact nor is having any knowledge. He
admitted that he had never been in the branch. He is an
inquiry officer. It is contended by the workman that no
evidence has been produced by the management either
documentary or oral to establish the charge against the
workman.
24. The disputed question is whether the workman
has closed the account of Smt. Mushtfey Haseena account
No 76.39 on 04.01.89 in a fraudulent manner and
misappropriated the proceeds of Rs. 7085/-. Is the claim of
the management that this account 7639 has already been
closed on 02.01.88 and Rs. 6773/- was paid to the account
holder vide pay in slip paper No 18/63.
25. I have examined the evidence and contention of
the claimant in this aspect.
26. It is contended by the claimant that the said
account was never closed on 02.01.88, as he has seen the
ledger and other relevant record. It is also claimed by the
management that the account holder was putting her
signature in Urdu. She was never putting her thumb
impression as is shown in the pay in slip paper no 18/64.
The claimant stated on oath that he has examined the
relevant record like account opening form and other records
which bears the thumb impression of the account holder
Smt. Mushtfey Haseena, but the management despite
several demands during inquiry as well as during the
evidence in the tribunal, the management did not produce
the original account opening form of the account holder
knowingly or otherwise. Even they did not produce the
photocopy of this document. I have also inquired from the
AR of the opposite party stating that this is a very material
evidence to show whether the account holer has put her
thumb impression or she signs in Urdu in the Account
opening form but the management did not reply. Even they
did not say what happens to the account opening form
whether it has been lost. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the management has knowingly with held the account
opening form of the account holder Smt. Mushtfey
Haseena. The claimant has admitted that he has committed
a clerical mistake without intention where as he has written
photo attested at PD Account no. 7881. It is a fact that this
account belongs to some other person but it is a fact that
account holder Smt. Mushtfey Haseena was having other
account in the same branch as Pigme Account which bears
account no. 8081. Therefore, the claimant has admitted his
mistake and stated that he wants to write account no. 8081
instead of 7881, but in hurry he committeed this mistake.
27. It is a fact that there is double entry system in the
branch. One account is the concerned account of the
account holder in the shape of ledger and there is another
consolidated ledger. It is also fact that in the bank there is
half yearly Khatabandi and yearly there is an audit of the
bank. When the concerned ledger sheet of the account
holder have been examined which is paper no. 18/65-66
pertaining to account no. 7639, there is no entry of closure
on 02.01.88 or thereafter but is bears a closure entry on
04.01.89, which is done by the CSE, who stated on oath
that he has done it. The last balance Rs. 6247/- and after
adding interest the total comes to Rs. 7085- which the CSE
states that he has deliver it to the account holder through
pay in slip paper no 18/64. The most surprising fact is that
the claimant is basing all his allegations on an application
moved by the account holder Smt. Mushtfey Haseena
which is paper no. 18/71, (though original of this application
has also been filed which is paper no. MEX 9 of department
inquiry).
28. It is clear from the record produced before the
tribunal that even no statement of the account holder Smt.
Mushtfey Haseena has been recorded. It is also pertinent
to mention here that the complainant Smt. Mushtfey
Haseena who is material witness has also not been
produced before the tribuanl. Why she has not been
produced, it appears that there was something fishy. If the
claims that she has closed her account on 2.1.88 and
received Rs. 6773/- and did not close the account on 4.1.89
6246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NOVEMBER 9, 2013/KARTIKA 18, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and not received the amount Rs. 7085/- She was the best
witness to say like this but the management has with held
her. M.W. 1 in his statement before this tribunal has not
been able to state with conformity the signature appearing
on paper on. 18/63 which is pay in slip dated 2.1.88 and the
complaint which is paper no. 18/71 are one and same. He
has stated that the signature appearing on these documents
may be of the account holder. Word "may be" appearing in
the statement of this witness carries no meaning.
29.The AR for the workman also contended that had
the account 7639 been closed on 2.1.88 then there is a
Khatabandi to be kept in the bank and this closure entry
must have been made in the Khatabandi. He has drawn my
attention towards paper no. 18/82-84 which are the paper
of Khatabandi of the bank. I have examined these papers
Paper no. 18/82 bears the entry of account no. 7639. In the
end tha date is 27.04.88. This account is shown as running
amount and the last amount is shown as Rs. 6247, but in
paper no. 18/83 in-front of A/c 7639 the amount of Rs. 6247
is shown but what the management did in the column dated
1.2.88 after putting amount 6247, it has been scored out.
30. Similarly in paper no. 18/84 in front of account no.
7639 there is entry that it is closed on 2.1.88 and thereafter
putting an amount 6247/- scored out. The management has
not been able to adduce any evidence as to by whom these
entries have been scored out and with what intent and
purpose.
31. It is pertinent to mention that this account
opening form or its photocopy was not produced before
the inquiry officer also. He admitted in the statement that
he had not seen it and he did not made any efforts to
summon the original specimen signature card of the account
holder.
32. M.W 1 admitted in his statement that according
to ledger of account holder 7639, this account has been
closed on 4.1.89 on the first as well as last. It is also claimed
that the cash book of that date 2.1.88 has not been produced
by the bank either in the inquiry or before the tribunal.
Therefore, the bank did not file any evidence relating to
the voucher i.e. pay in slip of 2.1. 88 like cash book or other
records.
33. It is also stated that the management did not clear
the fact how this application of Mushtfey Haseena was
received who received it and this application in original
also does not bear any date. I have examined this
application. There are number of thumb impression on this
application. Whose thumb impression belongs to, opposite
party has not been able to prove it. Therefore the
authenticity of the complaint of Smt. Mushtfey Haseena
becomes doubtful.
34. It is contended by the claimant that the account
has been closed on 4.1.89 but the charge sheet has been
served upon after about 5 years whereas this fact has been
admitted by management witness that in the bank there is
a procedure of half yearly Khatabandi and audit of account
year wise. It is contended that after the service of the charge
sheet the inquiry was commenced on 11.2.97 after a gap of
about three years.
35. Therefore, I have heard the arguments at length
examined the whole record, considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the
management has failed to establish the charges against
the workman.
36. Therefore, it is held that the claimant is entitled to
the relief and the action of the management in dismissing
the workman is not just fair and legal. Therefore, he is
entitled to be reinstated.
37. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case I am of the view that he is entitled 50% of the back
wages, but he will be entitled to his seniority and all
consequential benefits attached with post.
38. Reference is answered accordingly.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2362-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUVªy cSad vkQ
bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; /kuckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼22@2012½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@10@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@66@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2362.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/2012) of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1,
Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Central Bank of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
17/10/2013.
[No. L-12012/66/2011-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % uoEcj 9] 2013@dk£rd 18] 1935
6247
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d)(2A) of I.D. Act. 1947
Reference No. 22 of 2012
Employer in relation to the managment of Central Bank of
India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur.
AND
Their workman
PRESENT : Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer.
Appearances:—
For the Employers
:
None
For the Workman
:
R.K. Rakshit, Advocate
State
:
Bihar
Industry
:
Bank
Dated 23/09/2013
AWARD
By order No. L-12012/66/2011 IR (B-II), dt. 29/02/2012
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section
(1) and Sub-Section (2A) of section of 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act 1947, referred the following disputes for
adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Bank of India, Muzaffarpur in terminating the service
of Munjay Kumar w.e.f. 23/08/2010 is legal and
justified? What relief the claimant is entitled to?"
1. Before receipt of the reference the Ministry intimate
the parties regarding the reference. After receipt of the
reference, the workman in pursuance of the notice of the
Ministry appeared before this Tribunal. Thereafter this
Tribunal, giving the reference of Ministry's of Labour's
letter again noticed the management. But none appears on
behalf of the management. The workman filed affidavit
evidence and documents and photo copies of his receiving
wages from the management. From the phto copy of
documents filed by the workman, signed by the Regional
Manager is that the workman has been working from
4.10.1999 till date i.e. 27.9.11 i.e. more than 240 days.
Therefore right accrues. In favour of the workman. Moreover
knowing very well, the bank management remained absent
to stall the proceeding. The workman also filed photo copies
of cheques that he received payment till 2007. Therefore
the Bank management to engage the workman in his earlier
post on regular basis, without back wages.
R. K. SARAN, 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.