4971 GI/2013
(6565)
x`g ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 28 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2540.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku ¼vizkf/kd`r
vf/kHkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh
/kkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] uhps nh xbZ lkj.kh ds
LraHk ¼2½ esa of.kZr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks] tks jktif=r vf/kdkjh gSa] mDr
vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstu ds fy, laink vf/kdkjh fu;qDr djrh gS vkSj
vkxs ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr vf/kdkjh ,sls LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds
Hkhrj ;k mDr lkj.kh ds LraHk ¼3½ esa ;Fkk&fofufnZ"V ljdkjh LFkku
dh ckcr mDr vf/kfu;e }kjk ;k mlds v/khu laink vf/kdkfj;ksa
dks iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djsaxs vkSj mudks vf/kjksfir drZO;ksa dk
ikyu djsaxs] vFkkZr~%—
lkj.kh
Ø-
vf/kdkjh
LFkkuh; lhek,a@ljdkjh LFkku
la-
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
1- ,sls iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd
jk"Vªh; vUos"k.k vfHkdj.k] eq[;ky;] ubZ
;k iqfyl v/kh{kd tks jk"Vªh; fnYyh rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa }kjk ;k mldh
vUos"k.k vfHkdj.k eq[;ky;
vksj ls fy, x, iês dk LFkku ;k iês ij fy,
rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;] jk"Vªh;
x, LFkkuA
vUos"k.k vfHkdj.k esa iz/kku
dk;kZy; ds izHkkjh dk in
/kkj.k fd, gq, gSaA
[Qkñ lañ , lh&1@,u vkbZ ,&th ,p Vh okbZ@,u vkbZ ,@2013&
,e ,p ,@ih ,Q&III]
xzslh tsEl] voj lfpo
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- 49]
ubZ fnYyh, fnlEcj 1—fnlEcj 7] 2013] 'kfuokj@vxzgk;.k 10—vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
No. 49] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 1—DECEMBER 7, 2013, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 10—AGRAHAYANA 16, 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)
6566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 28th November, 2013
S.O. 2540.—In exercise of the powers confered by
section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized
occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government
hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of
the Table below, being Gazetted Officers of the
Government, to be Estate officers for the purposes of the
said Act, and further directs that the said officers shall
exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties
imposed, on such Estate officers by or under the said Act,
within such local limits or in respect of public premises as
specified in column (3) of the said Table, namely:—
TABLE
Sl.
Officers
Local limits/Public premises
No.
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.
Deputy Inspector General or
Premises belonging to, or taken on
Superintendent of Police
lease, by or on behalf of, the National
holding the charge of Head
Investigation Agency, Headquarter
of Office, National Investi-
New Delhi and Branch Offices.
gation Agency, Headquarter
and Branch Offices, National
Investigation Agency.
[F. No. AC-1/NIA-Ghty/NIA/2013-MHA/PF-III]
GRACY JAMES, Under Secy.
foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 4 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2541.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi[kaM
¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½
vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]
iatkc uS'kuy cSad ds dk;Zikyd funs'kd Jh lk/kq jke caly ¼tUe
frfFk% 03-01-1956½ dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls
31-01-2016 rd vFkkZr~ muds }kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus
dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] dkiksZjs'ku
cSad ds v/;{k ,oa izca/k funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 4@4@2012&chvks& I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 4th October, 2013
S.O. 2541.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-
clause (1) of Clause 8 of The Nationalised Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government hereby appoints
Sh. Sadhu Ram Bansal (DoB: 03.01.1956), Executive
Director, Punjab National Bank as Chairman and Managing
Director, Corporation Bank, from the date of his taking over
the charge of the post and upto 31.01.2016, i.e., the date of
his superannuation or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 15 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2542.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh
daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh
èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk 3¼t½ vkSj ¼3d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh ukxh jsM~Mh osadV je.k jsM~Mh
¼tUe frfFk% 21-06-1952½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh
rkjh[k ls rhu o"kks± dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks
Hkh igys gks] vkaèzk c®d ds funs'kd eaMy esa va'k&dkfyd xSj&ljdkjh
funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 6@36@2013&chvks& I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 15th October, 2013
S.O. 2542.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3(h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby re-nominates Shri Nagi Reddy Venkata Ramana
Reddy (DoB: 21.06.1952) as part-time non-official Director
on the Board of Directors of Andhra Bank for a period of
three years, from the date of notification of his appointment
or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/36/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6567
ubZ fnYyh] 17 vDrwcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2543.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk
ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e]
1970@1980 dh èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds [akM ¼p½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d ls
ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~] ,rn~}kjk] dkiksZjs'ku c®d ds izcaèd
Jh ,dukFk ckfyxk ¼tUe frfFk% 01-01-1959½ dks mudh fu;qfDr
dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok muds
dkiksZjs'ku ds vfèdkjh cus jgus rd ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls
tks Hkh igys gks] dkiksZjs'ku c®d ds funs'kd eaMy esa vfèdkjh deZpkjh
funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 6@21@2012&chvks& I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th October, 2013
S.O. 2543.— In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (f) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 9 of the
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
after consulation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby
appoints Shri Ekanath Baliga (DoB: 01.01.1959) Manager,
Corporation Bank, as Officer Employee Director on the
Board of Directors of Corporation Bank for a period of
three years, from the date of notification of his appointment
or until he ceases to be an officer of the Corporation Bank,
or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/21/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2544.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izcaè ,oa izdh.kZ micaè½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh
daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vfèfu;e] 1970@1980 dh
èkjk 9 dh mi&èkjk 3¼t½ vkSj ¼3d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh cksue osaVd HkkLdj ¼tUe
frfFk% 12-05-1971½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls
rhu o"kks± dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys
gks] dkiksZjs'ku c®d ds funs'kd eaMy esa va'k&dkfyd xSj&ljdkjh
funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 6@23@2013&chvks& I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 4th November, 2013
S.O. 2544.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3(h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Bonam Venkata Bhaskar (DoB:
12.05.1971) as part-time non-official Director on the Board
of Directors of Corporation Bank for a period of three years,
from the date of notification of his appointment or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/23/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 8 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2545.—c®ddkjh fofu;eu vf/kfu;e] 1949 ¼1949
dk 10½ dh /kkjk 53 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] Hkkjr
ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ c®d dh flQkfj'k ij] ,rn~}kjk] ?kks"k.kk djrh
gS fd mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M ¼x½ ds
mi[k.M ¼i½ ds mica/k vkbZMhchvkbZ c®d ij ykxw ug… gksaxs] tgka rd
mudk laca/k vkbZMhchvkbZ c®d ds v/;{k ,oa izca/k funs'kd
Jh ,eñ,lñ jk?kou dks vkbZMhchvkbZ QsMjy ykbQ ba';ksjsal daiuh
fyñ ds cksMZ esa funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer fd, tkus ls gSA
[Qkñ lañ 13@9@2013&chvks& I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th November, 2013
S.O. 2545.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),
the Government of India on the recommendations of the
Reserve Bank of India, hereby declare that the provisions
of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the said Act shall not apply to IDBI Bank in
so far as it relates to the nominations of M.S. Raghavan,
Chairman & Managing Director of the Bank as Director on
the Board of IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd.
(IDBI Federal).
[F. No. 13/9/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
6568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 8 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2546.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi[kaM
¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½
vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]
flMch ds v/;{k ,oa izca/k funs'kd] Jh lq'khy eguksr ¼tUe frfFk%
19-09-1956½ dks muds }kjk inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls
30-09-2016 rd vFkkZr muds }kjk vf/kof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr dj ysus
rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] c®d vkWQ
egkjk"Vª ds v/;{k ,oa izca/k funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 4@4@2012&chvks&I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 8th November, 2013
S.O. 2546.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 and sub-
clause (1) of Clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks
(Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme,
1970/1980, the Central Government hereby appoints Sh.
Sushil Muhnot (DoB: 19.09.1956), Chairman & Managing
Director, SIDBI as Chairman and Managing Director, Bank
of Maharashtra, from the date of his taking over the charge
of the post and upto 30.09.2016, i.e. the date of his
superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 4/4/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2547.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh
daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh
/kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk 3¼t½ vkSj ¼3d½ n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh fpUuS;k ¼tUe frfFk%
01-06-1958½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu
o"kks± dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks]
bafM;u vksojlht c®d ds funs'kd eaMy esa va'k&dkfyd xSj&ljdkjh
funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 6@19@2013&chvks& I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2547.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3(h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Shri Chinnaiah (DoB: 01.06.1958) as part-
time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors of Indian
Overseas Bank for a period of three years, from the date of
notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/19/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 21 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2548.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.k mica/k½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr c®ddkjh
daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa vrj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh
/kkjk 9 dh mu&/kkjk 3 ¼t½ vkSj ¼3&d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh vkjk/kuk feJk
¼tUe frfFk 20-04-1974½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/klwpuk dh
rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kska rd] tks
Hkh igys gks] iatkc uS'kuy c®d ds funs'kd e.My esa va'k&dkfyd
xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 6@28@2013&chvks& I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 21st November, 2013
S.O. 2548.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section 3 (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the
Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby nominates Smt. Aradhana Misra (DoB: 20.04.1974)
as part-time non-official director on the Board of Directors
of Punjab National Bank for a period of three years, from
the date of notification of her appointment or until further
orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 6/28/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6569
ubZ fnYyh] 25 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2549.—jk"Vªh;d`r c®d ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½
Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk
ifBr c®ddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e]
1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼³½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] vka/kzk c®d ds
,dy f[kM+dh ifjpkyd&[k ¼flaxy foaMks vkWijsVj&ch½]
Jh FkejSlsyou ¼tUe frfFk% 12-08-1959½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh
vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok muds
vka/kzk c®d ds deZdkj deZpkjh cus jgus rd ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd]
buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] vka/kzk c®d ds funs'kd eaMy esa deZdkj
deZpkjh funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 6@24@2012&chvks&I ]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 25th November, 2013
S.O. 2549.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (e) of Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,
1970/1980 read with Sub-clause (1) & (2) of Clause 9 of The
Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government
hereby appoints Shri K. Thamaraiselvan (Date of Birth :
12.08.1959), Single Window Operator-B, Andhra Bank as
Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of
Andhra Bank for a period of three years with effect from
the date of notification of his appointment or until he ceases
to be aWorkmen Employee of Andhra Bank or until further
orders, whichever is the earliest.
[F. No. 6/24/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;
¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½
¼jktHkk"kk ;wfuV½
ubZ fnYyh] 18 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2550.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kklhdh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½
ds vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; ¼Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa
lk{kjrk foHkkx½ ds varxZr dsanzh; fon~;ky; laxBu ds 1 {ks=h;
dk;kZy; rFkk 8 dsanzh; fon~;ky;ksa dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa ds :i esa]
ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd
Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] vf/klwfpr djrh gS%—
1- dsanzh; fon~;ky; laxBu] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] bZch CykWd
ycksuh] lsDVj&1] lkYV ysd] dksydkrk&700064
2- dsanzh; fon~;ky;] nfr;k] jkt?kkV dkWyksuh] nfr;k ¼e/;
izns'k½&475661
3- dsanzh; fon~;ky;] yfyriqj]chñVhñlhñ gkWLVy] ftyk f'k{kk
,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku ifjlj] yfyriqj ¼mÙkj izns'k½ &
284403
4- dsanzh; fon~;ky; lhVhihih] NcM+k] eksrhiqjk pkSd] NcM+k
¼jktLFkku½&325220
5- dsanzh; fon~;ky; Øñ 1] ¼n~forh; ikyh½] 'kfDr uxj]
Xokfy;j ¼e/; izns'k½&474001
6- dsanzh; fon~;ky; ckajk] dksVk jksM] jktLFkku&325205
7- dsanzh; fon~;ky;] iksñ jafx;k] ftyk & dke:i] vklke &
781354
8- dsanzh; fon~;ky;] lsod jksM] iksñ lkyqxkjk] ftyk&
tyikbZxqM+h] if'pe caxky&734008
9- dsanzh; fon~;ky;] eaxynS] jaxkerh ekStk] CykWd pkSd]
njax] vle&784125
[lañ 11011&1@2013&jkñHkkñ,ñ ]
vuUr dqekj flag] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
(Department of Higher Education)
(O. L. UNIT)
New Delhi, the 18th November, 2013
S.O. 2550.—In pursuance of sub. rule (4) of rule 10 of
the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies
1 Regional Office and 8 Kendriya Vidyalayas of Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan under the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, (Department of School Education
& Literacy) as offices whose more than 80% members of
the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sangathan Regional
Office, EB Block, Laboni, Sector-1, Salt Lake,
Kolkata-700064.
6570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Datia, Rajghat Colony, Datia
(Madhya Pradesh)-475661
3. Kendriya Vidyalaya Lalitpur, BTC Hostel, DIET
Campus, Lalitpur (Uttar Pradesh)-284403
4. Kendriya Vidyalaya, CTPP, Motipura Chouki,
Chhabra (Rajasthan)-325220
5. Kendriya Vidyalaya, No. 1, (Second Shift), Gwalior,
Shaktinagar, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh)-474001
6. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Baran Kota Road, Baran
(Rajasthan)-325205
7. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Rangia, P.O. Rangia, Distt.
Kamrup, Assam-781354
8. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sevoke Road, P.O. Salugara,
Distt. Jalpaiguri, West Bengal-734008
9. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mangaldai Rangamati
Mauza, Block Chowka, Mangaldai, Darrang,
Assam-784125
[No. 11011-1/2013-O.L.U.]
ANANT KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.
¼Ldwy f'k{kk vkSj lk{kjrk foHkkx½
¼,u,y,e&IV vuqHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 20 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2551.—Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk lañ ,Qñ
46&3@2008&,ñbZñ&4@,u,y,e&4 fnñ 31-05-2010 ds ek/;e ls
xfBr jk"Vªh; lk{kjrk fe'ku izkf/kdj.k ¼,u,y,e,½ dh dk;Zdkfj.kh
lfefr dh vof/k vkSj 31-05-2013 rd bldh c<+kbZ gqbZ vof/k
lekIr gksus ds i'pkr~ vkSj Hkkjr ljdkj ds ladYi lañ
,Q&9&5@87&,ñbZñ&1 fnñ 20-06-1988 ¼iqu% ladYi lañ,Qñ
9&18@94&,ñbZñ&1 fnñ 13-12-1994] ,Qñ 9&7@97&,ñbZñ&1 fnñ
21-04-1997] ,Qñ 14&2@2004&,ñbZñ&1 fnñ 02-09-2004 ds
ek/;e ls la'kksf/kr½ ds vuqPNsn 4 esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs
gq,] l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds vuqeksnu lfgr ,u,y,e, dh dk;Zdkfj.kh
lfefr dk iquxZBu djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vc bl lfefr esa
fuEufyf[kr lnL; gksaxs%
¼d½ lfpo]
v/;{k
Ldwy f'k{kk vkSj lk{kjrk foHkkx]
ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyhA
¼[k½ insu lnL;
1- lfpo]
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx]
LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkjA
2- lfpo]
xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx]
xzkeh.k fodkl ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkjA
3- lfpo]
iapk;rh jkt foHkkx]
iapk;rh jkt ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkjA
4- lfpo]
efgyk vkSj cky fodkl ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkjA
5- lfpo]
;qok dk;Z foHkkx]
;qok dk;Z vkSj [ksy ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkjA
6- lfpo]
;qok dk;Z foHkkx]
;qok dk;Z vkSj [ksy ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkjA
7- lfpo]
lkekftd U;k; vkSj vf/kdkfjrk ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkjA
8- lfpo]
d`f"k vkSj lgdkfjrk foHkkx
d`f"k ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkjA
9- lfpo]
i'kqikyu ,oa Ms;jh foHkkx]
d`f"k ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkjA
10- la;qDr lfpo vkSj foRrh; lykgdkj]
ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;]
Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyhA
11- lykgdkj ¼f'k{kk½]
;kstu vk;ksx]
Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyhA
12- v/;{k]
jk"Vªh; eqDr f'k{kk laLFkku ¼,uvkbZvks,l½]
uks,Mk] ¼mñizñ½A
13- funs'kd]
izkS<+ f'k{kk funs'kky; ¼Mh,bZ½]
Hkkjr ljdkj] ubZ fnYyhA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6571
¼x½ xSj&ljdkjh lnL;
1- dqyifr] bafnjk xka/kh jk"Vªh; eqDr fo'ofo|ky;
¼vkbZth,uvks;w½] ubZ fnYyhA
2- dk;ZØe lykgdkj] jk"Vªh; lsok ;kstuk ¼,u,l,l½
;qok dk;Z vkSj [ksy ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyhA
¼?k½ jkT;&lalk/ku dsUnzksa ¼4½ ds izfrfuf/k
1- funs'kd] ,lvkjlh] fgekpy izns'k
2- funs'kd] ,lvkjlh] gSnjkckn
3- funs'kd] ,lvkjlh] bankSj
4- funs'kd] ,lvkjlh] f'kyk¡x
¼M-½ tu&f'k{k.k laLFkkuksa ¼3½ ds izfrfuf/k
1- funs'kd] ts,l,l] ubZ fnYyh
2- funs'kd] ts,l,l] bMqDdh
3- funs'kd] ts,l,l] bykgkckn
¼p½ jkT; lk{kjrk fe'ku izkf/kdj.kksa ¼5½ ds lnL;@lfpo
1- lnL; lfpo] NRrhlx<+
2- lnL; lfpo] ukxkyS.M
3- lnL; lfpo] if'pe caxky
4- lnL; lfpo] egkjk"Vª
5- lnL; lfpo] dukZVd
¼N½ lnL; lfpo
la;qDr lfpo ¼,bZ½ vkSj insu egkfuns'kd]
jk"Vªh; lk{kjrk fe'ku izkf/kdj.k]
Ldwy f'k{kk vkSj lk{kjrk foHkkx]
ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;A
2- dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr dk dk;Z&dky] bl vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k
ls nks o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, gksxkA
3- dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr ds xSj&ljdkjh lnL; Hkkjr ljdkj ds
fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ;k=k vkSj nSfud HkRrk izkIr djus ds fy, gdnkj
gksaxsA
[la- ,Q&46&3@2008&,bZ&4@,u,y,e&4]
txeksgu flag jktw] la;qDr lfpo
(Department of School Education and Literacy)
(NLM-IV Section)
New Delhi, the 20th November, 2013
S.O. 2551.—On expiry of the term of the Executive
Committee of the National Literacy Mission Authority
(NLMA) constituted vide Government of India's
Notification No. F. 46-3/2008-A.E.-4/NLM-4 dated
31.05.2010 and its extended term till 31.05.2013 and in exercise
of powers delegated in para 4 of Government of India
Resolution No. F. 9-5/87-AE-I dated 20.6.1988 (modified
further vide Resolution No. F. 9-18/94-AE-I dated
13-12-1994, F. 9-7/97-AE-I dated 21.4.1997, F.14-2/2004-
AE. I dated 2.9.2004), it has been decided with the approval
of the competent authority to reconstitute the Executive
Committee of the NLMA with the following members:
A. Secretary,
Chairperson
Department of School Education & Literacy
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, New Delhi.
B. Ex-Officio Members
1. Secretary,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India.
2. Secretary,
Department of Rural Development,
Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India.
3. Secretary,
Department of Panchayati Raj,
Ministry of Panchayati Raj,
Government of India.
4. Secretary,
Ministry of Woman & Child Development,
Government of India.
5. Secretary,
Department of Youth Affairs,
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Government of India.
6. Secretary,
Department of Sports,
Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
Government of India.
7. Secretary,
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment,
Government of India.
8. Secretary,
Department of Agriculture & Cooperation,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India.
6572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying,
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
10. Joint Secretary & Financial Adviser,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, New Delhi.
11. Adviser (Education),
Planning Commission,
Government of India, New Delhi.
12. Chairman,
National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS),
Noida (U.P.)
13. Director,
Directorate of Adult Education (DAE),
Government of India, New Delhi.
C. Non-Official Members
1. Vice-Chancellor, Indira Gandhi National Open
University (IGNOU), New Delhi.
2. Programme Adviser, National Service Scheme
(NSS), Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
New Delhi.
D. Representatives of States Resource Centres (4)
1. Director, SRC, Himachal Pradesh
2. Director, SRC, Hyderabad
3. Director, SRC, Indore
4. Director, SRC, Shillong
E. Representatives of Jan Shikshan Sansthans (3)
1. Director, JSS, New Delhi.
2. Director, JSS, Idukki
3. Director, JSS, Allahabad
F. Members/Secretaries of SLMAs (5)
1. Member Secretary, Chattisgarh
2. Member Secretary, Nagaland
3. Member Secretary, West Bengal
4. Member Secretary, Maharashtra
5. Member Secretary, Karnataka
G. Member Secretary
Joint Secretary (AE) & Ex-Officio Director General,
National Literacy Mission Authority, Department
of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of
Human Resource Development.
2. The term of the Executive Committee will be for a
period of two years from the date of this Notification.
3. The Non-official Members of the Executive Committee
shall be entitled to travelling and daily allowance as per the
Rules of the Government of India.
[No. F. 46-3/2008-AE-4/NLM-4]
JAGMOHAN SINGH RAJU, Jt. Secy.
ukxj foekuu ea=ky;
¼,,vkbZ vuqHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 22 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2552.—Hkkjrh; foekuiRru izkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e]
1994 ¼1994 dk 55½ ds rgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz
ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vkyksd flUgk] la;qDr lfpo] ukxj foekuu
ea=ky; dks rRdky izHkko ls Jh vfuy JhokLro] la;qDr lfpo ds
LFkku ij Hkkjrh; foekuiRru izkf/kdj.k cksMZ ds va'kdkfyd lnL;
ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA
[lañ ,ohñ 24015@5@2013&,,vkbZ]
,lñ ohñ je.kk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
(AAI Section)
New Delhi, 22nd November, 2013
S.O. 2552.—In exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994
(No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Alok Sinha, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation,
as part-time Member on the Board of Airports Authority of
India vice Shri Anil Srivastava, Joint Secretary with
immediate effect.
[No. AV. 24015/5/2013-AAI]
S. V. RAMANA, Under Secy.
lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;
¼nwjlapkj foHkkx½
¼jktHkk"kk vuqHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 22 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2553.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr] 1987] 2007
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6573
rFkk 2011½ ds fu;e 10¼04½ ds vuqlj.k esa eq[; egkizca/kd]
mÙkjh nwjlapkj ifjeaMy] ubZ fnYyh ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu
dk;kZy;ksa ;Fkk&¼d½ mi egkizca/kd] nwjlapkj ifj;kstuk] okjk.klh]
¼[k½ mi egkizca/kd] nwjlapkj ifj;kstuk] tEew rFkk ¼x½ mi
egkizcaèd] nwjlapkj ifj;kstuk] vkxjk ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls
vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
2- ;g vf/klwpuk jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA
[lañ bZ 11016@01@2009&jktHkk"kk]
Hkkjr Hkw"k.k dkSjk] la;qDr lfpo
————
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Telecommunications)
New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2013
S.O. 2553.—In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Official
Languages (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules,
1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the (a) Office
of the Deputy General Manager, Telecom Circle, Varanasi,
(b) Office of the Deputy General Manager, Telecom Circle,
Jammu and (c) Office of the Deputy General Manager,
Telecom Circle, Agra under the administrative control of
Chief General Manager, North Telecom Circle, New Delhi,
where more than 80% staff have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi.
2. This notification shall come into force from the date
of its publication in the Official Gazette.
[No. E-11016/1/2009-O.L.]
BHARAT BHUSHAN KAURA, Jt. Secy
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2554.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988
ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph
esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal
Lohd`fr djus
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke
Hkkjrh; ekud dk
Hkkek
Hkkx
[ka.M
o"kZ
la[;k
la[;k
dh frfFk
,oa irk
'kh"kZd
lañ
o"kZ@ekg
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1- 3974989
07@08@2013
ekW d`ik b.MLVªht] losZ lañ 153]
<yokW ,Y;qfefu;e
1660
2009
mfe;k b.MfLVª;y bLVsV] xkyk
crZu
lañ 04@05] vkJe jkftoyh ds
vkxs] Hkks;nkikMk] clbZ iwoZ]
ftyk&Fkk.ks 401208
2- 3976084
06@08@2013
dsñihñ b.MLVªht] ;wfuV lañ 2]
<yokW ,Y;qfefu;e
1660
2009
'khry b.MfLVª;y dkWEysDl
crZu
lañ 3] Dykfld fLVIl ds ihNs]
fpapikMk] ckfyo jksM+] clbZ
¼iwoZ½] ftyk % Fkk.ks 401208
3- 3976286
08@08@2013
izkbZe b.MLVªht]
<yokW ,Y;qfefu;e
1660
2009
IykWV lañ 10] xV lañ 256]
crZu
foyst % pgkMs] euksj jksM]
rkyqdk % iky?kj] ftyk %
Fkk.ks 401404
6574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4- 3989093
26@08@2013
y{eh b.MLVªht
<yokW ,Y;qfefu;e
1660
2009
;qfuV lañ 6] fcfYMax lañ 5@3 ch]
crZu
jktizHkk m|ksx uxj] xksykuh]
ckfyo] clbZ ¼iwoZ½] ftyk %
Fkk.ks&401208
5- 3982382
08@08@2013
VcksZ esVy izkñ fyñ
daØhV izcyu
1786
2008
IykWV lañ 36] 39@,&7] 39@,&8&1] VheVh ds fy, mPp
39@3@3@2 ¼ihVh½]
'kfDr fo:fir
foyst % [kkfMoyh] euksj jksM]
bLikr lfj, ,oa
rkyqdk % okMk]
rkj
ftyk % Fkk.ks 421303
6- 3982383
16@08@2013
la?koh QuhZpj izkñ fyfeVsM
cqMu Qyl Mksj
2202
1
1999
IykWV lañ 1 ,oa 2] bfDte
'kVj Bksl dksj
b.MfLVª;y bLVsV] foyst % gksun]
Vkbi % Hkkx 1 IykbZ
rkyqdk % [kkykiqj]
cqM Qsl iSuy
rkdb vknks'kh jksM] [kksiksyh]
ftyk % jk;x<+ 421203
7- 3976185
06@08@2013
v'oes/k bathfu;lZ ,.M QWfczdsVlZ
ikuh vkSj ty
3589
2001
37] egknso b.MfLVª;y bLVsV]
eyty ds fy,
'khy iucsy jksM]
bLikr ikbZi
xkso/kZu gksVy ds ihNs] xksBs?kj]
uoh eqacbZ&400612
8- 3982281
08@08@2013
esllZ isjhDyso
{kSfrt csyukdkj
3829
1
1999
63,] igyk ekyk]
vkSj {kSfrt
dkUnhokyh dks&vkWijsfVo b.MfLVª;y
vk;rkdkj ei
bLVsV] pkjdksi] dkUnhokyh ¼if'pe½] futZed nkc Vkbi
eqacbZ 400067
¼vLirky vkSj
QkekZfL;wfVdy iz;ksx
ds fy,½
9- 3981683
19@08@2013
esllZ Vksax vkbZ gksflax ykbZV
LdqVj vkSj
4151
1993
b.MfLVª;y izkñ fyñ
eksVjlkbZfdy
fcfYMax bZ&15@,] xkyk lañ 9]
lokjksa ds fy,
fcfYMax bZ&9] xkyk lañ 13@14]
lqj{kk gsyesV
d`".kk dkWEIysDl] gfjgj dkiksZjs'ku
ds lkeus] nkiksMs fcyst] ekudksyh]
fHko.Mh] ftyk % Bk.ks 421302
10- 3986794
21@08@2013
egkjk"Vª lheysl fyfeVsM
lajpuk mi;ksx ds
4923
1997
ikbZi uxj] foyst % lqdsyh]
fy, gkWyks bLikr
,u,p 17 chdsth jksM]
lsD'ku
rkyqdk % jksgk]
ftyk % jk;x<+ 402126
11- 3975082
07@08@2013
esllZ Jh lkbZjke IykfLVd
is;ty vkiwrhZ ds
4985
2000
,.M bjhxs'ku xV lañ 2016@3]
fy, vIySfLVfdr
ulhjkckn & mekyk jksM] ulhjkckn]
ihohlh ikbZi
ftyk % tyxkWo 425309
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6575
12- 3975991
07@08@2013
esllZ ;ksxh IykLV
is;ty vkiwfrZ ds
4985
2000
th&90] ,evk;Mhlh
fy, vIySfLVfdr
tyxkWo&425003
ihohlh ikbZi
13- 3984689
23@08@2013
esllZ iwtk b.MfLVªt
ty 'kkSpky;ksa
7231
1994
32] neu b.MfLVª;y bLVsV]
vkSj ew=ky;ksa ds
lkseukFk eafnj ds ihNs] nkHksy]
fy, IykfLVd
neu] neu ,oa nho 396210
iz/kkou Vafd;kW
14- 3977490
13@08@2013
esllZ e/kqj IykLV
fo|qr laLFkkiuksa
9537
3
1983
'ksM lañ 7] chds lañ 1035 ds
ds fy, ufydk,W
lkeus] jk/kkckbZ pkSd] mYgkluxj]
Hkkx 3 fo|qr
ftyk % Bk.ks 421003
laLFkkiuksa ds fy,
fo|qrjks/kh lkexzh ds
n`<+ lkns ufydk,W
15- 3983586
20@08@2013
n bafM;u g;qe ikbi dañ fyñ
vLrj o ysiu
15155
2002
xV uañ 57] uankys [kqnZ] uankys QkVk]
okys lfj,@rkj ls
/kqys tyxkao gkbos] ¼,u,p 6½]
fyiVs gq, bLikr
ftyk % /kqys 424301
ds csyukdkj ikbi
¼fo'ks"k lgk;dkax lfgr½
16- 3993387
10@09@2013
;qjks Msdksj izkñ fyñ ;wfuV&II
fofuvWM MsdksjsfVo
1328
1996
265@6] nsekuh jksM+] nknjk xkWo]
Iyk;oqM vkdkj
nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh]
flyoklk 396191
17- 2801347
25@09@2013
Jhth oqM Øk¶V izkñ fyñ
CykWd cksMZ
1659
2004
losZ lañ 215@2]
lqjaxh osyqxke jksM+]
osyqxke xkWo] flyoklk 396230
18- 3997395
17@09@2013
lqfer LVhy
<yokW
1660
2009
'kqHk b.MfLVª;y bLVsV]
,Y;wfefu;e crZu
xkyk lañ 31] lsDVj lañ 2]
xksjkbZ ikMk] olbZ ¼iwoZ½]
ftyk % Bk.ks 401208
19- 3997294
11@09@2013
,fyxaV dkfLVax izkñ fyñ
lkekU; lajpuk
2830
2012
IykWV lañ 194@1@2] vFky xkWo]
iz;kstuksa ds fy,
flyoklk 396230
bLikr esa iqu% jksfyax
gsrq dkcZu bLikr ds
<fyr fcysV baxksVl]
fcysVl, Cyel
vkSj LySCl
20- 3999504
16@09@2013
';ke baxksVl izkñ fyñ
lkekU; lajpuk
2830
2012
IykWV uañ 29@30@31]
iz;kstuksa ds fy,
xOgZesa.V b.Mñ bLVsV] [kknksyh]
bLikr esa iqu%
nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh]
jksfyax gsrq dkcZu
flyoklk 396230
bLikr ds <fyr fcysV
baxksVl] fcysVl,
Cyel vkSj LySCl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21- 3999605
16@09@2013
';ke baxksLV izkñ fyñ
lkekU; lajpuk
2830
2012
IykWV uañ 29@30@31]
iz;kstuksa ds fy,
xOgZesa.V b.Mñ bLVsV] [kknksyh]
bLikr esa iqu%
nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh]
jksfyax gsrq dkcZu
flyoklk 396230
bLikr ds <fyr
fcysV baxksVl]
fcysVl, Cyel
vkSj LySCl
22- 2803452
25@09@2013
[kUuk b.MfLVª;y ikbIl izkñ fyñ
ty vkSj eyty
3589
2001
;wfuV&II
gsrq bLikr ikbZi
losZ uañ 27@1&lh] foyst % vkluxko]
¼168-3 ls 2540
rkyqdk % 'kgkiwj]
feeh ckg; O;kl½
ftyk % Fkk.ks 421604
23- 2803351
26@09@2013
HkkX;Jh ikWyhelZ izkbosV fyfeVsM
is;ty vkiwfrZ ds
4985
2000
xV lañ 46@3@,] mekyk]
fy, vIySfLVfdr
mekyk & ulhjkckn jksM+] vWV % mekyk]
ihohlh ikbZi
iksLV % /kuokM]
ftyk % tyxkWo 425003
24- 3997193
11@09@2013
fdlku eksfYMax fyfeVsM
ty'kkSpky;ksa vkSj
7231
1994
losZ lañ 34@1@1] lk;yh jksM+]
ew=ky;ksa ds fy,
mejdqbZ xkWo] isij izksMDVl fyñ
IykfLVd iz/kkou
ds lkeus flyoklk & 396230
25- 2800951
23@09@2013
jsucks IykfLVDl bafM;k fyfeVsM
fo|qr laLFkkiuksa
14927
2
2001
losZ lañ 256@1] nknjk xkWo]
ds fy, ruko vkSj
tSu eafnj ds utnhd]
okfguh i)fr%
nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh 396230
Hkkx 2 fnokjksa ,oa
flfyax ij yxkus ds
fy, okfPNr dscy
ruu vkSj okfguh i)fr
26- 2807662
03@10@2013
[kUuk b.MfLV;y ikbIl izkñ fyñ
e`nq bLikr
1239
1
2004
;wfuV&II
ufydk,W]
losZ uañ 27@1&lh] foyst % vkluxko] ufydk;qDr vkSj
rkyqdk % 'kgkiwj]
vU; <yokW bLikr
ftyk % Fkk.ks 421604
fQfVax&fof'kf"V&Hkkx 1]
e`nq bLikr ufydk,W
27- 2807763
11@10@2013
buVkbe Qk;j vIyk,alsl
vfXu'kked] dkcZu
2878
2004
IykWV lañ Mh&24@6] VhVhlh
MkbZvkDlkbZM Vkbi
b.Mñ ,fj;k] ,evk;Mhlh] rqHksZ]
¼lqckg~; vkSj VkWyh
uoh eqacbZ] ftyk % Fkk.ks 400705
ekm.VsM½
28- 2808361
09@10@2013
ykW;Ml ykbu ikbIl fyfeVsM
;kaf=dh vkSj
3601
2006
,e&1] ,fM'kuy ,evk;Mhlh]
lkekU;
dqnkoyh xkWo] eqjckM]
vfHk;kaf=dh
ftyk % Bk.ks 421401
iz;kstuksa ds fy,
bLikr ufydk,W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6577
29- 2808462
10@10@2013
Hkq"k.k fLVy fyfeVsM
lajpuk bLikr ds
4923
1997
foyst fuQku vkSj lkojksyh]
fy, [kks[kyk
¼[kksiksyh ds utnhd½]
bLikr lsD'ku
rkyqdk % [kkykiqj]
ftyk % jk;x<+ 410203
30- 2807561
10@10@2013
[kUuk b.MfLVª;y ikbIl izkñ fyñ
fo|qr laLFkkiuksa
9537
2
1981
IykWV lañ 216] [kkrhcyh xkWo]
ds fy, ufydk,a
rkyqdk % 'kgkiqj]
Hkkx 2 n`<+ bLikr
ftyk % Bk.ks 421604
ufydk,a
[lañ dsizfo@13% 11]
Vhñ dySok.ku] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼izek.ku foHkkx II)
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2013
S.O. 2554.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (certification)
regulations, 1988, the bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the
following schedule have grant effect from the date indicate against each:
SCHEDULE
Sr. CML
GOL Date
Licensee Name &
IS PRODUCT
IS NO
Part
Sec
Year
No. No
Address
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. 3974989
07/08/2013
Maa Krupa Enterprises
Wrought
1660
2009
Survey No. 153, Umiya Indl
Aluminium
Estate, Gala No. 04/05,
Utensils
Next to Aashram Rajivali,
Bhoydapada, Vasai(E),
Distt: Thane-401208
2. 3976084
06/08/2013
K.P. Industries
Wrought
1660
2009
Unit No. 2, Sheetal Indl
Aluminium
Complex, No. 3
Utensils
Behind Classic stripes,
Chinchpada, Waliv Road,
Vasai (East) Distt:
Thane-401208
3. 3976286
08/08/2013
Prime Industries
Wrought
1660
2009
Plot No. 10, Gut No. 256,
Aluminium
Village-Chahade, Manor
Utensils
Road, Tal: Palghar,
Distt: Thane-401404
4. 3989093
26/08/2013
Laxmi Industries
Wrought
1660
2009
Unit No. 6 Bldg No. 5/3B,
Aluminium
Rajprabha Udyog Nagar
Utensils
Golani, Valiv, Vasai (East),
Distt: Thane-401208
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5 3982382
08/08/2013
Turbo Metals Pvt Ltd
High Strength
1786
2008
Plot No. 36, 39/A-7. 39/A-8-1,
Deformed Steel
39/3/3/2 (PT),
Bars and Wires
Village-Kadivali,
For Concrete
Manor Road, Tal: Wada
Reinforcement
Distt: Thane-421303
(TMT Bars)
6 3982483
16.08/2013
Sanghvi Furniture Pvt Ltd
Wooden Flush
2202
1
1999
Plot No 1 & 2, Exim Indl
Door Shutters
Estate,
(Solid core Type):
Village: Honad,
Part 1 Plywood
Tal: Khalapur,
Face Panels
Takai Adoshi Road, Khopoli,
Distt: Raigad-421203
7 3976185
06/08/2013
Ashwamedh Engineers &
Steel Pipes for
3589
2001
Fabricators
Water and
37 Mahadev Indl Estate,
Sewage
Shil Panvel Road, Behind
Gowardhan Hotel, Gotheghar,
Navi Mumbai-400612
8 3982281
08/08/2013
Periclave
Horizontal
3829
1
1999
63-A, First Floor, Kandivali
Cylindrical and
Co-op Indl Estate,
Horizontal
Charkop, Kandivali (W)
Rectangular
Mumbai-400067
Steam Sterilizers,
Pressure Type (for
Hospital and
Pharmaceutical use)
9 3981683
19/08/2013
Tong I Hosing Light
Protective
4151
1993
Industrial Pvt Ltd
Helmets for
Bldg E-15/A, Gala No. 9, Bldg
Scooter and
E-9, Gala No. 13/14,
Motorcycle
Krishna Complex,
Riders
Opp: Harihar Corporation,
Dapode, Village, Mankoli,
Bhiwandi Distt: Thane-421302
10 3986794
21/08/2013
Maharashtra Seamless Ltd
Hollow Steel
4923
1997
Pipe Nagar, Village Sukeli,
Sections for
N H 17 BKG Road, Tal Roha,
Structural use
Distt: Raigad-402126
11 3975082
07/08/2013
Shree Sairam Plastics &
Unplasticized
4985
2000
Irrigation
PVC Pipes for
Gat No. 2016/3, Nashirabad-
Potable water
Umala Road, Nashirabad
Supplies
Distt: Jalgaon - 425309
12 3975991
07/08/2013
Yogi Plast
Unplasticized
4985
2000
G- 90, MIDC,
PVC Pipes for
Jalgaon-425003
Potable Water Supplies
13 3984689
23/08/2013
Pooja Industries
Plastic Flushing
7231
1994
32, Daman Indl Estate,
Cisterns for
Behind Somnath Temple,
Water Closets
Dabhel, Daman
and Urinals
Daman & Diu- 396210
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6579
14 3977490
13/08/2013
Madhur Plast
Conduits for
9537
3
1983
Shed No. 7, Opp:B.K. No. 1035,
Electrical
Radhabai Chowk,
Installations:
Ulhasnagar
Part 3 Rigid Plain
Distt: Thane-421003
Conduits of Insulating
Materials
15 3983586
20/08/2013
The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd
Bar/Wire
15155
2002
Gat No. 57, Nandale Khurd,
Wraped Steel
Nandale Phata, Dhule-
Cylinder Pipe
Jalgaon Highway (NH 6),
with
Distt: Dhule-424301
Mortarlining and
Coating (Including Specials)
16 3993387
10/09/2013
Euro Décor Pvt Ltd, Unit-II
Veneered
1328
1996
265/6, Demani Road
Decorative
Dadar Village,
Plywood
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Silvassa-396191
17 2801347
25/09/2013
Shreeji wood Craft Pvt. Ltd.
Block Boards
1659
2004
Survey No. 215/2, Surangi
Velugam Road, village: Velugam,
Silvassa- 396230
18 3997395
17/09/2013
Sumeet Steel
Wrought
1660
2009
Shubh Industrial Estate
Aluminium
Gala No. 31, Sector No. 2,
Utensils
Gorai Pada, Vasai(E),
Distt: Thane-401208
19 3997294
11/09/2013
Elegant Casting Pvt. Ltd
Carbon Steel
2830
2012
Plot No. 194/1/2,
Cast Billet
Village: Athal,
Ingots, Billets,
Silvassa-396230
Blooms and Slabs for Re
20 3999504
16/09/2013
Shyam Ingots Pvt. Ltd.
Carbon Steel
2830
2012
Plot No. 29/30/31, Govt. Indl.
Cast Billet
Estate, Khadoli, Dadra and
Ingots, Billets,
Nagar Haveli, Silvassa-
Blooms and
396230
Slabs for re
21 3999605
16/09/2013
Shyam Ingots Pvt. Ltd.
Carbon Steel
2830
2012
Plot No. 29/30/31, Govt. Indl.
Cast Billet
Estate, Khadoli, Dadra and
Ingots, Billets,
Nagar Haveli, Silvassa-
Blooms and
396230
Slabs for re
22 2803452
25/09/2013
KHANNA Industrial Pipes Pvt. Steel Pipes for
3589
2001
Ltd-Unit II
Water and
Survey No. 27/1-C, Village:
Sewage (168.3 to
Asangaon, Tal: Shahapur
2540 MM Outside
Distt: Thane-421604
Diameter)
23 2803351
26/09/2013
Bhagta Shree Polymers
Unplasticized
4985
2000
Private Limited
PVC Pipes for
Gat No. 46/3/A, Umala
Potable Water
Umala-Nashirabad Road,
Supplies
At: Umala, Post Dhanwad
Distt: Jalgaon-425003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24 3997193
11/09/2013
Kisan Mouldings Ltd
Plastic Flushing
7231
1994
Survey No. 34/1/1/, Sayli Road,
Cisterns for
Village: Umarkui, Opp: Paper
Waterclosets
Products Ltd.
And Urinals
Silvassa - 396230
25 2800951
23/09/2013
Rainbow Plastics India Ltd
Cable Trunking
14927
2
2001
Survey No. 256/1. Village
and Ducting
Dadra,
Systems for
Near Jain Mandir,
Electrical
Dadra and Nagar Haveli-
Installations:
396230
Part 2 Cable
Trunking and Ducting
Systems Intended for
Mounting on Walls
or Ceiling
26 2807662
03/10/2013
Khanna Indsutrial Pipes Pvt.
Mild Steel Tubes,
1239
1
2004
Ltd-Unit-II
Tubulars and
Survey No. 27/1-c, Village-
other Wrought
Asangaon, Taluka-Shahpur,
Steel Fittings-
Distt: Thane-421604
Specification-
Part 1: Mild Steels Tubes
27 2807763
11/10/2013
Intime Fire Appliances Pvt.
Fire
2878
2004
Ltd.
Extinguisher,
Plot No. D-24/6, T.T.C. Indl.
Carbon Dioxide
Area,MIDC, turbhe,
Type (Portable
Navi Mumbai
and Trolley
Distt: Thane-400705
Mounted)
28 2808361
09/10/2013
Lloyds Line Pipes Limited
Steel Tubes for
3601
2006
M-1, Additional M.I.D.C.,
Mechanical and
Kudavali Village, Murbad,
General
Distt: Thane-421401
Engineering Purposes
29 2808462
10/10/2013
Bhushan Steel Limited
Hollow Steel
4923
1997
Village: Nifan & Savroli
Sections For
(Near Khopoli),
Structural use
Taluka: Khalapur,
Distt: Raigad-410203
30 2807561
10/10/2013
Khanna Indsutrial Pipes Pvt.
Conduits for
9537
2
1981
Ltd.
Electrical
Plot No. 216, Village-
Installations:
Khativali,
Part 2 Rigid Steel
Taluka-Shahpur,
conduits
Distt: Thane-421604
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist 'F' & Head (MDM-II)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6581
ubZ fnYYkh] 26 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2555.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;jks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mifofu;e ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os jí dj fn, x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe ykblsal la[;k
ykblsal/kkjh dk uke ,oa irk
ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@
jí djus dh
la[;k lh,e@,y
izØe lac) Hkkjrh; ekud
frfFk
dk 'kh"kZd
1 3784479
fizUl ikWyhelZ
is; ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,
28@08@2013
oh&52] ,evk;Mhlh
vIySfLVfdr ihohlh
tyxko&425003
ikbZi
2 7194175
fidklksa gkse izksMDV
<yokW ,Y;wfefu;e crZu
26@08@2013
igyh eafty] IykWV ua 16] losZ ua 482]
psd iksLV ds utnhd] ukuh ne.k]
ne.k ,oa nho
3 7822885
gseju ls¶Vh baMfLVªt
vfXu Js.kh ,]ch]lh] 'keu
17@09@2013
jpuk baMfLVª;y bLVsV] MkW- ikVhy
gsrq 'kq"d jklk;fud ikoMj
daEikmaM] pkWnlj] dksijh] fojkj ¼iwoZ½]
ftyk% Fkk.ks & 401303
4 7318571
fdlku eksfYMaXl fyfeVsM
is; ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,
26@09@2013
IykWV ua 69 vkSj 70 ,evk;Mhlh]
x<+s ihohlh fQfVax
lqn'kZu dsfedYl fyfeVsM ds lkeus]
Hkkx 2 lkWdsVksa ds fy,
jksgk baM ,fj;k] /kkro
fof'kf"V vis{kk,a
ftyk% jk;xM 402116
5 7310959
fjyk;cy Qk;j baftfuvlZ
vfXu'kked] dkcZu MkbZ
11@10!2013
xkyk ua- 10] inekorh b.M- dkWEIysDl]
vkDlkbZM Vkbi ¼lqokg~;
x.kirh ikMk fn?kk] buMy dkWyuh ds
vkSj VkWyh ekmaVsM½
utnhd] dyok]
ftyk Fkk.ks 400605
[la- ds iz fo@13@11]
Vh- dySok.ku] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼izek.ku foHkkx&II)
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2013
S.O. 2555.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (certification)
regulations, 1988, the bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the
following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sr. Licenses
Name & Address of the Licensee
Article/Process with relevant
Date of
No. No. CM/L
Indian Standards covered by the
Cancellation
No.
Licences cancelled/suspension
1. 3784479
Prince Polymers
Unplasticized PVC Pipes
28/08/2013
V-52, MIDC
for Portabel water
Jalgaon-425003
Supplies
6582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1
2
3
4
5
2. 7194175
Picasso Home Product
Wrought aluminium
26/08/2013
1 Floor, Plot No. 16, Survey No.
Utensiles
482, Near Check Post, Nani Damn,
Daman & Diu
3. 7822885
Hemratna Safety Industries
Dry Chemical Powder for
17/09/2013
Rachna Industrial Estate,
Fighting A,B,C, Class
Dr. patil Compund, Chandsar,
Fires
Kopri, Virar (East), Distt:
Thane-401303
4. 7318571
Kisan Mouldings Limited
Fabricated PVC Fittings
26/09/2013
Plots No. 69 & 70 MIDC, Opp.
For Potable Water
Sudarshan Chemicals Ltd. Roha
Supplies: Part 2 Specific
Indl Area, Dhatav
Requirements for
Distt: Raigad-402116
Sochets
5. 7310959
Reliable Fire Engineers
Fire Extinguisher, Carbon
11/10/2013
Gala No. 10, Padmavati
Dioxide Type (Portable
Indl. Complex, Ganpati Pada
and Trolley Mounted)
Digha, Nr. Indal Col, Kalva,
Distt: Thane - 400605
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (MDM-II)
fons'k ea=ky;
¼lh ih oh izHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 29 uoacj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2556.—jktuf;d vkSj dkalyh; vkWfQlj ¼'kiFk
vkSj Qhl½ ds vf/kfu;e] 1948 dh /kkjk 2 ds [kaM ¼d½ ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn}kjk Jhefr cfcrk Hklhu] lgk;d dks 29 uoEcj]
2013 ls Hkkjr ds jktnwrkokl] Mcfyu] lgk;d dksalqyj vf/kdkjh
ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy, izkf/kd`r djrh gSA
[lañVhñ 4330@01@2006]
vkjñdsñ isfjufM;k] mi lfpo ¼dksalqyj½
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV DIVISION)
New Delhi, the 29th November, 2013
S.O. 2556.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section
2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees)
Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government hereby
authorize Smt. Babita Bhasin, Assistant, in Embassy of
India, Dublin to perform the duties of Assistant Consular
Officer with effect from 29th November 2013.
[No. T. 4330/01/2006]
R.K. PERINDIA, Dy. Secy. (Consular)
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2557.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls
mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr ifj{ks= esa dh Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr
fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS(
mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds varxZr vkus okys {ks= ds C;kSjs
js[kkad la[;kad vkjbZoh@06@2013] rkjh[k 17 tqykbZ] 2013 dk fujh{k.k
lsaVªy dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM ¼Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx½] njHkaxk gkml]
jkaph&834029 ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k egkizca/kd] lsaVªy
dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM] dqtw {ks=] ftyk jkex<+ ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy;
esa ;k mik;qDr] ftyk jkex<+ >kj[k.M ;k egkizca/kd ¼xUos"k.k izHkkx½
vkjvkbZ& (III)] dsUnzh; [kku ;kstuk ,oa fMtkbu laLFkku] xksanokuk
iSysl] dkads jksM] jkaph ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; esas ;k dks;yk fu;a=d]
1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k
tk ldrk gSA
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,]mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ls dks;ys dk
iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gSA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6583
mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc} dksbZ O;fDr] bl
vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj egkizca/kd]
lsaVªy dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM] dqtw {ks=] ftyk jkex<+ ¼>kj[k.M½ ;k
egkizca/kd] lsaVªy dksyQhYMl fyfeVsM] Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx]
njHkaxk gkml] jkaph&834029 ¼>kj[k.M½ ds dk;kZy; ls]—
¼i½ /kkjk 4 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ
ls gqbZ ;kl lEHkor% gksus okyh fdlh {kfr ds fy, mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj
ldsxk( ;k
¼ii½ mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu
iwosZ"k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus dh ckcr ;k mDr
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi /kkjk ¼4½ ds [kuu iV~Vs
izHkkoghu gksus ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mls
mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM
¼i½ ls [kaM ¼iv½ esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;;
dks nf'kZr djus ds fy, iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh
ekufp=ksa] pkVks± vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnRr dj ldsxkA
vuqlwph
dqtw [kqyh [knku ifj;kstuk
ftyk jkex<+ ¼>kj[k.M½
¼js[kkad vuq"kax la[;kad vkjbZoh@06@2013]
rkjh[k 17 tqykbZ] 2013½
lHkh vf/kdkj%
CykWd
xzke
Fkkuk
Fkkuk
ftyk
{ks= ,dM+ esa
fVIif.k;ka
la[;k
¼yxHkx½
,
dqtw`
ekaMq
154
jkex<+
77-52
Hkkx
iks[kfj;k
ekaMq
121
jkex<+
111-40
Hkkx
ch
dqtw
ekaMq
154
jkex<+
1-07
Hkkx
dqy% 189-99 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
;k 76-91 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½
lhek o.kZu%
CykWd&,
d&[k&x
js[kk fcUnq ^d* ls vkjEHk gksrh gS xzke dqtw esa IykWV la[;k
50] 146] 50] 148] 160] 158] 154] 156] 165] 266
ukyk 165 dh lhek js[kk vkSj IykWV la[;k 283 esa ls
gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gSA
x&?k
js[kk fcUnq ^x* ou lhek xzke dqtw esa IykV la[;k 283
vkSj IykWV la[;k 31 esa ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj xzke
iks[kfj;k esa fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA
?k&M+
js[kk fcUnq ^?k* xzke iks[kfj;k esa vxfj;k xMgvk unh ds
e/; js[kk ¼IykV la[;k 45½ esa ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ gS
vkSj fcUnq ^M* ij feyrh gSA
M&d
js[kk fcUnq ^M* xzke iks[kfj;k esa IykWV la[;k 35] 41] 32]
12]10] 46 vkSj xzke dqtw esa IykWV la[;k 167] 174]
175] 176] 177] 178] 181] 182] 183] 165] 163] 50
esa ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gSA
CykWd&ch
p&N&t
js[kk fcUnq ^p* ls vkjEHk gksrh gS IykWV la[;k 152]116]
115 esa ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj xzke dqtw esa fcUnq ^t* ij
feyrh gSA
t&p
js[kk IykWV la[;k 115] 116] 152 esa ls gksdj xqtjrh gS
vkSj xzke dqtw ds vkjaHk fcUnq ^p* ij feyrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@07@2013&ihñvkjñvkbZñMCY;wñ&1]
ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 26th November, 2013
S.O. 2557.—Whereas it appears to the Central
Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land
in the locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And, whereas, the plan bearing number Rev/06/2013,
dated the 17th July, 2013 containing details of the areas of
land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at
the office of the Central Coalfields Limited (Land and
Revenue Department), Darbhanga House, Ranchi-834029
(Jharkhand) or at the office of the General Manager, Central
Coalfields Limited, Kuju Area, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand),
Deputy Commissioner, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand or at
the office of the General Manager (Exploration Division),
RI-III, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute,
Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi (Jharkhand) or at
the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street,
Kolkata-700 001.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development), Act, 1957 (20 of 1957),
hereinafter referred to as the said Act, the Central
Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect
for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the
aforesaid Schedule may—
(i) claim compensation under section 6 of the said
Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused
by any action taken under sub-section (3) of
section 4 of the said Act; or
6584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of
section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting
license ceasing to have effect or under sub-section
(4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease
ceasing to have effect and deliver all maps, charts
and other documents relating to the aforesaid land
to show the expenditure incurred in respect of
items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section
(1) of section 13 of the said Act, to the office of
the General Manager, Central Coalfields Limited,
Kuju Area, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand) or General
Manager, Central Coalfields Limited, Land and
Revenue Department, Darbhanga House, Ranchi-
834029 (Jharkhand) within a period of ninety days
from the date of publication of this notification.
SCHEDULE
Kuju Opencast Project
District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand
(Plan bearing number Rev/06/2013,
dated the 17th July, 2013)
All Right:
Block
Village
Thana
Thana
District
Area in
Remarks
number
acres
A
KUJU
MANDU
154
RAMGARH 77.52
PART
POKHARIA
MANDU
121
RAMGARH 111.40
PART
B
KUJU
MANDU
154
RAMGARH 1.07
PART
Total:
189.99 acres (approximately)
76.91 hectares (approximately)
Boundary description
BLOCK ''A''
A-B-C
Line start from point 'A' passes through plot no.
50, 146, 50, 148, 160, 158, 154, 156, 165, 266
boundary line of nalla 165 and plot no. 283 in
village kuju and meets at point 'C'.
C-D
Line passes through point 'C' from forest
boundary plot no. 283 in village'' kuju and plot
no. 31 and meets at point 'D' in village pokhariya.
D-E
Line passes through point 'D' from center line of
agaria garha nadi (plot no. 45) village Pokharia
and meets at point 'E'.
E-A
Line passes through point 'E' plot no. 35, 41, 32,
12,10, 46 in village Pokharia and plot no. 167,
174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 165, 163, 50
in village kuju and meets at starting point 'A'.
BLOCK ''B''
F-G-H
Line start from point 'F' passes through boundary
line of plot no. 152, 116, 115 and meets at point
'H' in village kuju.
H-F
Line passes through plot no. 115, 116, 152 and
meets at starting point 'F' village Kuju.
[F.No. 43015/07/2013-PRIW-I]
V. S. RANA, Under Secy.
Je vkSj jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2558.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 176@92½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@87@92&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 176/92) 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 11/11/2013.
[No. L-12012/87/92-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/176/92
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Smt. Chitra Bai,
Qtr. No. 240/3,
Sarvahara Nagar,
Indore
....Workman
Versus
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6585
Regional Manager
State Bank of India (Zone-III),
Hamidia Road, Bhopal
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 12-8-92 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal
under Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-12012/87/92-IR(B-3). The dispute under
reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of
Regional Manager (III), State Bank of India, Zonal
office-III, Bhopal in terminating the services of
Smt. Chitrabai, Kothari Market, Indore w.e.f.
13-8-1991 was justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted Statement of
Claim at page 2/1 to 2/5. This case of workman is that
she was appointed as watchman from 18-2-88 on daily
wages in P.B.D. Branch, Kothari Market. She was
paid salary of Rs. 300 per month she was performing
different duties, When she worked in place of
messenger, She was paid Rs. 15/- extra with her Salary.
That no written order of appointment was given to
her. On repeated request, she was paid
Rs. 400/- per month from June 89, she was not given
benefit of settlement dated 22-11-88 between the
management and the Union. That the management
issued letter dated 24-4-91 asking applications from
eligible candidated for interview. On same day,
advertisement was published in daily newspaper. Her
application was not forwarded by the Branch
Manager. Applicant claims that she had completed
more than 240 days in one calendar year and more
than 270 days in 36 calendar months. Her services
were terminated from 13-8-91 without notice. The
juniors were continued in service. She had completed
240 days continuous service. The termination of her
service is illegal as juniors were continued. On such
ground she prays for her reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
3. IInd Party management filed Written Statement at
Page 8/1 to 8/8. All material contentions of workman
are denied. According to the IInd party the workman
was engaged on daily wages as coolie at MG Road
Branch, Indore. The workman had worked for 18 days
in 1998, 46 days in 1989, 123 days each in 1990 &
1991. That was not engaged after 9-8-91. It is further
contented that the employee was given contract of
filling water in Branch on contract rate Re.1/- per tin
from June 88 to August 91. She was also engaged in
the canteen for canteen work. That she had worked
only for 169 days in one year preceding her
termination. The Bank had engaged workman on
contract basis. Her services ended at end of the day.
Her discontinuance doesnot amount to
retrenchment. It is covered under exception under
Section 2(oo)(bb)of I.D. Act. The IInd party has
reiterated all those contentions in Written Statement.
It is submitted that the workman had not completed
240 days in calendar year and 270 days during 36
calender months. violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D.
Act is denied. IInd party prays for rejection of the
claim of the workman.
4. Considering pleadings on records, 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 Regional
Manager (III), State Bank
of India, Zonal office-III,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Smt. Chitrabai,
Kothari Market, Indore
w.e.f. 13-8-1991 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?”
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging her termination. Affidavit of
her evidence is filed. She has stated on oath that she
was working with the IInd party Bank as peon from
18-2-88. She was paid wages. She has stated most of
the facts covered in her statement of claim. In her
cross-examination, workman denies that she was
engaged on daily wages. She was working till
13-8-91. She denies that she worked for 18 days in
1998, 46 days in 1989, 123 days each in 1990 & 1991.
The suggestions by counsel for IInd party that she
was engaged as per exigency of work is denied by
workman. She denies that she was not in continuous
employment of IInd party. She claims ignorance about
settlement between Union and the management.
Workman has not examined any other witness. No
documents are produced to establish that she was
continously working in the Bank. Rather documents
are produced by management that workman was
working as coolie. However the management has also
not taken care to prove those documents. The
6586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
management filed affidavit of evidence of his witness
Shri Anil Jain. He has stated most of the facts stated
in Written Statement filed by the management. The
workman has not produced copy of application
submitted by her for regular appointment, she was
not interviewed. There is no satisfactory evidence
about completion of 240 days continous service
preceding here termination from 13-8-91 is produced.
In absence of such evidence, the action of IInd party
management cannot be said illegal. In absence of
cogent evidence by workman, the action of the
management terminating her services cannot be said
illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
1. There termination of the services of Smt. Chitrabai,
by the management of State Bank of India, Zonal
Office (III) w.e.f. 13-8-1991 is legal.
2. Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2559.—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
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 28@98 dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@136@97&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 28/98 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 workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L-12012/136/97-IR(DU]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUIR-COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/28/98
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore Employees Congress,
Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanver Road,
Ujjain (M.P.)
Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of Indore Office,
Kanchanbag,
Indore (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 6th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 13—17/2/98 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-12012/136/97/IR/(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of State
Bank of Indore in terminating the services of Shri
Kanhaiyalal Paul w.e.f. 4/2/94 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 submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/7. Case of 1st Party workman is that he was
appointed by IInd Party as temporary peon on 7-3-72, he
was performing his duties with devotion without any
complaints. In 1990, on administrative gound he was
transferred from Pardeshpura Branch Colony to Palshikar
Colony Indore. That because of family distrubance from
16-11-92, he submitted application for leave and left for
Ujjain. Because of family problems/disputes, he did not
returned home. That wife of workman had gone to the
Branch Manager for enquiry. On advice of Branch Manager,
his wife has submitted missing report to Police Station,
Indore.
3. Ist Party workman further submits that after the family
dispute was claim down, he had returned to Indore. On
14-4-94, he had returned to Indore. On 14-4-94, he had visited
residence of the Brance Manager. He explained the reasons
of his absence from duty. Branch Manager informed him
that he was removed from service. The notice were sent at
his residence. The same might not have received by him.
He may contact office bearers of the Union. If he produces
orders for allowing him to join duty, then only he will be
permitted to join duty. The workman further submits that
labour is engaged on daily wages for cleaning work and
work of drinking water etc. From April 1992, workman has
gone to regional office requesting the officers to allow him
to join duty. He also met with the Union leaders but his
request was not considered witrh sympathy. That after the
T
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6587
approach from Shri Nagwanshi on his efforts. it was
disclosed that the services of Ist party workman were
discontinued after receiving notices dated 27-3-93,
26-10-93 as he remained absent from duties. His wife had
given missing report about him. The order of voluntary
retirement was issued on 21-3-94. Said order was not
received by workman. Amount of Provident Fund, Gratuity
was also not paid to him. After following conciliation
proceeding, the dispute has been referred for adjudication
at the instance of National Bank Employees Union. The
workman submits that for other employees remaining absent
for longer period, any action was not taken against them.
That the action for voluntary retirement would be taken by
the management if application for leave is not submitted
and the workman remained absent for more than 90 days
when management is satisfied that the workman has got
employment at some other place. he has no intention to
discontinue with the working. He prays for setting aside
the order.
4. Ist Party workman submits that the had not received
any letter or notice with respect to the proposed action for
his voluntary retirement. He had performed satisfactory
service for more than 20 years. He was transferred from
Pardeshpura Branch to Palshikar Colony Branch in 1990.
That his date of birth is 2-9-54. He was working in the Bank
from 7-9-92 since his age of 18 years. That workman was of
40 year age over looking all those aspects workman is
voluntarily retired. On such ground, workman prays for
setting the order of his retirement. He prays for his
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
5. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/10. IInd party submits that the Ist party workman is not
member of the Natioal Bank Employees Union and the
statement of claim is submitted by the General Secretary of
said Union is not tenable as Ist party workman was not
member of the said Union. The Union relating to the employee
has no authority to file dispute in respect of Ist party
workman working at Indore. The reference is not tenable.
The reference filed against General Manager is not tenable.
The statement of claim is not submitted in prescribed
proforma as per the rules therefore it is not tenable.
6. IInd Party admits that Ist Party was appointed as
permanent peon on 3-2-1975. It is denied that workman
was working with devotion without any complaint. It is
denied that workman was transferred from Pardeshipur
Branch Indore in 1990 to Palshikar colony branch.
According to the IInd party, workman was transferred to
Palshikar Colony branch on 10-8-91. All other contentions
of workman are denied as imaginary. It is denied that his
wife had submitted missing report on advice of the Branch
Manager. It is denied that notices were sent to workman on
27-3-93, 26-10-93 as he remained absent from duty. The
notice were affixed at his residence. The amount of
Provident Fund, Gratuity could not be paid to the workman.
He himself is responsible for it. It is denied that in
conciliation proceeding IInd party was given any kind of
directions by AI.C, Indore. The Ist party had filed appeal
challenging his order of compulsory retirement. The appeal
was dismissed on 10-5-96. Workman was informed about
said decision on 18-6-96.
7. It is further submitted that Shri Ram Nagwanshi
claiming to be General Secretary of Union is forming
different organizations claiming himself as office bearers.
Statement of claim filed through him is not tenable and the
services of workman were terminated following legal
procedure. The order of termination of service was served
on workman by RPAD. IInd party submits that workman is
not entitled to any relief prayed by him.
8. Ist Party filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/8 denying
averments in Written Statement filed by the IInd party. Ist
party further pleaded that IInd party has committed offence
giving false information, tempering with witnesses etc. IInd
party denied notices sent by the Bank. That he was
pursuing his grievance with the Union and officers of the
Bank but his request was not considered. That other
employees remaining absent from duty. Shri Shakti Virendra
Singh, Officer, Ramesh Sirsath, peon, Narendra Majhi Peon,
Banwant Singh Goud, Clerk, Manohar Singh Peon, Smt.
Nahijahan peon, Smt. Sunita Sahare, Cashier, Smt. Krishna
Gupta Clerk & Badralal were absent from duty for the
period disclosed above their names. About 1-4 years they
were not in duty, No action of family retirement were taken
against them. Action taken against workman is isolated.
Bipartite settlement are not considered properly. Voluntary
retirement of his service as per Bipartite Settlement is illegal.
Ist party prays for reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
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
Termination of Services
management of State Bank
of Shri Kanhaiyalal Paul
of Indore in terminating the
is illegal.
services of Shri Kanhaiyalal
Paul w.e.f. 4/2/94 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
10. 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.
6588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11. Workman is challenging termination of his service
by way of voluntary retirements as per the settlement for
his absence from duty. Ist party workman submit that he
had submitted have application and because of dispute in
family, he had shifted to Ujjain, he had returned back after
family dispute is solved. He had gone on 4-2-94 to Bank to
join the duty at that time it was disclosed that his services
were terminated. Only if he produce orders from officers,
he may be allowed to join duty. All those allegations of
workman are denied. Workman filed affidavit of his
evidence. He has stated that he was appointed as peon in
SBI Indore on 7-9-72 and not received any memo warning
of penalty. His service was unblemished. He was not
intending to took voluntary retirement. He desire to work
for maintaining members of his family. That he had not
received any show cause notice or letters from IInd party
before termination. That after his termination, he is
umemployed.
12. In his cross-examination, workman says that he is
not prosecuted for any crime. He is retired from service by
the bank as he was not attending his duty for 18-19 months.
He was in service as per the laws. There was bipartite
settlement. He was unable to tell where he was for 18-19
months. He had not correspondence with the Bank. He
admits that as he has quarreled with his wife, he left the
Bank. His wife has given missing report to the police station.
When he had gone to join duty, he was not allowed to join
duty as he was absent for 19 months. Any document
regarding his missing for 19 months was not produced by
him. In his further cross-examination, he says that he was
on duty during the period from 2-4-88 to 5-2-92. He admits
that he was absent from duty from 16-11-92 to 4-2-94 i.e.
1 year 18 months.
13. The management's witness Basant Debvraj in his
affidavit of evidence has stated that the statement of claim
filed by workman is not proper. It is not tenable. The Union
has not submitted proper authority for prosecuting the
dispute. That Ist party workman was absent from duty
from 16-11-92. Bank had issued notice dated 27-3-93 as the
workman remained absent from duty for more than 30 days.
IInd letter dated 26-10-93 was sent by the management, no
response was received. On 4-2-94, Ist party workman was
voluntarily retired as per Para 17-A of Bipartite Settlement
dated 10-4-89. That workman was absent for total 445 days.
As he remained absent for more than 90 days even after
notice, his absence was treated as voluntary retirement. In
his cross-examination, management witness says leave
register for employees is separately maintained. The
documents M-11, M-12 are admitted in evidence on
admission of the Ist party. Management's witness claims
ignorance whether the notice sent to workman was served
or not. However said notice was sent by RPAD. No enquiry
was sent against the workman. Public notice was not
issued about unauthorized absence of workman.
Management's witness claims ignorance whether notice
was issued of the relative of workman. It is denied
suggestion that workman was removed from service out of
enmity.
14. Documents produced by workman Exhibit W-1 is
copy of letter dated 18-6-96 competent officer refused to
accept request of workman for joining duty. Exhibit W-2 is
copy of letter dated 30-09-96 submitted to ALC by the Dy.
General Manager claiming that notices were sent to workman
on 27-3-92, 26-10-93 and workman was treated voluntarily
retired on 4-2-94. Exhibit W-3 is copy of letter dated
27-3-93, explanation was called for his absence. W-4 is letter
dated 26-4-93 calling explanation of workman about his
unauthorized absence. Exhibit W-5 is postal
acknowledgement but it doesnot bear sign of Ist party.
Exhibit W-6 is copy of letter issued to the workman about
his unauthorized absence. Exhibit W-7 is copy of letter
dated 27-7-93 intending to take action for unauthorized
absence of workman. Exhibit W-8 is copy of letter issued
for taking action against workman for his absence. Exhibit
W-9 is copy of letter dated 25-3-94. Copy of Bipartite
settlement is produced at Exhibit W-10. Clause-3 provides
different clause for issuing notice to the employee who
remains absent for 30 days, notice should be issued by
RPAD. Said clause provides if the unauthorized absence is
for less than 90 days, notice can be immediately issued if
the employee had got reemployed in other place. Clause
(d) provides that after explanation is received from the
employee about his unauthorized absence, he should be
informed that the Bank reserves its righty for taking action
as per the rules. Clause (C) provides that if the employee is
not joining the duty even after service of notice within 30
days and fails to submit satisfactory explanation, it could
be deemed that employee is voluntarily retired. His name
from attendance register be deleted. All the papers be sent
to the Regional Office for taking appropriate action. The
documents produced by management Exhibit M-1 is copy
of transfer order dated 5-7-91, workman was transferred to
Palshikar Colony branch. M-2 is copy of transfer order.
Exhibit M-3 is copy of intimation given to the workman
that his request to join duty was not accepted. Exhibit M-
4 is copy of letter dated 18-6-96. That request of workman
to join duty was not accepted. M-5 is letter given by
workman for depositing his salary and bonus amount in
his account. Exhibit M-6 is letter dated 9-7-93 given to
workman with respect to Hero Lady Cycle. M-7 is notice
issued to workman by Court for attachment of salary. M-8
is copy of letter issued by Court for attachment of salary
Rs. 600/- per month. Exhibit M-9 is also letter issued by
Court for attachment of Rs. 125/- from salary of workman.
Those documents are not helpful to decide the legality of
termination by Voluntary retirement of the workman.
15. From evidence of the management's witness, service
of letters, notice on workman is not established. Only notice
sent by RPAD the evidence remained unchallenged.
Workman submits that he had submitted application for
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6589
leave and remained absent. He was absent from duty for
18-19 months. As per the evidence of workman, there was
dispute in the family therefore he had left for Ujjain only
after the dispute was settled. He returned back to Indore.
Any of the letters were not received by him. He did not get
opportunity to accept his absence. The copy of missing
report submitted by wife of workman is not produced on
record. As per the Bipartite Settlement Exhibit W-10, when
the employee remains absent for 30 days, 90 days and
management is satisfied that the employee got the
employment at other place and he has no intention to work
in the Bank, only after said satisfaction, the action for
deemed voluntary retirement is to be taken. The evidence
of the workman that there was family dispute and because
of dispute in the family, he had left Indore and gone to
Ujjain remained unchallenged. That the evidence of
workman that he has not received letters from the Bank
calling his explanation is not shattered in cross-
examination. Therefore the action of management in
terminating his service under deemed voluntary retirement
cannot be said legal.
16. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shroti relies on
ratio held in
"Case of Punjab and Sind Bank and others versus
Sakattar Singh reproted in 2001(1) Supreme Court
Cases 214. Their Lordship in above cited case
considering termination of service without
holding enquiry. Unauthorised absence for 90 or
more consecutive days beyond sanctioned period
of leave. Under Clause 16 of IV Bipartite
Settlement, termination of service in such
circumstance, held, is not a punishment for
misconduct, but only a recognition of the realities
of the situation and doesnot result in violation of
principles of natural justice. Therefore no domestic
enquiry is necessary. Respondent proceeding on
sanctioned leave for three days begining 16-8-93
but remaining absent unauthorisedly for
continuous period of 190 days. Appellant Bank
issuing three letters to him directing him to rejoin
duty. Bank issuing notice under clause 16 dated
12-3-94 seeking explanation for unauthorized
absence. On 4-4-94, respondent submitting joining
report to Branch Manager, who not accepting the
same, Bank passing order to termination dated
18-4-94. Considering above factual matter, It is
held that High Court erred in holding that order of
termination was a nullity because of violation of
rules of natural justice."
The ratio held above cited case cannot be applied to
present case at hand as Bipartite Settlement Exhibit W-10,
clause (5) provides when any employee remains absent for
90 days without submitted application for extention of leave
or any kind of leave is in balance of the employee, the
employee remians absent When evidence is available
disclosing that the employee joined other service, business
or employment, notice be issued by RPAD to the employee
for joining duties. Such notice be issued by the Manager.
Clause (d) provides if satisfactory explanation is received
within 30 days period employee be permitted for joining
duties reserving the right for taking action. In the evidence
of workman discussed above, any of the letters were
received by him is not shattered because of family dispute
he had gone to Ujjain only after dispute was sattled, he
returned back to Indore. He was absent from duty for about
18-19 months, even he has not received amount of PF,
gratuity etc. The evidence of the workman is cogent, reliable.
The evidence adduced by management doesnot show how
many leave were in his credit. Without verifying the leave
available at credit of workman, without satisfying that
workman had joined another service, action of voluntary
taken by management cannot be said legal.
17. Next reliance is placed on ratio held in
"Case of Syndicate Bank versus General Secretary,
Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another
reproted in 2000(5) SCC 65. Their Lordship held
Bank in terms of Bipartite settlement serving notice
on him by registered post, requiring him to submit
his explanation and to join work within the
prescribed time limit of 30 days. The notice further
stating that otherwise he would be deemed to
have retired, notice sent on correct address,
received back with the endorsement "refused".
In such circumstances, the Bank held rightly
treated the employee to have voluntarily retired
from service. Hence termination of his service
without holding any departmental enquiry held
was not violative of principles of natural justice."
In present case, there is no evidence that letters or notice
sent by RPAD were refused, therefore ratio held in above
cited case cannot be applied to present case.
18. Next reliance is placed in case of
Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. versus Prahlad Singh
reported in 2001(1) Supreme Court Cases 424. Their
Lordship of the Apex Court held that Section 10,
15 of I.D. Act and question of latches and delay in
raising Industrial dispute after long 13 years. No
reasonable explanation given for such delay.
In present case, the reference is received on 13-12-1987.
The services of workman were terminated on 4-2-94. The
delay cannot be so long as was in above cited case.
Therefore the reference cannot be outright rejected on
ground of delay.
6590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
19. Considering the evidence disucssed above, the
termination of service of Ist party workman by way of
voluntary retirement as per Clause 72 of Bipartite Settlement
is not legal. I record my finding on Point No. 1 in Negative.
20. In view of my finding on Point No. 1, the termination
of services of workman is illegal. Before taking action of
deemed voluntary retirement by management, the
application for leave submitted by workman was not
decided. The different kinds of leave in his account were
not calculated. There is no evidence that management of
IInd party was satisfied that the workman got employment
at some other place or engaged in business etc. The
question arises to what relief the workman is entitled to?
That he was working as peon in Bank from 7-9-72, he was
absent from duty from 16-11-92. He had rendered
unblemished service. Management has not produced any
document to establish that his service was not
satisfactory... Services of workman are terminated without
notice, the termination of service deemed voluntary
retirement. The requirements are not satisfied by the
management, therefore termination of his service is illegal.
Evidence of workman shows that he was unemployed,
how he is maintaining his family is not disclosed.
Management has also not adduced any evidence that the
workman is in gainful employment. Considering above
aspect, in my considered view, workman is entitled for
reinstatement of service with 30% back wages.
21. Accordingly I hold and passed the award as under—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of Indore
in terminating the services of Shri Kanhaiyalal
Paul w.e.f. 4/2/94 is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman as peon
with 30% back wages.
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 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2560.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ fd /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k cSaxyksj
ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 22@2006 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh;
ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&41012@165@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 22/2006 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Central Railway, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L-41012/165/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, YESHWANTPUR,
BANGALORE
DATED
:
12th April 2013
PRESENT
:
SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND,
Presiding Officer
C R No. 22/2006
I Party
II Party
Sh. Rajappa,
The Sr. Divisional Personnel
Officer.
Since Deceased rep.
Central Railway, O/O D RM.,
by LR's
Solapur, Maharashtra.
Smt. Chennamma, Wife,
Shri Ravi Kumar, Son
Shri Ashok, Son
Shri Vijay, Son
Shri Anil, Son
Kum, Preethi, Daughter
S/o Ayyappa, No. 9/12, Near Railway
Station, Bari Nagar, Shahbad Tq.,
Gulbarga District.
Karnataka.
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Sh. B S Byre Gowda,
Advocate
II Party
:
Sh S.R Khamroz Khan,
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government on submission of FOC report
by ALCC(C), Bellary in No. 8(02)/2005/RLC/BLY dated
15.09.2005 made this reference for adjudication vide Order
No. L-41012/165/2005-IR(B-II) dated 22.05.2006 for
adjudication on the following schedule:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6591
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Central Railways, Solapur
in terminating the services of Shri Rajappa S/o
Ayyappa, Ex-Casual labour without complying the
mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and also in not providing regular permanent
post of Group 'D' to him in the Railways is justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference registering it in C R
22/2006 when notices were issued to both the sides both
entered their appearance through their respective advocate,
the I party filed his claim statement on 24.01.2007 and II
party filed its Counter Statement on 27.04.2007.
Subsequently the wife and five children of I party workman
came on record as Legal Representatives reporting that he
died on 08.03.2009 leaving behind them as his Legal
Representatives.
3. The I party in the claim statement filed by him on
24.01.2007 stated that he had worked continuously for three
years (without specifying the years) in the II Party and
without compliance of Section 25(f) of ID Act 1947 his
service has been orally terminated alleging that he had
submitted false school leaving certificate and there after
inspite of his repeated requests since his termination was
not recalled he who belongs to a poor Scheduled Tribe
Family and could not get any alternative job, II Party be
directed to provide him Regular Permanent Post of Gr. D
with continuation of service and other consequential
benefits. He also stated in Para 7 of his claim statement that
he has reliably learnt one of his colleague by name Netaji,
S/o Kashinath Jadav who was also removed from service
has been appointed on regular post in Medical Hospital,
Solapur, as Safaiwala and thereby II Party has practiced
discrimination and unfair labour practice.
4. In the counter statement filed by the II Party it is
contended the I Party workman who had rendered service
as Casual Labour from 09.06.1994 to 31.12.1994 for a period
of 145 days under Carriage Foreman/Wadi from 12.03.1985
to 31.12.1985 for a period of 295 days under Carriage and
Wagon Superintendent, Wadi and from 01.01.1986 to
18.02.1986 for a period of 49 days under Carriage and
Wagon Superintendent, Wadi, thereafter, abandoned the
job for the reasons best known to him, subsequently, when
a notification was issued on 30.06.1999 for consideration
of all the eligible and suitable casual labourers the I party
workman also submitted his application with all the required
documents along with School Leaving Certificate as proof
of age and qualification and he was also called for screening
and it was found that the school leaving certificate
produced by him was false to which effect the Head Master
of the concerned school gave in writing that the same was
not issued by the School. It is further contended this fact
has been accepted by the I Party workman in his explanation
to the ALC(C), Bellary with reference to the application
before him producing another school leaving certificate
indicating the date of birth as 02.03.1961 and studied upto
6th Std. whereas in the school leaving certificate furnished
him with his application the date of birth was shown as
01.06.1959 and having studied upto 8th std. and taking
into account this fact the ALC(C), Bellary after calling for
the casual labourers who were regularised vide notification
dated 30.06.1999 who had been considered for appointment
to Gr. D Posts submitted the FOC report consequent to
which the CG has made this reference for adjudication.
Thus the II Party while contending that from 19.02.1986 the
I Party workman having abandoned the job on his own
there was no termination/retrenchment at all and pursuant
to the notification dated 30.06.1999 for considering all the
casual and excasual labourers for absorption since he
produced a false school leaving certificate his application
for regularisation was rejected and thereby he is not entitle
to seek regular permanent post of Gr. D in the railways
being a ex-casual labour.
5. When the matter was posted for evidence of II party
while filing the affidavit of Prahalad Baburao Kale,
Assistant Personnel Officer, Central Railway, Sholapur
Division, Sholapur reiterating the Counter Statement
examining him on oath as MW 1 got exhibited the Original
application submitted by the I Party workman seeking
regularisation of his service pursuant to the notification
issued on 30.06.1999; record regarding verification of Bio-
data given by him wherein it is found the School Leaving
Certificate furnished by him for proof of age being found
false; the explanation given by the I Party workman before
RLC(C), Bellary conceding the School Leaving Certificate
furnished by him along with the application does not
belong to him and it was inadvertently produced which
was handed over to him by his father without knowing the
fact that the certificate was in order and that he apologises
for the same; Photostat copy of the School Leaving
Certificate produced along with application; Photostat copy
of the Service Record and copy of the affidavit filed by the
I party dated 03.05.2005 as Ex. M-1 to Ex M-6 respectively.
By the time the matter reached the evidence of I Party since
he was no more amongst his LRs his wife examining herself
as WW 1 stated that her deceased husband who was
working in Railways was removed from service without
making any enquiry 20 years back.
6. After close of the evidence, the learned advocate
appearing for the I party filed his written arguments,
whereas the learned advocate appearing for the II party
addressed his oral arguments.
6592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. On appreciation of the pleadings oral and documentary
evidence place on record in the light of the arguments put
forward by the respective advocates I have arrived at the
conclusion that the Reference is liable to be rejected for
the following reasons :
REASONS
8. Though in the proceedings before the ALC(C), Bellary
in FOC No. 8(02)/2005/RLC/BLY a specific contention was
taken that I Party had on his own abandoned the job from
19.02.1986, there is no denial of the same in the Claim
Statement thereby in the absence of any contrary evidence
on record it has to be presumed that he had abandoned the
job on his own since 19.02.1986. Of course, as admitted by
the II Party itself in its Counter Statement during the period
from 12.03.1985 to 31.12.1985 he had served for more than
240 days precisely 295 days. Therefore, if at all the II Party
were to terminate his service as required under Section
25(f) of ID Act 1947 it was to give him one months notice in
writing indicating the reasons and wait till the period of the
notice was expired or pay him wages in lieu of such notice
and failure to comply the same would have amount to illegal
retrenchment but in the instant case the contention of the
II Party that I Party on his own abandoned the job from
19.02.1986 being not denied there is no illegal retrenchment.
It is further indicated from the evidence on record that
since from 19.02.1986 he did not persue to continue his
service and only when the II Party on 30.6.1999 issued a
notification for considering all the eligible and ex-casual
labourers for regularisation the I Party workman also
submitted his application along with school leaving
certificate as proof of his age and qualification and other
required documents and on investigation the said school
leaving certificate since found to be false being one not
issued by the school shown to have issued it his
applicatiion for regularisation was rejected and this aspect
has been conceded by the I Party workman before the
ALC(C), Bellary which statement is produced at Ex M-3.
Thereby the rejection of regularisation of services of the I
party by the II Party cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
In view of the above, I am of the considered view that
though the I Party workman had worked for more than 240
days in a block period of 12 months having abandoned the
job on his own from 19.02.1986 there being no retrenchment
by the II Party it cannot be said that the II Party terminated
his services without complying the mandatory provisions
of Section 25(f) of the ID Act and secondly, for his own
wrong in furnishing a false school leaving certificate in
proof of his age and qualification loosing the opportunity
of regularisation of service pursuant to the notification of
the II party dated 30.06.1999 is his own fault. It cannot be
said that II Party denied him regularisation of services
without valid reason. Under the circumstances, the
reference is liable to be rejected and accordongly I pass
the following Order:
ORDER
The reference is allowed holding that the action of the
management of SBM in passing the Order of Terminating
his Services by Compulsory retirement from the services
of the Bank against the workman Shri K. M. Shama Rao,
Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper, State Bank of Mysore, Kolar
Branch, Kolar w.e.f. 25.06.2003 being not legal and justified
and that he is entitle for Reinstatement with Full Backwages,
Continuity of Service and all other consequential benefits
that he would have received in the absence of the impugned
Punishment of Compulsory Retirement imposed against
him.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 12th April, 2013)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2561.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
eSlwj 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] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2006½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@174@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 24/2006) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Mysore, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/11/2013.
[No. L-12012/174/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT YESHWANTPUR
BANGALORE
Dated
:
4th March, 2013
PRESENT
:
Shri S. N. Navalgund,
Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6593
C.R. No. 24/2006
I Party
II Party
Sh. G. Sridhar,
The General Manager (P),
S/o Late Govindaraj P,
State Bank of Mysore,
50, 4th Cross, Vannarpet
Head Office,
Layout,
K G Road,
Viveknagar Post,
Bangalore-560 009.
Bangalore-560 005.
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Shri D. Leelakrishnan,
Advocate
II Party
:
Shri R. Narayan,
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-sectiion
(2A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/174/2005-
IR(B-I) dated 23.05.2006 for adjudication on the following
schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of management of
State Bank of Mysore in passing the order of
terminating the services by Compulsory
Retirement from the services of the Bank
against the workman Shri G. Sridhar, Ex-Special
Assistant, State Bank of Mysore, Anekal
Branch with effect from 2.12.2003 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled
and from which date?"
2. Upon receipt of the reference when notices were issued
to Sh. G. Sridhar, Ex-Special Assistant, Anekal Branch, SBM
(hereinafter referred as I Party) and also to The General
Manager (P), State Bank of Mysore, Head Office, K. G.
Road, Bangalore (hereinafter referred as II Party) both
entered their appearances through their respective
advocates and claim statement for the I party came to be
filed on 06.09.2006 whereas the counter statement for the II
Party under the signature of the authorised signatory on
05.01.2007.
3. After completion of the pleadings having regard to
the assertion made by the I Party that the Domestic Enquiry
was held in perfunctory manner without giving due
opportunity to him in a hasty manner my learned
predecessor had formulated a Preliminary Issue as to
"Whether the Domestic Enquiry by the
II Party against the I Party is fair and Proper?"
4. On the said issue the management lead the evidence
of Enquiry Officer and through him got exhibited Charge
Sheet dated 22.01.2003; Charge Sheet dated 11.04.2003;
Reply of the I Party dated 20.03.2003 to the charge sheet
dated 22.01.2003; Reply of the I Party dated 17.04.2003 to
the charge sheet dated 11.04.2003; Notice of Enquiry Officer
dated 29.05.2003 sent to the I Party fixing the preliminary
enquiry on 12.06.2003; Proceedings of the enquiry dated
12.06.2003; Proceedings of the enquiry dated 18.06.2003;
Proceedings of the enquiry dated 09.07.2003; Proceedings
of the enquiry dated 23.07.2003; Proceedings of the enquiry
dated 24.07.2003; Proceedings of the enquiry dated
06.08.2003 and Report of the Enquiry Officer as Ex M-1 to
to Ex. M-12 respectively. Whereas, the I Party filed his
affidavit on 29.11.2007 and additional affidavit on 31.08.2010
and examining him on oath as WW 1 without producing
any documentary evidence subjected himself for cross-
examination by the learned advocate appearing for the
II Party. After hearing the arguments of learned advocates
appearing for both sides by order dated 02.02.2011 the
Preliminary Issue came to be answered in the Affirmative
holding the Domestic Enquiry held against the I Party by
the II Party as Fair and Proper.
5. Consequent to answering the Preliminary Issue
touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry in favour of
the II Party when the learned advocates appearing for both
sides were called upon to address arguments, the learned
counsel appearing for the I Party filed his Written
Arguments whereas learned counsel appearing for the
II Party addressed his oral arguments.
6. It is borne out from the records produced from
Ex. M-1 to Ex. M-12 during the course of enquiry on the
Preliminary Issue, that the I Party who joined the service of
the II Party as Typist-cum-Clerk on 24.09.1981 while serving
as Special Assistant at Anekal Branch of the II Party he
was served with two charge sheets dated 22/25.01.2003
and 11.04.2003 which are produced at Ex M-1 and Ex M-2.
In the first charge sheet dated 22/25.01.2003 he was charged
with two charges viz.,
(i) That he unauthorisedly remained absent for a
period of 59 days continuously from 26.11.2002
to 22.01.2003 which caused serious disruption in
the work of the bank and thereby he committed a
gross misconduct in terms of 19.5(p) of the BPS.
(ii) That on 07.11.2002 by abuse of his official position
got a cheque bearning No. 425998 dated
07.11.2002 for Rs. 85,000/- issued to him by one
Sh. Vijay Kumar drawn on M/s. ICICI Bank,
Bangalore Branch purchased and withdrawn the
same subsequently which came bounced inspite
of advise to make good the said amount having
6594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
failed to make good the same he has committed a
gross misconduct in terms of 19.5(j) of the BPS.
7. In the second charge sheet it was alleged that on
10.04.2003 while working as Special Assistant at Anekal
Branch enjoying the powers of passing payment upto
Rs. 25000.00 by misusing his official position with an ulterior
motive of making wrongful gain in order to tide over his
financial crises colluding with Sh. K. Shivappa the
representative of Solur Adiparakati Mahila Kshmabivrudhi
Mandali having an S B Account bearing No. 69234 he made
them to draw a bearer cheque bearning No. 525292 dated
10.04.2003 for Rs. 20000.00 and present the same at the
counter at the branch and upon Sh. G. Suresh the counter
clerk issuing a token bearning No. 295, before he could
post in the concerned account in the Computer System for
passing he stealthily removing the said cheque despite the
fact that there was only a credit balance of Rs. 338.00 he
passed it for payment by causing an entry in concerned
account in the Computer System and thereafter sent the
passed cheque for counter for effecting the payment of the
cheque and thereby having acted prejudicial to the interest
of the Bank and also deliberately occasioned the bank to a
financial loss of Rs. 20000.00 committed a grave misconduct
in terms of 19.5(j) of the BPS.
8. On the above said charge sheets he was kept under
suspension and was called upon to submit his explanation
and on his submission regarding first charge sheet that as
he was not well and bed ridden could not be able to attend
office for the absentee period and that he has produced
Medical Certificate and Leave Letter and regret for having
failed to inform in advance and as regard to Charge No. 2
purchase of cheque for Rs. 85000.00 on 07.11.2002 as his
friend G. Vijay Kumar had promised to give some deposits
to the Bank he had taken the risk of purchasing the cheque
which bounced and that within a month he would make
good the amount by his reply dated 20.03.2003 and in
respect of the second charge sheet he passed Cheque No.
525292 dated 10.03.2003 for Rs. 20000.00 by mistake and
confusion mix-up due to heavy transactions of that day
comprising of receipt vouchers of about 220 payments of
about 250 and of loose cheques of about 17 and that he
had no intention to cause any loss to the organisation by
his reply dated 17.04.2003, the II party being not satisfied
with the replies/submission order to hold a DE appointing
Sh. N Guru Prasad as Enquiry Officer and Sh. R. Vijay as
Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer on the first charge
sheet dated 22/25.01.2003 while receiving the evidence of
Sh. D. Srinivasa Rao, Manager of Anekal Branch since
September, 2001 and getting exhibited:—
(i) Attendance Register of Anekal Branch covering
the months November 2002 to January 2003;
(ii) Ltr. Bearing No. Estt/1000 dated 28.12.2002 written
to AGM, R3, Bz regarding the matters covered in
the first charge sheet, and
(iii) Ltr. No. Bz/AGM3/ESTT/9528 dated 31.12.2002
addressed to the first party by the Assistant
General Manager, Region 3, Bangalore Zone.
(iv) Copy of the Saving Bank challan dated 7.11.2002
to the credit of Sri. G. Sridhar A/c No. 79648 with a
note 'Please Purchase' for Rs. 85,000/-.
(v) copy of the transfer debit dated 7.11.2002 for
Rs. 85,000/-
(vi) copy of statement of account pertaining to S B
A/c No. 79648 of Shri G Sridhar dated 10.6.2003
for the period 01.11.2002 to 07.11.2002
(viia) copy of return of cheque memo from S B M Service
Branch Bangalore indicating return of Cheque
bearing No. 425998 drawn on ICICI Bank, M G
Road, for Rs. 85,000/-
(viib) copy of Memo from ICICI Bank for returning
cheque with reason "Funds Insufficient"
(viic) copy of cheque No. 425998 dated 07.11.2002 for
Rs. 85,000/- drawn in favour of G. Sridhar
(viii) copy of the letter dated 15.11.2002 signed by G
Sridhar to the Manager, SBM Anekal Branch
(ix) copy of a letter addressed to the Assistant General
Manager, Region-III, by the Manager, SBM
Anekal dated 25.11.2002
(x) copy of the Memo issued by the Assistant General
Manager, Region-III dated 11.12.2002 to Sri G.
Sridhar bearing No. AGM:III:BA:ESTT:8746.
as BEx-1 to BEx-10 respectively and in respect of the Second
Charge Sheet dated 10.04.2003 while receiving the evidence
of Sh. G. Suresh, Special Assistant of Anekal Branch, Sh.
T.K. Ramesh Babu, CGK Anekal Branch as BW 1, 2, 3
respectively and further evidence given through BW 1
Sh. D. Srinivas Rao and getting exhibited:—
(i) Copy of the cheque bearing No. 525292 dated
10.4.2003 for Rs. 20000/- drawn by Solur
Adiparashakthi Kshemabivrudhi Mandli
favouring K Shivanna A/c No. 69234
(ii) Copy of the payment scroll maintained by Passing
Official dated 10.04.2003
(iii) Copy of the payment cashier's scroll maintained
by the Payment Cashier's Scroll maintained by
the Payment Cashier dated 10.04.2003
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6595
(iv) Copy of the statement of Account of SB No. 69234
A/c Solur Adiparashakthi Manila Kshemabivrudhi
Mandali, Solur dated from 01.03.2003 to 13.05.2003
(v) Copy of the letter addressed to the Asst. General
Manager, Region-III, by the Manager, State Bank
of Mysore, Anekal bearing No. SUSPENSE/1130
dated 10.04.2003
as BEx 1 to BEx 5 and after receiving the written submission
of the Presenting Officer sending the copy of the same to
the CSE/I Party calling upon him to give his written
submission on his failure to submit his written submission
submitted his finding dated 16.08.2003/Ex M-12 holding
both charges of first charge sheet as proved and the charge
under the second charge sheet as partly proved. The
Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the finding of the
Enquiry Officer while agreeing with the finding of the
Enquiry Officer in respect of the charges under charge
sheet dated 22/25.01.2003 while disagreeing with the finding
of the Enquiry Officer charge under the second charge
sheet dated 10.04.2003 being partly proved observing that
though there was no direct evidence CSE/I Party having
removed the cheque stealthily, considering the recovery
made from the payee holding the charge as partly proved
is incorrect as the charges have to be considered taking
into account the whole of the evidence that has been let in
as the cheque was passed by the CSE without following
the established and laid down procedure and with utter
negligence in not even verifying the balance in the account.
Merely because the witness BW2 in charge of the SB
counter admitted that to the best of his knowledge CSE did
not remove the cheque stealthily but passed it in the usual
course of transactions is not sufficient to dislodge the
circumstances which conclusively establishes that it is only
the CSE who has removed the cheque to cover up his
lapses and as the preponderance of probabilities will have
to be taken note of is inclined to take a view that the charge
in respect of second charge sheet is also proved by his
notice dated 17.10.2003 called upon the CSE/I Party to show
cause why the Enquiry Report in respect of first charge
sheet should not be accepted and regarding second charge
sheet modified as fully proved, as he did not receive any
reply by his order dated 02.12.2003 while accepting the
report of the Enquiry Officer regarding charge No. 1 and 2
covered in the first charge sheet as well as the charge
under second charge sheet as proved he ordered for
"Censure" in respect of first charge of the first charge
sheet in terms of Clause 19.7 of BPS and in respect of
second charge of the first charge sheet as well as charge
under the second charge sheet separately for "Compulsory
Retirement from Service" in terms of 19.6(b) of the BPS
with consequential terminal benefits with further direction
for recovery of Rs. 95000.00 with clean rate of interest rate
of interest upto the date of recovery out of the terminal
benefits.
9. Since by Order of this court dated 02.02.2011 the
Domestic Enquiry being held as Fair and Proper the points
now remaining now for my consideration are:
1. Whether the finding of the EO and modified by
the DA in relation to the second charge sheet are
perverse necessitating interference of this court?
2. If not, whether the punishment of Compulsory
Retirement imposed by the DA for Charge No. 2
of first charge sheet and Charge under Second
charge sheet are excessive to the misconduct
proved against the I party?
3. What Order?
10. On re-appreciation of the evidence adduced by the
management and the clear admission given by the I Party
in his reply to the charge sheet and his omission to
challenge the evidence of BWs 1 to 3 by their cross-
examination in the light of the arguments put forward by
the learned advocates appearing for the parties my finding
on Point No. 1 and 2 are in the Negative and No. 3 as per
Final Order for the following reasons:
REASONS
11. At the outset, I may say that in respect of Charge
No. 1 of the first charge sheet viz., relating to unauthorized
absence of CSE for a period of 59 days continuously
between 26.11.2002 and 22.01.2003, the punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority being Censure it is
not the subject matter covered in this reference. Even
otherwise the first party having unequivocally admitted in
his reply having remained absent for the said period of
50 days without prior sanction as alleged in his reply that
he has furnished a medical certificate regarding his inability
to attend the office due to his illness for the said period
failed to bring on record having submitted such leave letter
with a medical certificate as such the finding of the Enquiry
Officer this Charge No. 1 under first charge sheet is proved
does not call for any interference.
12. Coming to Charge No. 2 covered under the first charge
sheet relating to his abuse of official position getting cheque
bearing No. 425998 dated 07.11.2002 for Rs. 85000.00 issued
to him by one Sh. Vijaya Kumar drawn on ICICI Branch,
Bangalore purchased and withdrawing the said amount
which latter came to be bounced and he failed to make
good the said amount in spite of a Memo issued to him
dated 11.12.2002 being not at all denied and on the other
hand and in his reply to the Charge Sheet he has
categorically admitted this aspect further saying that since
his friend Sh. G. Vijaya Kumar assured to give some deposits
to the Bank he had taken such risk but failed to bring on
record any evidence to substantiate the same and even
6596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
otherwise for the assurance of his friend that he would
give some deposits to the bank there was no reason for the
1 Party to take such a risk of getting his cheque passed
purchasing it by himself from the Bank where he was
working and this in my opinon clearly amounts to abuse of
his official position in the II party bank as alleged in the
charge. Moreover the evidence adduced by the II party in
this regard through Manager Sh. D. Srinivas Rao
corroborated by the documentary evidence do prove this
charge without any doubt. Moreover, the learned advocate
appearing for the I Party in his written arguments except
stating findings of Enquiry Officer are baseless and
perverse as they are not based on the evidence on record
failed to analyze the evidence to substantiate his arguments
that the finding is baseless and perverse. Therefore, as
regards the findings of the Enquiry Officer relating to the
Charge No. 2 of the first charge sheet as well I find no
reason to hold the same as baseless or perverse.
13. Coming to the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding
the charge covered under the second charge sheet as
already adverted to by me above the II Party has relied
upon the Oral Evidence of Sh. G. Suresh Special Assistant
of Anekal Branch, Sh. T.K. Ramesh Babu, CGK, Anekal
Branch and got exhibited Copy of the cheque bearing No.
525292 dated 10.04.2003 for Rs. 20000/- drawn by Solur
Adiparashakthi Kshemabivrudhi Mandli favouring K.
Shivanna A/c No. 69234; copy of payment scroll maintained
by Passing Official dated 10.04.2003; copy of the payment
cashier's scroll maintained by the Payment Cashier's Scroll
maintained by the Payment Cashier dated 10.04.2003; copy
of the statement of Account of SB No. 69234 A/c Solur
Adiparashakthi Manila Kshemabivrudhi Mandali, Solur
dated from 01.03.2003 to 13.05.2003 and copy of the letter
addressed to the Asstt. General Manager, Region-III, by
the Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Anekal bearing No.
SUSPENSE/1130 dated 10.04.2003 as BEx 1 to BEx 5.
14. Though this evidence is not challenged in any
manner the Enquiry Officer only on the evidence os Sh. G.
Suresh that to the best of his knowledge the CSE has not
taken or removed cheque stealthily and passed in the usual
transactions and a recovery of Rs. 15000.00 has been made
from the Payee Sh. J Shivappa given room for a second
thought whether the cheque was removed from the counter
stealthily he answered this charge being partly proved.
Thereby he means to say that the II Party failed to establish
part of the charge I Party having removed the cheque
stealthily before passing it for payment. For this observation
and finding of the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary
Authority while observing that it is not acceptable and on
the preponderance of probabilities the cheque being
stealthily removed by him has to be inferred and issued a
show cause notice why it should not be held as proved the
CSE/I Party having failed to show cause inspite of receiving
notice in that regard, the Disciplinary Authority in my
opinion did not commit any error in holding that the finding
of the Enquiry Officer the charge covered in the second
charge sheet being partly proved is erroneous and that
this charge is proved is perfectly justified. Under these
circumstances, I find no error being committed by the
Enquiry Officer in holding the CSE guilty of both the charges
covered in the first charge sheet and Disciplinary Authority
in modifying his finding the charge covered under second
charge sheet being partly proved as erroneous and it is
fully proved. Thereby I arrive at conclusion of answering
the first point in the Negative.
15. Point No. 2 : The Disciplinary Authority while viewing
the unauthorised absence of I Party covered under the
first charge of the first charge sheet leniently ordered for
"Censure", whereas in relation to the second charge covered
under first charge sheet and the charge covered in the
second charge sheet having regard to the responsibility
that was expected to be of the I Party, the negligence on his
part and the consequent loss caused to the Bank has taken
a decision to Compulsorily Retire him from the Service of
the Bank with consequential terminal benefits and for
recovery of Rs. 95000.00 the loss caused to the bank due to
his impugned action. The learned advocate appearing for
the I Party except saying that it is excessive in his written
arguments failed to demonstrate how it could be termed as
excessive to the proved misconduct. The I Party who was
holding the post of Special Assistant with a power to pass
the cheques for payment was holding a responsible post
in the branch and his action passing the cheque for Rs.
20000.00 where the balance was just Rs. 380.00 was highly
unbecoming of the post he had held which resulted in
monitory loss to the bank. Only because subsequently
part of the amount covered under this cheque to the tune
of Rs. 15000.00 is recovered it has no relevancy to absolve
him of his act in passing such a cheque throwing all the
norms of the bank to the wind. Under the circumstances, I
find no reason to interfere in the modification made by the
Disciplinary Authority the second charge as well being
proved and imposing the punishment of Compulsory
retirement from Service with consequential terminal benefits
along with recovery of Rs. 95000.00 towards the loss caused
as arbitrary or excessive to the misconduct proved against
the I Party. In the result, I find no reasons either to interfere
in the finding of the Enquiry Officer the modification of the
finding of the Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority
as well relating to the second charge sheeet as well as the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the
result, I answer this point accordingly.
16. Point No. 3 : In view of my finding on Point No. 1
and 2, the reference deserves to be Rejected and I Party is
not entitled for any relief. In the result, I pass the following
Order:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6597
ORDER
The reference is rejected holding that the
action of the management of State Bank of
Mysore in passing the order of terminating
the services by Compulsory Retirement from
Services of the Bank against the workman
Shri G. Sridhar, Ex-Special Assistant, State Bank
of Mysore, Anekal Branch with effect from
2.12.2003 is legal and justified and that I Party
is not entitled for any relief.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 4th March, 2013)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2562.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj lkmFk lsaVªy jsyos
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd] vfèdj.k]
cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 73@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@156@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 73/2001) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of South Central Railway, and their
workmen received by the Central Government on
11/11/2013.
[No. L-41012/156/2000-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE
Dated
:
31st May, 2013
PRESENT
:
Shri S. N. NAVALGUND,
Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 73/2001
I Party
II Party
Sh. F A Khan,
The Divisional Railway
Ex. A S M, Arjun Vihar,
Manager,
Gokul Road,
South Central Railways,
Hubli
Hubli
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Shri A. I. SHIDDEEK,
Advocate
II Party
:
Shri S. C. Jainer,
Advocate
A W A R D
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-41012/156/
2000-IR (B-I) dated 09.2001 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(14 of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of the
Divisional Railway Manager, South Central
Railway, Hubli in dismissing the services of
the Shri F. A. Khan w.e.f. 21-12-1995 is justified.
If not, what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference while Registering it in CR
73/2001 when notices were issued to both the sides they
entered their appearance through their respective
advocates and filed the claim and counter statement. After
completion of the pleadings having regard to certain
allegations made in the claim statement touching the
fairness of the Domestic Enquiry while framing a Preliminary
Issue as :
"Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted by
the II party against the I Party is fair and
proper?"
after receiving the evidence adduced by the II Party and
hearing the arguments addressed by the learned advocates
appeaing for both sides by order dated 09.03.2011 the
Preliminary Issue was answered in the Negative holding
the Domestic Enquiry held agains the I Party by the II
Party being not fair and proper. In view of the said finding
on the Preliminary Issue the matter was posted for Evidence
of II Party on merits and inspite of providing several
opportunities to lead evidence since same was not availed
on 19.10.2011 taking that II Party is not interested to lead
evidence on merits since I Party counsel on the same day
submitted that he too has no evidence and it may be posted
for arguments, the matter was when posted for arguments
6598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the learned advocates appearing for both sides filed their
written arguments.
3. The charge against the I Party was that he who was
working as ASM/MLP remained unauthorisedly absent
from duty continuously from 11.03.1993 to 31.08.1993 for a
period of 174 days and thereby failed to maintain devotion
to duty and contravened Rule 3(1) of the Railways Services
Conduct Rules, 1966 without obtaining prior sanction from
the competent authority or producting sick certificate
issued by the Railway Medical Authorities. Since the
Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II Party against the I
Party came to be held as Not Fair and Proper and an
opportunity was given to the II Party to substantiate the
said charge and as the same was not availed and after
providing several opportunities though it was taken that II
Party is not interested to lead evidence, as the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party without making any
attempt to lead evidence proceeded to file his written
arguments. Since the II Party failed to produce any
evidence to substantiate the charge levelled against the I
Party of unauthorised absence, the wirtten arguments
submitted is being without any basis cannot be attached
with any value. Therefore, the charge levelled against the I
Party of remaining unauthorised absent for a period of 174
days from 11.03.1993 to 31.08.1993 is not supported by
evidence, I have not other go except to say that its
impugned action dismissing the I Party is not legal and
justified. In view of my finding that II Party failed to
substantiate the charge of unauthorized absence by the I
Party, he is entitle for reinstatement but since no evidence
is adduced by the I Party as well being not gainfully
employed after the impugned punishment of dismissing
him from service he cannot be compensated by any
backwages. In the result, I pass the following Order:
O R D E R
The reference is allowed holding the action of
the management of the Divisional Railway
Manager, South Central Railway, Hubli in
dismissing the services of Sh. F. A. Khan w.e.f.
21.12.1995 is not legal and justified and that he
is entitle for reinstatement with continuity of
service and no Backwages.
(Dictated U.D.C. transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 31st May, 2013).
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2563.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
eSlwj ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 35@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&12012@271@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 35/2005 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of Mysore, and their workmen
received by the Central Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L-12012/271/2004-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,
YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE
DATED
:
8th April, 2013
PRESENT
:
SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND
Presiding Officer
C R No. 35/2005
I Party
II Party
Sh. N. Gopala,
The General Manager
S/o Shri Narasimaiah,
(Operations),
C/o Ganagogi Rao, ,
State Bank of Mysore,
5th Cross
Head Office.
North Channapatna,
VII Floor, K G Road,
Bangalore
Bangalore
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Sh. D. Leelakrishnan,
Advocate
II Party
:
Sh. R. Narayana,
Advocate
A W A R D
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section
2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/271/2004-
IR(B-I) dated 05.08.2005 for adjudication on the following
schedule:
"Whether the management of State Bank of
Mysore is justified in imposing the punishment
of compulsory retirement from services on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6599
Shri N Gopala, Peon with effect from 24.12.2003?
If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference registering in C R 35/2005
when the notices were issued to both the sides, they
appeared through their respective advocate and claim
statement came to be filed on 17.02.2006 and counter
statement came to be filed on 24.04.2006.
3. After completion of the pleadings having regard to
the certain allegations made in the claim statement
conducting of the Domestic Enquiry not in fair and proper
manner, my learned predecessor had raised a Preliminary
Issue as to :
"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against
the I party by the II party is fair and proper?"
and had recorded evidence of the Enquiry Officer for the
management and that of the I Party and after I assuming
the Office hearing the arguments of the learned advocates
appearing for both sides by Order dated 20.08.2010 the
Preliminary Issue came to be answered in Affirmative
holding that the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II
party against the I party as fair and proper. Thereafter, as
proposed by both the sides, the matter was posted for
arguments on merits and learned advocate appearing for
the I party filed written arguments, whereas, the learned
advocate appearing for the II party addressed his Oral
Arguments.
4. The brief facts leading to this Reference and Award
may be stated as under:
"N Gopal (hereinafter referred as I Party) who joined
the services of the State Bank of Mysore (hereinafter
referred as II Party) on 14.12.1987 as a Peon while
working at its Akkur Branch came to be placed under
suspension by order dated 28.09.2002 followed by
Charge Sheet dated 26.10.2002 alleging that while he
was working as Peon at Akkur Branch without
authority and by abuse of his official position
prepared vouchers and debited certain Savings Bank
Account relating to old Age Pensions and afforded
credit to certain unconnected Loan Accounts as
enlisted in Annexure-I to the Charge Sheet and
thereby did an act detrimental to the interest of the
Bank with an ulterior motive of helping some of the
borrowers of the Bank and thereby acted prejudicial
to the bank and caused loss of Rs. 157000.00 and
committed gross misconduct under clause 19.5 (j) of
the BPS and secondly without authority and abuse
of his official position made wrongful gains of sum
of Rs. 76220.00 by affording credit to his SB Account
No. P555 maintained jointly with his wife
Smt. Radha and thereby made wrongful gain for
himself and acted prejudicial to the interest of the
bank to the financial loss of Rs. 76220.00 and thereby
committed gross misconduct under clause 19.5 (j) of
the BPS. Since he failed to give any reply to this
charge sheet within stipulated time provided to him
the Disciplinary Authority while ordering for a
Domestic Enquiry appointed H V Nagendra, Chief
Manager as Enquiry Officer and G Anantha
Padmanabhaiah, Manager as Presenting Officer. The
Enquiry Officer after complying the formalities of
preliminary hearing exhibiting 40 documents for the
management with the consent of the I party and his
Defence Representative and receiving the evidence
of U R Srinivasan who had conducted Special Audit
of the Akkur Branch and T Hariharan the Manager of
the Akkur Branch as MWs 1 and 2 for the
management and on submission of the CSE and his
Defence Representative that they have no Oral
Evidence while exhibiting Chapter XIII, General
Administration and Staff 81.01 and 81.01 stating that
Clerical Work attended to by Daftry, since stopped
as Ex D-1 and D-2, after receiving the written briefs
of the Presenting Officer and Defence Representative
submitted his Enquiry Findings to the Disciplinary
Authority on 15.10.2003 (Ex M-7) both charges being
proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority while
enclosing the copy of the Report of the Enquiry
Officer issued him Show Cause Notice as to why he
should not be Compulsorily removed from service
with consequential terminal benefits and after
affording an opportunity of hearing which was not
availed by him he passed the impugned order of
punishment Compulsorily Removing him from
Service with consequential benefits as provided
under clause 19.5 (b) of Bipartite Settlement and also
recovery of Rs. 181672.00. Since in the conciliation
proceedings initiated by the I party the II party did
not agree to continue service of I party having regard
to the financial loss occasioned by him to the Bank
by his fraudulent act the conciliation since failed the
Central Government made this reference for
adjudication."
5. Since the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II party
against the I Party is held as Fair and Proper by Order of
this court dated 20.08.2010 and the arguments addressed
by both sides have been heard on merits the points that
now requires to be considered by me are:
1. Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding
the charge as proved is perverse necessitating
the interference of this court?
2. If not, whether the punishment of removal from
service with consequential terminal benefits and
order for recovery of Rs. 181672.00 loss
occasioned to the Bank by the CSE is
disproportionate requiring any modification?
3. What Order?
6600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. On appreciation of the pleadings touching the merits
of the case, Oral and Documentary Evidence brought on
record by the II Party in the Domestic Enquiry with the
arguments put forward by the learned advocates appearing
for both the sides my finding on Point No. 1 and 2 are in the
Negative and Point No. 3 is as per final order for the following
reasons:
R E A S O N S
7. It is asserted in Para 6 of the Claim Statement though
in the cross-examination of the two witnesses examined for
the management favourable answers to him were elicited
supporting his stand the Enquiry Officer held the Charges
as proved as such his finding is perverse, without
highlighting what are the favourable answers in his favour
in the corss-examination of the Management witnesses.
Even in the written arguments submitted by the learned
advocate appearing for the I party he has only reiterated
what is stated in the claim statement without highlighting
any specific admissions given by the management
witnesses in their cross-examination to prove the
innocence of the I party. Since the Domestic Enquiry
conducted by the II Party against the I Party is found fair
and proper it was for the I Party counsel to demonstrate
the finding of the Enquiry Officer, charges are proved being
baseless or perverse. I carefully gone through the
examination in chief of MW 1 and 2 and their cross-
examination by the Defence Representative and find no
admissions being taken in their corss examination to prove
the innocence of the I Party/CSE from the charges levelled
against him. Therefore, absolutely having found no reasons
to come to a conclusion the enquiry finding being perverse,
I have arrived at conclusion of answering the Point No. 1 in
the Negative.
8. Now coming to the second point when the I Party/
CSE abusing his Official position manipulated vouchers
and debited certain Savings Bank Account relating to Old
Age pensioners and afforded credited to some
unconnected persons loan Accounts to tune of
Rs. 1,50,000.00 and wrongfully gave credit to his own SB
Account maintained along with his wife to a sum of
Rs. 76,220.00 and thereby committed a gross misconduct
as contemplated under Section 19.5 (j) of the BPS there
would not have been any other lesser punishment to him
than the one imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and
confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Under the
circumstances, I arrive at the conclusions of answering
this issue also in the Negative and pass the following Order:
O R D E R
The reference is rejected holding that the management
of the State Bank of Mysore is justified in imposing the
punishment of Compulsory Removal from Services on
Shri N Gopala, Peon with effect from 24.12.2003 and that he
is not entitle for any relief.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 8th April 2013)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2564.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkWQ+ eSlwj
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]
c®xyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@176@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2006) of the
Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of State Bank of Mysore, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/11/2013.
[No. L-12012/176/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, YESHWANTPUR,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
10th April 2013
PRESENT
:
SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND,
Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 25/2006
I Party
II Party
Sh. K. M. Shamarao,
The Deputy General
Manager (P),
S/o Late Munnoji Rao,
State Bank of Mysore,
Central Zone,
Kolaramma Extension, Fort, P.B. No. 9525, BKG Complex,
KOLAR-563 101.
A Block, Avenue Road,
BANGALORE- 560 009.
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Sh. Muralidhara, Advocate
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6601
II Party
:
Sh. R. Narayana,
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section
2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/176/2005-
IR(B-I) dated 23.05.2006 for adjudication on the following
schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of management of State Bank
of Mysore in passing the order of terminating the
services by compulsory retirement from the services
of the Bank against the workman Shri K.M. Shama
Rao, Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper, State Bank of
Mysore, Kolar Branch, Kolar with effect from
25.6.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
he is entitled and from which date?"
2. On receipt of the reference registering it in C R 25/
2006 when notices were issued to both the sides, they
entered their appearance through their respective
advocates and I party filed his claim statement on 06.09.2006
and II party its counter statement on 05.01.2007.
3. Having regard to the certain allegations made in the
claim statement touching the fairness of the Domestic
Enquiry while framing a Preliminary Issue as to:
"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the
I party by the II party is fair and proper?"
after receiving the evidence of both the sides and hearing
the learned advocates of both the sides, by order 12.11.2010
the said issue came to be answered in the affirmative holding
that Domestic Enquiry conducted against the I party by
the II party being fair and proper. After disposal of the
Preliminary Issue touching the fairness of the Domestic
Enquiry the learned advocate appearing for the I Party
while filing the affidavit of I Party being not gainfully
employed victimization/discrimination examined him on oath
as WW 1(V) and no rebuttal evidence is adduced by
II party.
4. The briefs facts leading to this reference and award
are as under:
5. K.M. Shama Rao (hereinafter referred as I Party) who
joined the services of State Bank of Mysore (hereinafter
referred as II Party) on 24.08.1981 and later in the year 1987
came to be promoted as Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper, while
serving at Kolar Branch on 20.01.2000 served with the
charge sheet and amended charge sheet on 20.10.2011 as
under:
"While working as cashier/Godown Keeper at our
Kolar branch from 16.11.92 to 26.10.99, you are alleged
to have committed certain serious irregularities/acts
of omission and commission which are given
hereunder:
CHARGE-I
In respect of SB a/c 59/20393 of Smt. Narayanamma,
you have posted the following credits on the dates
mentioned below.
DATE OF CREDIT
AMOUNTS CREDITED (Rs.)
9.9.98
1,300
9.1.99
2,000
14.1.99
1,000
9.2.99
2,000
The above credits have been posted by you in your
handwriting and the above entries also bear your initials in
the columns meat for authentication of posting and
checking. Subsequently, it has transpired that the above
credits afforded by you to the above account are fictitious.
In the same account, you have posted the following
debits on the date/mentioned below.
DATE OF CREDIT
AMOUNTS CREDITED (Rs.)
9.9.98
2,000
29.8.98
1,000
13.1.99
1,000
6.2.99
2,000
In respect of the above debits, you have committed the
following:—
(a) Prepared the withdrawals slips using different
styles.
(b) issued the token.
(c) identified the LTM of the depositor.
(d) posted the debits to the account although you
were working in the Cash Dept.
(e) failed to insist for production of pass book before
issuing tokens and before posting the debit
vouchers.
In view of the facts that the above credits are fictitious,
the above withdrawals are fraudulent.
CHARGE-II
In
respect
of
SB
account
11/12755
of
Smt. Chikkamuniyamma, you have posted following credits
on the date mentioned below.
DATE OF CREDIT
AMOUNTS CREDITED (Rs.)
15.12.98
20,000
6602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The above entries have been posted by you in your
handwriting and the entries also bear your initials in the
columns meant for authentication of posting and checking.
Subsequently it has transpired that the above credits
afforded by you to the account are fictitious.
In the same account, you have posted the following
debits on the dates mentioned below.
DATE OF DEBIT
AMOUNT DEBITED (Rs.)
3.7.97
5,000
6.10.97
2,000
8.10.97
2,000
6.11.97
2,000
5.12.97
2,000
5.3.98
5,000
6.4.98
5,000
24.6.98
5,000
3.9.98
6,870
15.12.98
2,000
In respect of the above debits, you have committed the
following.
(a) Prepared the withdrawals slips using different
styles.
(b) issued the token.
(c) failed to insist for production of pass book before
issuing tokens and before posting the debit
vouchers.
(d) Posted the debits to the account although you
were working the Cash Dept.
CHARGE-III
In respect of SB account PN/22981 of Smt. Nagamma,
you have posted following credits on the date mentioned
below.
DATE OF CREDIT
AMOUNTS CREDITED (Rs.)
30.12.98
2,000
27.2.99
1,000
The above entries have been posted by you in your
handwriting and the above entries also bear your initials in
the columns meant for authentication of posting and
checking. Subsequently, it has transpired that the above
credits afforded by you to the account are fictitious.
In the same account, you have posted the following
debits on the dates mentioned below.
DATE OF DEBIT
AMOUNT DEBITED (Rs.)
26.12.98
2,000
10.2.99
1,000
10.2.99
4,000
In respect of the above debits, you have committed the
following.
(a) Prepared the withdrawals slips using different
styles.
(b) issued the token.
(c) Posted the debits to the account although you
were working in the Cash Department.
(d) failed to insist for production of pass book before
issuing tokens and before posting the debit
vouchers.
In view of the facts that the above credits are fictitious,
the above withdrawals are fraudulent.
CHARGE-IV
In respect of SB account 59/20360 of Smt. A Gracedwin,
you have posted following debits on the date mentioned
below.
DATE OF DEBIT
AMOUNT DEBITED (Rs.)
2.11.98
5,000
In respect of the above debits, you have committed the
following.
(a) Prepared the withdrawals slips using different
styles.
(b) issued the token.
(c) Posted the debits to the account.
(d) failed to insist for production of pass book before
issuing tokens and before posting the debit
vouchers.
CHARGE-V
In respect of SB account No. 11/15872 of
Smt. Govindamma, you have posted following credits on
the date mentioned below.
DATE OF DEBIT
AMOUNT DEBITED (Rs.)
5.1.98
10,000
1.2.99
5,000
The above credits have been posted by you in your
handwriting and the above entries also bear your initials in
the columns meat for authentication of posting and
checking. The entries are omitted to enter in the self-
balancing ledger sheet. Subsequently, it has transpired that
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6603
the above credits afforded by you to the account are
fictitious.
In the same account, you have posted the following
debits on the dates mentioned below.
DATE OF DEBIT
AMOUNT DEBITED (Rs.)
26.12.98
2,000
10.2.99
1,000
10.2.99
4,000
Your above acts constitute gross misconduct in terms
of clause 19.5 (J) of the Bipartite agreement. You are
therefore, called upon to submit your replies within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the Charge Sheet failing which it
will be construed that you have no satisfactory reply to
submit. Further, action will be initiated as per provisions of
the Bipartite Settlement in force without further reference
to you.
Sd/-
Disciplinary Authority &
Regional Manager IV
Amendment to Charge sheet No. RM-IV/CZ/DPD/8855
dated 20/01/2000
Please read the following amendments to the above
Charge Sheet.
Chargesheet Read as
To be Road as
Charge I
Date of Debit
09/01/1998
09/01/1999
Charge II Para 1 Line 1
11/12755
17758
Date of Debit
03/07/1997
03/11/1997
Charge V
Date of Credit
01/02/1999
10/02/1999
The other contents in the chargesheet remains
unchanged.
Sd/-
Regional Manager IV.
Disciplinary Authority."
6. The II party/management being not satisfied with the
reply given by him ordered for enquiry by appointing
Vilas B Patil as Enquiry Officer and R. Lakshminarayana as
Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer after observing the
formalities of preliminary hearing receiving the evidence of
Usha Rani, the then Deputy Manager, Kolar Branch, Jeeva
the then Assistant Manager, Kolar Branch, Mohan Dass,
Manager, RRB Cell at Head Office, M A Azeez ABD, Head
Office, Jayalaxmamma, the then Typist clerk at Kolar Branch
as BWs 1 to 5 and exhibiting 31 documents as BEx 1 to 31
the detailed description of which are narrated in the
Annexure. After receiving the written briefs from the Bank
Representative and Defence Representative submitted his
finding to the Disciplinary Authority dated 19.08.2002
Charges No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 being proved. Then the
Disciplinary Authority while enclosing the finding of the
Enquiry Officer issued show cause notice to the CSE/I
Party to show cause why he should not be terminated from
Services and after receipt of reply giving him an opportunity
of hearing passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2003
Compulsorily Retiring him from Service. The Appellate
Authority as well after affording opportunity to the I party
confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority by order dated 29.03.2004. Since the conciliation
raised by the I party workman before the ALC(C), Bangalore
ended in failure the Central Government made this reference
for adjudication.
7. Since the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II party
against the I party has been answered in favour of II party
by order dated 12.11.2010 the points that now remain for
my consideration are:
Point No. 1:
Whether the finding of the Enquiry
Officer charge No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are proved
is
perverse
necessitating
the
interference of this court?
Point No. 2:
If not, whether the punishment imposed
is disproportionate to the misconduct
proved against I party?
Point No. 3:
What Order?
8. On appreciation of the pleadings of the parties
touching the merits with the evidence placed on record in
the Domestic Enquiry, the report of the Enquiry Officer
with the arguments addressed before me my finding on
Point No. 1 is in the affirmative, Point No. 2 as does not
survive for consideration and Point No. 3 as per final order
for the following reasons:
REASONS
9. The learned advocate appearing for the I party while
taking me through the charges levelled against the I party
and the evidence let in by the management in the DE urged
that in the first instance there is no evidence that I party
was entrusted with duties of counter clerk to make entries
in the Register, secondly none of the account holders
complained any loss or hurt being caused to them and
moreover Usha Rani/BW 1 having categorically stated
vouchers passed by her for Rs. 1000.00 dated 13.01.1999,
10.02.1999 are genuine. Therefore, allegations that these
credits were fictitious false to the ground. He further taking
me through the evidence of Jeeva/BW 2 urged except saying
6604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
initials resembled to that of CSE did not make any other
imputation to the CSE as such on such a evidence in the
absence of any other evidence especially of handwriting
expert such entries cannot be held to be in the handwriting
of CSE. He further taking me through the evidence of
Mohan Dass/BW 3 urged that he do not impute anything
to the CSE. He further taking me through the evidence of
M A Azeez/BW 4 as admitted by himself he has no
knowledge about the transaction as such his evidence is
of no avail to the management to bring home the charges
levelled against the CSE. He further taking me through the
evidence of Jayalaxmamma/BW 5 since he too does not
impute anything to CSE and on the other hand in her cross-
examination having confirmed all transactions being
genuine the finding of the Enquiry Officer in the presence
of such evidence charge No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are proved being
not only baseless are the perverse findings as such the
enquiry finding deserves to be set aside and consequently
the punishment imposed against the I Party. Interalia, the
learned advocate appearing for the II Party without giving
any answer to the learned advocate of the I party urged the
finding of the Enquiry Officer being based on the evidence
placed before him also urged that under Section 11(a) court
can interfere only in case of discharge and dismissal and in
the case of compulsory retirement there cannot be any
interference.
10. As urged by the learned advocate for the I party BW
1G Usha Rani, the then Deputy Manager of the Kolar Branch
having deposed in her evidence withdrawal dated 13.01.1999
from Account No. 59/20393 was passed by her under
Sl. No. 83 and that she cannot say whether the handwriting
in the withdrawal slip is that of the CSE and that the voucher
passed by her is genuine and further referring to withdrawal
slip dated 15.12.1998 for Rs. 2000.00 relating to account
No. P11/17758 of Chikkamuniyamma she passed it under
Sl. No. 49 and that LTM of the Depositor was identified by
the CSE on the reverse of the withdrawal slip and that she
is not sure whether the handwriting in the withdrawal slip
is that of CSE and she further states that the initials against
the entry in the ledger sheet pertaining to this transaction
also do not tally with the initials of the CSE. She further
referring to the withdrawal slip of Rs. 1000 dated 10.02.1999
Nagamma, P/11/22981 states that she passed the same and
the signature of the depositor resembles with the specimen
signature and token no. 144 issued was not authenticated
and the posting initials not pertains to CSE and the said
transaction is genuine. In her cross-examination she has
stated initials appearing on BEx-1 dated 13.01.1999 and
BEx-3 dated 10.02.1999 for having posted the vouchers
resembles each other and that BEx-2 dated 15.12.1998 which
she passed has no relevance with alleged entry of
Rs. 20000.00 but she cannot positively say that the entry in
the progressive sheet being that of CSE. Thus, according
to her the transactions under BEx-1, 2 and 3 are all being
genuine and she has passed them for payment, absolutely,
there is nothing in her evidence against the CSE to hold
him guilty of the charges. Now coming to the evidence of
BW 2 Jeeva, he has stated no initials is available for having
issued token voucher (withdrawal slip) on the debit slip
dated 03.11.1997 amounting to Rs. 5000.00 and that initials
for posting appears to be of CSE and that he has passed
the withdrawal and he further stated the handwriting in the
ledger relating to this transaction also the resembles the
handwriting of CSE (Shama Rao). Thus in his evidence
also except the initials on the posting and handwriting in
the withdrawal slip resembles as that of CSE there being
nothing such a vague evidence without a specific evidence
of a handwriting expert such evidence is of no avail to the
Bank to prove the charges against the CSE. On the other
hand he having stated in his cross-examination he has
initialled in the ledger sheet for having passed and also
checked the balance in the respective places with reference
to BEx-4 Account No. 17758 his evidence is of no avail to
the bank to prove the charges levelled against the CSE.
Now coming to the evidence of BW 3 M Mohan Dass,
Manager, RRB Cell, Head Office, he states referring to the
ledge sheet 20393 relating to SB Account No. of
Smt. Narayanamma that there is entry of Rs. 1300 on
09.09.1998 posted as by Cash that he cannot make out the
handwriting and that he confirms the three credit slips
dated 09.01.1999 pertaining to account No. 59/20393 for
Rs. 2000.00, 14.01.1999 for Rs. 1000.00 and for Rs. 2000.00
dated 09.02.1999 being not available he reported about the
non stitching of slip bundles and the consequences of the
controller on several occassions and as he further expressed
his inability to identify the handwriting the Presenting
Officer sought permission to examine other witnesses and
thereby in his evidence there being nothing to impute
against the I Party to hold him guilty of any of the charges
levelled against him Presenting Officer practically admitted
his evidence being irrelevant. Now coming to the evidence
of BW 4, M A Azeez, Manager, Agricultural Banking
Department who claims to have worked in Kolar Branch
from 26.06.1997 to 03.06.1998 since deposed that he has no
knowledge since the transaction in question are not
pertaining to his period his evidence is also of no avail to
the bank to prove any of the charges against the I Party.
Now coming to the evidence of BW 5 Jayalakshmamma,
who was working as Typist-cum-Clerk from 16.01.1979 to
08.07.2001, she was brought to state whether the
handwriting of Original Withdrawal slip of dated 09.01.1999
of Rs. 2000.00 pertaining to SB Account 59/20393 of
Narayanamma and the corresponding voucher and ledger
sheet and for this the Defence Representative did object
that she is not competent to depose about it but inspite of
it she was allowed to give the evidence and she stated that
she is not able to identify as to who has prepared the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6605
withdrawal slip as well as the initials and handwriting in
the SB Ledger Sheet thereby absolutely there is nothing in
her evidence as well against the CSE to hold him guilty of
any of the charges. With such a evidence brought by the
management the Enquiry Officer with surmises the
handwriting appears to be that of CSE held charge No. 1, 2,
3 and 5 being proved. Thus as urged by the learned
advocate appearing for the I Party absolutely there was no
evidence in the enquiry to hold the CSE/I Party responsible
for the entries in question and thereby to hold charges 1, 2,
3 and 5 levelled against him being proved. In other words,
I fully agree with the arguments advanced by the learned
advocate appearing for the I party the finding of the Enquiry
Officer Charge No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are being proved are baseless
and perverse. Accordingly, I arrive at conclusion of
answering Point No. 1 in the Affirmative. In view of my
finding on Point No. 1 in Affirmative i.e. the Enquiry Finding
Charge No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are proved as baseless and perverse
the Punishment imposed on such finding by the
Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate
Authority do not sustain, I am of the opinion that the Point
No. 2 for consideration do not survive.
11. Since the enquiry finding Charge No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are
being proved found to be baseless and perverse on the
basis of which the punishment of Compulsory Retirement
has been imposed the order of the II Party Compulsorily
Retiring the I party from service deserves to be set aside
and he is entitle for Reinstatement. Since his evidence that
he could not get any alternative employment after his
impugned compulsory retirement remained unrebutted by
the management he is entitle for full backwages, continuity
of Service and other consequential benefits that he would
have received in the absence of impugned Punishment of
Compulsory Retirement imposed against him. In the result,
I pass the following Order:
ORDER
The reference is allowed holding that the action of the
management of SBM in passing the Order of Terminating
his Services by Compulsory retirement from the services
of the Bank against the workman Shri K M Shama Rao,
Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper, State Bank of Mysore, Kolar
Branch, Kolar w.e.f. 25.06.2003 being not legal and justified
and that he is entitle for Reinstatement with Full Backwages,
Continuity of Service and all other consequential benefits
that he would have received in the absence of the impugned
Punishment of Compulsory Retirement imposed against
him.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 10th April, 2013)
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE I
Documents exhibited in the Domestic Enquiry:
BEx. No.
Particulars
A/c No. and Names
01.
Debit 13.1.1999 of Rs. 1000/-
59/20393 of Narayanamma
02.
Debit 3.9.98 of Rs. 2000/-
48/17758 of Chikkamuniyamma
03.
Debit 10.2.99 of Rs. 1000/-
PM 22981 of S. Nagamma
04.
Debit 03.11.97 of Rs. 5000/-
48/17758 of Chikkamuniyamma
05.
Debit 24.6.98 Rs. 5000/-
48/17758 of Chikkamuniyamma
06.
Cash Scrolls 9.9.98 Rs. 1300/-
59/20393 of Narayanamma
07.
Cash Scrolls 9.9.98 Rs. 2000/-
59/20393 of Narayanamma
08.
Cash Scrolls 14.1.99 Rs. 1000/-
59/20393 of Narayanamma
09.
Cash Scrolls 14.1.99 Rs. 2000/-
59/20393 of Narayanamma
10.
Transfer Scrolls 15.11.98 for Rs. 20000/-
48/17758 of Chikkamuniyamma
11.
SB Ledger Sheet
48/17758 of Chikkamuniyamma
12.
SB Ledger Sheet
22981 of Nagamma
13.
SB Pass Book
22981 of Nagamma
14.
Transfer Scrolls 30.12.98
22981 of Nagamma
6606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BEx. No.
Particulars
A/c No. and Names
15.
SB Progressive Sheet
22981 of Nagamma
16.
Bank Receipt scroll 27.2.99
22981 of Nagamma
17.
SB Ledger Sheet
15872 of Govindamma
18.
Cash Scrolls 5.1.99
15872 of Govindamma
19.
Cash Scrolls 10.2.99
15872 of Govindamma
20.
Pass Book
15872 of Govindamma
21.
Debit Slip 6.10.98 Rs. 2000/-
48/17758 of Chickmuniyamma
22.
Debit Slip 8.10.97 Rs. 2000/-
48/17758 of Chickmuniyamma
23.
Debit Slip 6.11.97 Rs. 2000/-
48/17758 of Chickmuniyamma
24.
Debit Slip for Rs. 2000/- dated 5.12.97
48/17758 of Chickmuniyamma
25.
Debit Slip 5.3.98 Rs. 5000/-
48/17758 of Chickmuniyamma
26.
Debit Slip 6.4.98 Rs. 5000/-
48/17758 of Chickmuniyamma
27.
SB A/c opening from 59/20393
59/20393 of Narayanamma
28.
Debit Slip 29.8.98 Rs. 1000/-
59/20393 of Narayanamma
29.
Debit Slip 6.2.99 Rs. 2000/-
59/20393 of Narayanamma
30.
Debit Slip 3.9.98 Rs. 6870/-
48/17758 of Chikkamuniyamma
31.
Debit Slip 26.12.98 Rs. 2000/-
PN 22981 of Nagamma
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2565.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
gSnjkckn 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;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@246@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2006) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore 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
11/11/2013.
[No. L- 12012/246/2005-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, YESHWANTPUR,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
10th April, 2013
Present
:
SHRI S. N. NAVALGUND,
Presiding Officer
C R No. 34/2006
I Party
II Party
Sh. Noor Mohammed,
1. The General Manager
S/o Kasimsab Mamadapur,
(Operation),
Residing of Yogapur,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Bijapur
H.O., Gun Foundry,
Hyderabad-1.
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Bijapur, Karnataka.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6607
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Sh. N. S. Narasimha Swamy,
Advocate
II Party
:
Sh. S. K. M. Shetty,
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Sub-section
(2A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-12012/246/2005-
IR(B-I) dated 21.07.2006 for adjudication on the following
schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of State Bank of Hyderabad,
Bijapur in terminating the services of Shri Noor
Mohammed although he had worked for more than
240 days service during the calendar year 1999, 2000
and in regularizing and absorbing his junior viz. name
S/Shri Devadas N. Kulkarni, Prakash Bilagi and Noor
Attar casual worker ignoring and overlooking the
seniority of Shri Noor Mohammed is justified? If not,
to what relief he is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference registering it in CR 34/2006
when notices were issued to both the sides, they entered
their appearance through respective advocates. As the I
party and his counsel inspite of providing several
opportunities/adjournments to file Claim Statement since
did not avail the same my learned predecessor on 11.06.2007
taking the Claim Statement not filed posted for the statement
of the II party substantiating the impugned action.
Accordingly, the learned advocate appearing for the II party
filed its Counter Satement on 08.02.2008. Subsequently,
the learned advocate appearing for the I party on 02.04.2008
sought permission to file Claim Statement by filing an
application along with the Claim Statement and the same
came to be allowed on 24.05.2010. Thereafter, the learned
advocate appearing for the II party filed additional Counter
Statement refuting what is stated in the Claim Statement
further affirming what was stated in the first Counter
Statement.
3. Thereafter, when the matter came to be posted for
Evidence of the II party the learned Counsel while filing
affidavit of Siddappa D Kalli, Branch Manager, Bijapur,
examined him on oath as MW 1. Thereafter, inspite of
providing number of opportunities the I party and his
counsel failed to cross-examine him and also to lead any
rebuttal evidence or to address arguments and ultimately
the matter came to be posted for award after hearing the
arguments addressed by the learned advocate for the II
Party.
4. In the Claim Statement filed by the I Party it is alleged
that he started working as Sweeper on Daily Wages in the
II party Bank at Bijapur in the month of December 1999 and
he worked continuously till 30.08.2004, the date on which
he was refused employment and that he was paid salary
every month by taking signature on the receipts and that
the II party with an ulterior motive to get rid of him were not
following the basic statutory provisions as contemplated
under ID Act. It is further asserted that there exists a
practice in the II party bank to absorb the workmen like him
in Class IV Cadre and accordingly Juniors to him whose
names are mentioned in the Schedule of the reference were
extended benefits ignoring his Seniority. Thus he claims
his Termination, Refusal to Absorb and regularise is illegal
and prays to issue direction to the II party to absorb him in
Regular Sevice.
5. The II party in its first counter statement as well as
Second Counter Statement while denying the allegations
that I Party continuously served from December 1999 to
30.08.2004, contended that his service was availed for
carrying out casual work in the absence of permanent
employees and in no calendar year he worked for a period
of 240 days and that he has been paid wages for the day
worked by him and that there is no practice prevailing in
their bank to absorb or regularise the services of such
casual workman and his allegation Sh. Devadas N Kulkarni,
Prakash Bilagi and Noor Attar were also working as casual
workmen and Junior to him are false and that those persons
have been recruited in the Bank after their names were
sponsored by the Employment Exchange after successful
interview by the committee formed by the Bank for the
purpose of recruiting sub-staff. Thus, it is contended that
I Party has not worked for more than 240 days in any
calendar year much less in 1999, 2002 and that the three
persons named in the scheduled were junior to him is also
false and that he raised a dispute with imaginary allegations
and made a false claim. The Branch Manager of the II party
Bijapur Branch though filed his affidavit swearing to the
contents of the Counter Statement and by examining himself
as MW 1 affirmed it, the II party having left the same
unchallenged by way of his corss-examination or leading
any rebuttal evidence the I party failed to substantiate his
claim that he served for more than 240 days during calendar
year 1999, 2002 and that there was a practice in the II Party
Bank to regularise and absorb such workmen and that his
Junior names of which are appearing in the Schedule have
been regularised and absorbed ignoring and overlooking
his seniority. In the result, I pass the following Order:
ORDER
The reference is rejected holding that the Sh. Noor
Mohammed failed to prove that he had worked for more
than 240 days during the calendar year 1999, 2002 and that
there was a practice to Regularise and Absorb such
workmen and the II Party Bank absorbed his Juniors viz.,
names Sh. Devadas N Kulkarni, Prakash Bilagi and Noor
Attar ignoring and overlooking his seniority.
6608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 10th April, 2013.)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2566.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ fd èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwohZ jsyos ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn;ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 59@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@39@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 59/2000) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of North Eastern Railway, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 11/11/
2013.
[No. L- 41012/39/2000-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
Dr. MANJU NIGAM,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 59/2000
Ref. No. L-41012/39/2000/IR(B-I) dated: 07/11-08-2000
BETWEEN
Shri Ram Sahare Lal S/o Shri Pahari Lal
Vill.-Govasi Kahan
P.O.-Wazir Nagar
Distt.-Sitapur (U.P.)
AND
The Divisional Railway Manager (Engineering/
Personnel)
North Eastern Railway
DRM Office, Ashok Marg
Lucknow (U.P.)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41012/39/2000/IR(B-I) dated: 07/
11-08-2000 and its subsequent corrigendum dated
12-12-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Shri Ram Sahare Lal, S/o
Shri Pahari Lal, Vill.-Govasi Kahan P.O.-Wazir Nagar Distt.-
Sitapur (U.P.) and the Divisional Railway Manager
(Engineering/Personnel). North Eastern Railway, DRM
Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow (U.P.) for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the action of the management of North
Eastern Railway in terminating the services of Ram
Sahare Lal from 16-5-1985 was legal and justified? If
not what relief the workman entitled?"
3. The case of the workman, Ram Sahare Lal, in brief is
that he was employed as casual labour/Khalasi in the
Engineering Department, Sitapur on 16.09.72 and worked
accordingly, till 15.05.85, with artificial breaks for 2228 days
in total. It is alleged by the workan that he was retrenched
w.e.f. 16.05.85 and was not allowed to work. It has been
submitted that the workman completed 151 days
continuous working on 30.04.73; but he has not been
granted temporary status as per Rule 149 of the Railway
Establishment Code. The workman has completed more
than 240 days working in the year proceeding retrenchment
even then his services have been retrenched without giving
any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof in violation to the
provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is also
alleged that the management has retrenched his services;
but has retained other juniors in service. Accordingly, the
workman has prayed that the his termination w.e.f. 16.05.85
be declared illegal and he be reinstated with full back wages.
4. The management of the railways has disputed the
claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein
it has submitted that the workman never completed 120
days so as to make him entitled for grant of temporary
status under Rules. It is further submitted that the claim of
the workman is stale one is time barred and not maintainable.
The management has pointed out directives of the Railway
Board dated 22.11.1984; whereby, it was decided that if a
casual labourer who was earlier discharged from service
on completion of work or for want of further productive
work, has not worked on the Railways again in the
preceding two complete years, his name should be struck
off the casual labour register. Accordingly, the management
has prayed that the instant claim of the management is
liable to be rejected without any relief to the workman.
5. The workman has filed rejoinder wherein apart from
reiterating the averments made by them in their statement
of claim he has introduced nothing new.
6. The parties have filed documentary proof in support
of their respective cases. The workman has examined himself
whereas the management examined Shri Rajeev Pachuri,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6609
Asstt. Divisional Engineer in support of their respective
stands. The parties availed opportunity to cross examine
the each other's witnesses apart from putting oral
arguments.
7. Heard, representatives of the parties and perused
entire evidence on records.
8. The authorized representative appearing the workman
has submitted that the workman worked with the opposite
parties for long time since his engagment, with artificial
breaks, and competed mandatory 120 days continuous
working, necessary for grant of temporary status as per
Rules; but the management has not granted the workman
temporary status. Also, it was contended that the workman
completed more than 240 days continuous working in the
year preceding his retrenchment, even then the management
did not complied with the provisions contained in the
section 25F of the Act at the time of his retrenchment. It
was also argued that the management retained many juniors
and terminated the services of the workman.
9. In rebuttal, the management representative has argued
that the workan never worked for 120 days in continuous
four months so that he could be granted temporary status;
morever it was also contended that the workman himself
deserted the workman and the claim is statle one and barred
by the limitation. It was also argued that the onus lies on
the workman to prove the continuous working of 240 days
in preceding one year of his alleged termination in order to
claim the benefits of the provisions of section 25 F of the
Act.
10. I have given my thought full consideration to the
rival contentions of the parties and gone through entire
evidence relied by them in support of their case.
11. It is the case of the workman that during his
engagement on many occasions, he continously worked
for 120 days in four consecutive months and accordingly,
he was entitled for grant of temporary status as per railways
Rules; but the management deprived him of said benefit. In
this regard he has relied on he has relied on the photocopy
of a statement showing list of casual labours who have
competed four months continuous service as on 31.3.74
under PWI, Sitaput, paper No. 5/3. The original of the same
is not available on record; nor the workman has tried to
summon the same; and the management witness in his
cross-examination denied to say anything regarding said
paper No. 5/3 being it is a management filed affidavit of
Gajendra Nath, Assistant Engineer with statement that
despite all possible efforts made from all relevant sources,
no records relating to the facts alleged in the claim
application are available except the Live Register. The
relevant extract of the same were submitted by the
management, which does not show that workman actually
worked for 120 days in four continuous months so that he
might have been granted temporary status as per Railway
Establishment Rules. Also, from the documents submitted
by the management the contents of the paper No. 5/3 could
not be verified.
12. The workman has pleaded that the management
retrenched his services without complying with the
mandatory provisions of the Section 25F, in spite of the
fact that he worked for more than 240 days continuous
working in the year preceding his retrenchment, In this
regard the settled proposition of law is that in order to
invoke benefits of provisions of section 25F of the Act, the
onus lies on the workman to prove that he actually worked
for 240 days in the preceding twelve months. In support of
his working details the workman has filed his original casual
labour card. The most of the casual labour card is illegible;
however it goes to show that the workman worked from
16.03.84 to 26.09.84 for 179 days thereafter he worked from
20.04.85 to 15.05.85 for 26 days. If these entries are taken to
be true then it comes out that the workman worked for 205
days in total from 16.03.84 to 15.05.85.
In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another V. Jethabhai
Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court
came to the conclusion that where the workman failed to
prove that he had been in employment with the employer
for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly, he not entitled to
protection in compliance of section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court
was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of
termination to decide the question of the continous service
for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
under.
"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not
produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or
wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or
engagement for that year to show that he has worked
with the employer 240 days to get the benefit under
secton 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is now
well settled that it is for the claimant to lead evidence
to show that he in fact worked for 240 days in a year
preceding his termination."
In the instant case, the workman has pleaded that the
management retrenched his services w.e.f. 16.05.85 without
observing the provisions contained in Section 25 F of the
Act. In this regard as it is evident from above case of law.
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is for the claimant
to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240
days in a year preceding his termination. Therefore, this
Tribunal has see as to whether the workman worked for
240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of his
alleged termination i.e. 16.05.85. Hence, the tenure of inquiry
before this Tribunal is confined to the period from 16.05.84
to 15.05.85 and from the documentary evidence relied on
by the workman it comes out that the workman as worked
only for 205 days in total in the duration 16.03.84 to 15.05.85.
6610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. Hence, in view of the discussions made hereinabove,
I come to the conclusion that the action of the management
of North Eastern Railway in terminating the services of the
workman, Ram Sahare Lal was neither illegal nor unjustified
as the workman could not produce any cogent evidence
about his termination on 16.05.85 or working of 240 days in
the year preceding his alleged termination. Accordingly
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
14. Award as above.
Lucknow
22nd October, 2013
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2567.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ fd èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bafM;k ds izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@11@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2011) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai 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 11/11/2013.
[No. L-12012/11/2010-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Monday, the 23rd September, 2013
Present
:
K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,
Presiding Officer
Industrial DisputeNo. 32/2011
(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between
the Management of Indian Bank and their workman).
BETWEEN
Sri M. Manoharan
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
Chief General Manager
:
2nd Party/Respondent
State Bank of India
Local Head Office
16, College Road
Chennai-600006
APPEARANCE :
For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. Vaidyanathan,
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Petitioner: M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,
Advocates
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/11/10-IR (B-1) dated
01.04.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, Local Head Office, Chennai in terminating
the services of Sri M. Manoharan w.e.f. 01.05.2008
and not reinstating and not regularizing him as full
time General Assistant, is legal and justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 32/2011 and issued notice to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their
counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement
respectively.
3. The case put forth by the First Party in his claim
statement is this:
The First Party was appointed by the Second Party
Bank as Scavenger in its Arni Branch on 20.09.1995 for a
consolidated wages of Rs. 190. Prior to that he was engaged
by the same Branch for scavenging work with
Rs. 20 a week as wages. Apart from doing scavenging work
in the morning and in the evening the FP had been fetching
water for the branch and also doing other menial work. By
letter dated 04.02.1998 the monthly consolidated wages of
the First Party was revised and raised to Rs. 450 per month,
fixing his working hours as more than 3 hours but less than
6 hours a day. Wages was again revised Rs. 740 with effect
from 01.11.1997 pursuant to 7th Bipartite Settlement dated
27.03.2000. By another revision his salary was later revised
to Rs. 1,050 per month. The First Party has requested for
upgradation of the wages to 1/3rd scale wages. Rather
than doing this the Bank has revised the consolidated wages
of the First Party from time to time, depending on the terms
of the Bipartite Settlement. The Second Party had agreed
to convert all the part time employees to the scale wages as
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6611
on 31.12.2005 and also the employees of fixed wages to full
time scale with effect from 01.04.2006. Several employees
were given full time wages also. Even though the First
Party has given a representation to convert him as a full
time employee this request was not considered favourably.
In the discussion at the Circle Bipartite Meeting held in
November 2008 the Second Party had taken a stand that
the First Party was not appointed as a part time employee
and therefore he could not be given permanent status. The
wrongful termination of the First Party by the bank is in
violation of all the awards and settlement governing the
service conditions of the staff. The petitioner had rendered
240 days of continuous service in a period of 12 calendar
months and 480 days of continuous service in a period of
less than 24 calendar months and as such he is deemed to
have attained permanent status in terms of the Tamil
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status)
Act, 1981. Since the First Party had demanded conversion
from part time to full time employment the Second Party
had asked him not to come for work from 01.05.2008. So the
First Party had raised the ID before the Conciliation Officer.
The First Party is without any employment since 30.04.2008.
The Second Party shall be directed to reinstate the petitioner
in service and convert as full time employee in terms of
circular dated 07.02.2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2001, with back wages,
continuity of service and all other benefits.
4. The Second Party has filed counter statement
contending as follows:
The ID refers to terminating the services of the First
Party when such termination was not made. There is no
post known as scavenger in the Respondent Bank; The
First Party was engaged under a contract to clean the toilet.
He was doing the work in the morning and in the evening.
The duration of such work was only 30 minutes. He was
engaged for less than 5 hours only in a week. The First
Party was not appointed against a permanent part time
post. Since he was not doing part time work the question
of converting him as full time employee did not arise. Only
part time employees employed against regular and
permanent post are entitled to conversion as full time
employees. The letters and circulars regarding such
conversion do not apply to the First Party. The initial
engagement of the First Party to the post of scavenger
itself is illegal. The Branch Manager did not comply with
the various formalities in appointing a person to the post
of casual part time workman. The First Party got
engagement through backdoor entry. The wages of the
First Party was not revised but it was enhanced from time
to time due to increase in the prices. The Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status)
Act is not applicable to the present case, as the First Party
had not worked for 480 days in a block of 24 calendar
months and also because the Act is not applicable to the
Second Party. The First Party being only a casual daily
wager did not sign the attendance register. A settlement
had been arrived at between the staff federation which is a
recognized union and the Second Party by which it was
agreed to consider the claims of the temporary employees
and for appointment of eligible candidates who were
engaged during 01.07.1975 to 31.07.1988. Two more
settlements were made subsequently. These settlements
are to the effect that vacancies arise during 1987 to 1992
should be made available to the temporary employees panel
and the vacancies arising during 1988 to 1992 should be
made available to the casual or daily wages panel. By a
subsequent settlement the panel of temporary employees
and daily wages were agreed to be kept alive upto 31.03.1997
for filling up vacancies arising upto 31.12.1994. The
settlements were not challenged till now. Appointments
were made from the waitlist and the list had lapsed on
31.03.1997 after filling up vacancies as on 31.12.1994. The
other waitlisted persons had filed Writ Petitions and these
petitions were dismissed. The First Party is not entitled to
any relief.
5. The points to be considered are:
(i) Whether the reference is bad in law?
(ii) Whether the Management is justified in
terminating the services of the First Party?
(iii) Whether the First Party is entitled to reinstatment
in service?
(iv) Whether the First Party is entitled to regularization
as full time general assistant
(v) Whether the First Party is entitled to any other
relief?
6. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence
of WW1 and WW2 and MW1 and also exhibits to Ex. W1
to Ex. W 25 and Ex. M1 to Ex. M 7.
Point No. (i)
7. The First Party has admittedly been working in the
Arni Branch of the Second Party Bank as Scavenger almost
from 1992. Ex. W2 is the copy of the order of the Branch
Manager stating that the First Party has been appointed as
scavenger on a consolidated wages of Rs. 190 per month.
The consolidated wages of the First Party seems to have
revised from time to time. At the time when he ceased to
work in the bank in May 2008 he was drawing a
consolidated wages of Rs. 1,050 per month. The case of
the First Party is that he had made a request to the Second
Party Bank to make his post permanent but rather than
making him permanent and giving him salary for the
permanent post he was turned out from work. According
to him, his demand for conversion from Part Time to Full
Time employment had caused him the job itself. He was
asked not to attend the work from 01.05.2008. The First
Party had stated that his services had been terminated
6612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
illegally and without any justification and this is why he
raised the ID.
8. The First Party as an individual workman had raised
the ID under Section-2A of the ID Act. His cause has not
been espoused by any Union.
9. The counsel for the Second Party has argued that
since the reference is under Section-2A of the Act this
Tribunal is competent to go into the question connected
with or arising out of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
termination of the employees only. According to him this
Tribunal cannot consider the question of regularization of
the First Party. According to the counsel even if the
schedule of reference includes the question of
regularization also this could not be considered by the
Tribunal. In fact, it could be seen on going through Section
2A of the Act that the right of an individual workman is
confined to only certain aspects. Section 2(A)1 states that
if any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or
otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman
any dispute or difference between the workman and his
employer connected with or arising out of such discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to
be an ID notwithstanding that no other workman or any
Union or workman is a party to the dispute. Thus it is very
clear from the Section itself that if the dispute is raised
under Section 2A of the Act it can be only one between the
workman and his employer connected with or arising out
of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination.
This matters if raised by an individual workman are deemed
to be an ID under Section 2A of the Act though it is not so
in the normal sense and was not considered so before the
amendment under Section 2A was brought in.
10. The counsel for the Second Party has referred to the
decision in Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Uttar
Pradesh and Others reported in 1957 LLJ II 1 in this respect.
Here it was held that in spite of the fact that the making of
a reference by the government under the ID Act is the
exercise of its administrative powers, that is not destructive
of the rights of an aggrieved party to show that what was
referred was not an ID at all and therefore the jursdiction of
the Industrial Tribunal to make the award can be questioned
even though the factual existence of a dispute may not be
subject to a partys' challenge. So in spite of the fact that
the question of regularization also has been referred it need
not be considered by the Tribunal, it being not an ID coming
under Section 2A of the Act.
11. So far as reference regarding reinstatement of the
employee is concerned, it is not disputed by the counsel
for the Second Party that this is a reference proper and is in
accordance with law. To this extent, the reference is not
bad. However, so far as the question of regularization of
the employee is concerned, this cannot be considered by
the Tribunal for the reason that it is not an ''Industrial
Dispute" coming under the purview of Section 2A of the
Act. The point is answered accordingly.
Point No. (iv)
12. The counsel for First Party has based his argument
on Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of
Permanent Status) Act, 1981 to advance his claim that the
First Party is entitled to regularization in service. The First
Party has stated in the claim statement that he has rendered
240 days of continuous service in a period of 12 calendar
months and 480 days of continuous service in a period of
less than 24 calendar months and as such he is deemed to
have attained permanent status in terms of Tamil Nadu
Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status)
Act, 1981. Section-3 of the said Act states that every
workman who is in continuous service for a period of 480
days in a period of 24 calendar months in an industrial
establishment shall be made permanent.
13. The counsel for the First Party has argued that the
First Party is entitled to the benefits of Section-3 of the
Act. The counsel referred to the relevant provision of the
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act 1947 and tried to
distinguish the two enactments to reinforce his case that
the benefit of Section-3 of 46 of 1981 of the Tamil Nadu Act
is available to the First Party. Section- 2(3) of 1981 Act
defines an industrial establishment by referring to those
establishments that come under the purview of the Act.
Section-2(3)(e) states that an establishment defined under
Clause-6 of Section-2 of the Shops and Establishment Act
also is an industrial establishment. The above sub-clause
of the Shops and Establishment Act refers to certain
establishments and states that the State Govt. may notify
more such establishments for the purposes of the Act.
Section-4(C) of the Shops and Establishments Act exempts
the establishments. Under the Central and State
Governments, local authorities, RBI, etc. from the purview
of the Act. Though banks other than Reserve Bank are not
referred to in this exemption, it has been held in the decision
in C.V. Raman Vs. Management of BOI and another and
other cases reported in 1988 3 SCC 105 that nationalized
banks like SBI are establishments under the Central
Government within the meaning of the exemption clause
under Section-4 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and
Establishments Act. According to the counsel for the First
Party, though this is the case the Banks will come under
the purview of the 1981 Act. It is pointed out by the counsel
that the Railway and some other establishments have been
exempted from the purview of the Act by virtue of Section-
9 of the Act and in the absence of any such exemption the
Banks will come under the Act.
14. The counsel for the Second Party has not
contradicted the argument advanced by the counsel for
the First Party that the Banks also will come under the
purview of the Tamil Nadu Act. However the counsel has
pointed that in spite of this benefit available, the First Party
will not be able to take advantage of. It is pointed out by
the counsel that this Tribunal is not competent to go into
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6613
the question of regularization at all, even assuming that
the First Party is entitled to such regularization by virtue of
Section-3 of the 1981 Act for the reason that this Tribunal
is not competent to look into the question since the
reference in this respect is bad in law. In fact the counsel
for the First Party has not validly contradicted the argument
advanced that the reference in this respect is not valid and
could not be considered. So the argument on behalf of the
Second Party against grant of benefit under Section-3 of
the 1981 Act of Tamil Nadu is to be accepted. I find that in
any case the question of regularization of the First Party
by this Tribunal does not arise at all even if it is found that
he is entitled to reinstatement in service. The point is
answered against the First Party.
Point (ii), (iii) and (v)
15. According to the First Party, since the Union and
himself have been demanding that he should be converted
from Part Time to Full Time employment w.e.f. 01.04.2006
the Second Party had told him not to come for work from
01.05.2008. The argument that is advanced by the counsel
for the First party is that the First Party has been terminated
from service without any notice to him and without
providing any compensation as provided under Section-
25G of the Act and is entitled to reinstatement into service
with regularization in service. The stand of the First Party
is that he being a part time employee is entitled to full time
employment even as per the various bipartite settlements
entered into between the worker's organizations and the
Second Party. The stand of the Second Party is that the
First Party has never worked as a part time employee and
therefore he is not entitled to the benefits.
16. It is to be seen what actually was the status of the
First Party with the Second Party at the time when he was
turned out from his job. The counsel for the First Party,
with reference to the various documents produced on either
side has argued that the First Party has been in the
employment of the Second Party on part time basis. The
trend of the argument seems to be that the First Party is
permanent part time employee, though it is not stated in as
many words in the Claim Statement itself What is stated in
the Claim Statement is that the First Party was appointed
by the Second Party on consolidated wages of Rs. 190/- at
its Arni branch on 20.09.1995. The Claim Statement does
not mention on what basis the appointment was made.
However, it is very much clear from the Claim Statement
itself that the employment of the First Party was not on any
particular scale but on fixed wages. In fact before his
appointment on consolidated wages of Rs. 190/- the First
Party was working for weekly wages of Rs. 20/- for nearly 3
years. As seen from the Claim Statement, apart from doing
the work of scavenger in the morning and in the evening
the First Party was fetching water for the branch and also
performing menial work. It is further stated in the Claim
Statement that he had requested for upgradation of wages,
from the consolidated wages to 1/3rd scale wages. As seen
from the Claim Statement itself though the branch in which
he was working had recommended upgradation of the
wages, instead of increasing the wages to 1/3rd scale of
pay the bank has chosen to revise his consolidated wages
from time to time. There is also the statement in the Claim
petition that the Second Party has once agreed to the
request of All India State Bank of India Staff Federation to
convert all the part time employees and also the employees
of fixed wages to full time scale. It could be seen from the
above references in the Claim Statement itself that the First
Party did not have a specific case at that time that he was a
permanent part time employee of the Second Party Bank.
17. Attempt has been made by the counsel for the First
Party with reference to documents, that he was holding a
permanent post, though part time, in the Bank. Ex.W1-the
very first document marked on the side of the First Party
would show that the Manager of the branch in which he is
working had made a recommendation to the Zonal Office
that the First Party be appointed as permanent part time
scavenger on a consolidated wage basis. Ex.W2 is a copy
of a communication from the branch manager to the First
Party stating that he has been appointed as scavenger on
a consolidated wages of Rs. 190/- per month. It is not known
whether the appointment was with the approval of the
Zonal Office. Ex.W3 is a further recommendation to the
Zonal Office by the Branch Manager for giving 1/3rd wages
to the First Party on account of escalation of prices. The
Asstt. General Manager of the Zonal Office, by Ex.W4 letter
has directed that consolidated wages of Rs. 440/- per month
is payable to the First Party from 20.09.1995. Thus all these
communications would show that the wages paid to the
First Party was consolidated in nature and that he was not
drawing pay based on any scale.
18. Ex.W5 is in fact an admission on the part of the First
Party to the effect that he is only a temporary employee
and not a permanent one. This is a representation made by
the First Party to the employer. In this he has described
himself as temporary part time employee. He did not claim
in this that he is a permanent part time employee Ex.W5 is
on 21.09.2001. It could be seen that at that time there was
no claim for the First Party that he was employed on
permanent basis. On the other hand he was very much
aware that he is only a temporary part time employee and
would not be entitled to the benefits available to a permanent
employee.
19. The First Party was being given bonus from time to
time, as seen from the documents produced on his side.
Ex.W6 would show that he has drawn bonus for the year
2000-2001 alongwith two other employees who too were
probably in the same position. Ex.W7 is pertaining to the
bonus paid on 29.08.2002. In this the First Party is described
as scavenger on consolidated pay while the other worker
who was given bonus alongwith him is described as part
6614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
time. This would show that the position of the First Party
was below even that of this other person mentioned in
Ex.W7. In Ex.W8 showing payment of bonus on 28.08.2003
also the First Party is described in the same manner, while
his companion is described as part time worker. In Ex.W9
showing payment of bonus on 10.08.2004 also he is
described as scavenger on consolidated pay. This is the
case with Ex.W10 and Ex.W11 also. I have referred to the
above documents extensively to show that the First Party
was all along considered as a temporary employee and not
as a permanent part time one.
20. The evidence given by the First Party also would
reveal the nature of his work. He has stated during his
cross-examination that he was working for 3-6 hours per
week and he was paid wages ranging from Rs. 190/- to Rs.
440/-. He has then stated that there was one permanent
sweeper at that time. During the absence of permanent
sweeper only he was engaged. He also stated that he was
paid by voucher. Thus, it is admitted by the First Party
during his cross- examination that he was engaged not on
a permanent part time basis, but only on temporary basis,
to work in the absence of other permanent workers.
21. The counsel for the Second Party has referred to the
decision of the Apex Court in Indian Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd reported in 2007- I-SCC-408 to point
out the distinction between a permanent and temporary
worker. As pointed out by the Apex Court a casual or
temporary employment is not an appointment to a post in
the real sense of the term. Whereas a permanent employee
has a right to the post, the temporary employee has no
right to the post. It is only a permanent employee who has
right to continue in service till the age of superannuation.
As regards the temporary employee there is no age of
superannuation because he has no right to the post at all.
The Apex Court has further observed that the person who
accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature
accepts it with open eyes and is very much aware of the
nature of his employment.
22. In fact there is nothing in evidence to show that the
First Party was employed as a permanent part time worker.
23. The counsel for the First Party has argued that in
any case Section-25F of the ID Act is not complied with
while terminating the services and therefore the worker is
entitled to all the benefits. The counsel has referred to the
decision of the Apex Court in Divisional Manager, New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sankaralingam reported in
2008-10-SCC-698 in this respect. The counsel pointed out
that the Apex Court has held in this that a workman
employed on a part time basis but under the control and
supervision of an employer is a workman in terms of Section-
2(S) of the Act and is entitled to claim protection thereof.
The counsel has also referred to the later decision of the
Apex Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehouse
Corporation reported in 2010-3-SCC-I92. Here, though the
Labour Court had found the termination unlawful and
awarded reinstatement with 50% back wages, the High Court
had substituted the award of reinstatement with payment
of compensation. The Apex Court has set aside the order
of the High Court and restored the award of the Labour
Court. The counsel had also referred to an unreported
decision of the Madras High Court ordering reinstatement
in a similar case. The counsel for the Second Party had
pointed out that the decision in Harjinder Singh's is no
longer good law. He has referred to the decision of the
Apex Court in Asstt. Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gitam Singh reported in 2013-2-LLJ-
141 (SC) in this respect. It was a case where the workman
had worked for 8 months as daily wager and was terminated
from service. The Labour Court had ordered reinstatement
with continuity in service. It was found by the Apex Court
that the award of reinstatement is not proper and
compensation would meet the ends of justice. In this case
the Apex Court had referred to Harjinder Singh's referred to
earlier also. Referring to an earlier case the Apex Court has
held that in a catena of decisions it has laid down that
although an order of retrenchment is passed in violation of
Section-25F of the ID Act an award of reinstatement should
not be passed. The Court has also observed referring to
Harjinder Singh's case that it was not the case of a daily
rated worker. It could be seen that the Apex Court has
made a distinction between a daily rated or temporary
worker and a part time worker, while considering
reinstatement.
24. The counsel for the First Party has referred to the
various Bipartite Settlements between the Second Party
and the Staff Federation regarding permanent employment
on part time employees. The Bipartite Settlements are
marked as Exs.M1 to Ex.M4. Ex.M5 is the minutes of the
conciliation proceedings between the bank and the Union.
Though the counsel for the First Party has been stating
that the Bipartite Settlements are not binding on him since
they were entered into before his employment, he has been
referring to these settlements also in support of his case.
As could be seen from the Bipartite Settlements, the Staff
Federation had been attempting to make part time employees
who were working for a long time permanent. The First
Party would not fall under the terms of the settlement and
that is why his job was not made permanent.
25. It is pointed out by the counsel for the Second Party
that even assuming that the First party is entitled to
reinstatement in service, his position on reinstatement
would be that of a temporary part time employee as he
earlier was and that his position would not improve on
reinstatement. He has pointed out that the First Party is
not willing to accept this position on reinstatement. He has
referred to the evidence of the First Party in this respect.
He has stated during his cross-examination that he is not
willing to accept the post of temporary scavenger to be
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6615
engaged against the absence of permanent scavenger. This
probably is because the First Party is even now employed
in a more beneficial manner than that of a temporary
scavenger with the Second Party Bank. In the additional
Proof Affidavit filed by him, he has stated that he is now
employed as ATM Security Guard and is getting
Rs. 2,750/- per month. So there is no question of the First
Party accepting the post of a temporary scavenger as he
was earlier.
26. The counsel for the Second Party has referred to the
decision of the Madras High Court reported in Baskar and
Others Vs. Auto Care Centre reported in 2003 1 LLJ 700. It
was held here that since the workers were not interested to
join in the original post as casual labourer, the Labour Court
has rightly rejected the claim for reinstatement. It was found
that the workers are eligible only to retrenchment
compensation. In the cases referred to earlier, the Apex
Court has awarded compensation.
27. There is the fact that the First Party has been working
as Scavenger in the Arni branch of the Second Party for
several years though only as a temporary worker. He has
been carrying out his duties properly during all these years.
He was turned out from work as his demand to be made
permanent could not be met and that also without any
notice and without any compensation. So the First Party is
entitled to compensation from the Second Party. The
amount payable as compensation is fixed as Rs.1,00,000/-.
The Second Party is directed to pay the amount within one
month failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9%
per year.
28. The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 23th September, 2013).
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/
:
W W 1, Sri M. Manoharan
Petitioner
WW2, Sri C.S. Raja
For the 2nd Party/
:
MW1, Sri S. Shanmugam
Management
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. W 1
04.07.1995
Recommendation
letter
of
the
Respondent Bank
Ex. W 2
20.09.1995
Appointment order of the petitioner
Ex. W 3
01.10.1996
Recommendation for enhancement of
wages
Ex.W 4
04.04.1998
Bank's letter enhancing petitioner's wages
Ex.W 5
21.09.2001
Representation of the petitioner
Ex.W 6
29.08.2001
Bonus paid for the accounting year
March 01
Ex.W 7
29.08.2002
Bonus paid for the accounting year
March 02
Ex.W 8
28.08.2003
Bonus paid for the accounting year
March 03
Ex.W 9
10.08.2004
Bonus paid for the accounting year
March 04
Ex.W 10
12.09.2005
Bonus paid for the accounting year
March 05
Ex.W 11
22.09.2006
Bonus paid for the accounting year
March 06
Ex.W 12
-
Arrears of wages paid to the petitioner
Ex.W 13
-
Extract of Codified Circular of the
respondent Bank
Ex.W 14
07.02.2006
Bank Circular No. PER 115-Conversion
of part time Employees to full time
Ex. W 15 21.03.2006
Representation of the petitioner with
covering letter of Branch Manager
Ex.W 16
19.05.2007
Branch Manager Letter confirming
petitioner's permanent appointment
Ex.W 17
23.10.2007
Wages paid to the petitioner on par with
each wage revision
Ex.W 18
11.01.2008
DGM letter to the HR Department
Ex.W 19
-
SBSU letter on conversion of petitioner
from part time to full time
Ex.W 20
03.03.2009
Minutes of the Bipartite settlement
Ex.W 21
-
Petition under section 2A of the ID Act
Ex.W 22
10.11.2009
Letter of the petitioner authorizing union
representative
Ex.W 23
15.10.2009
Conciliation Notice
Ex.W 24
-
Respondent management reply
Ex.W 25
-
SB account pass book and statement
Documents Marked:
On the Respondent's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex.M 1
17.11.1987
Settlement u/s 18(1) of ID Act
Ex.M 2
16.07.1988
Settlement u/s 18(1) of ID Act
Ex.M 3
27.10.1988
Settlement u/s 18(1) of ID Act
Ex.M 4
09.01.1991
Settlement u/s 18(1) of ID Act
Ex.M 5
09.06.1995
Minutes of conciliation proceedings
between the Bank and the Union on the
charter of demands/proposed strike call
by union
Ex.M 6
30.07.1996
Settlement u/s 18(1) of ID Act.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2568.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj dukZVdk fodkl
xzkeh.k cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] cSaxyksj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 93@2007 dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@26@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
6616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 93/2007 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/11/2013.
[No. L-12012/26/2007-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, YESWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE
Dated: 4th October, 2013
PRESENT
:
Shri S. N. NAVALGUND,
Presiding Officer
CR No. 93/2007
I Party
II Party
Shri Suresh B Hosamani,
The General Manager,
S/o Late Sri Buddavva,
Karnataka Vikas Grameena
C/o Sri A Y Shiraguppi
Bank, P & HRD Division,
K B Nagar,
IR Cell, Head Office,
HUBLI-580 028.
Belgaum Road,
DHARWAD-580 008.
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Shri Y. G. Muttagi,
Advocate
II Party
:
Shri B. C. Prabhakar
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/26/
2007-IR (B-I) dated 27.07.2007 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-seciton (1) and sub-seciton
(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 order of punishment imposed on Sri
Suresh B Hosamani dismissing him from the services
vide order dated 29.12.2004 of the management of
Karnataka Vikas Grameena bank is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in
CR 93/2007 when notices were issued to both the sides
the I party workman entered his appearance through
Sh. Y G Muttagi, Advocate and II Party/Management
through Sh. B C prabhakar, Advocate and claim statement
of the I party came to be filed on 09.01.2008 and the counter
statement of the II Party on 19.05.2010.
3. In the claim statement filed by the I Party it is
contended that after issuing the charge sheet he told that
he has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the
charge sheet but the officials of the management did not
accept the reply which was prepared and forced him to
give the reply as per dictation given by them assuring that
no action will be taken and that he was not supplied with
the list of documents and list of witnesses and though he
requested to conduct the enquiry in the Kannada Language
it was not conducted in kannada language and that he was
not explained with the procedure of the enquiry and that
he was not provided with sufficient opportunity to cross-
examine the management witnesses and give his evidence
and that the enquiry finding is perverse. Interalia in the
counter statement filed by the II party while denying the
allegations that reply to the charge sheet was taken to the
dictation of the management officials contending that he
has given voluntarily the reply admitting the charges and
that he was provided with opportunity to cross-examine
the management witnesses and also to lead evidence which
was not availed by him and the enquiry Officer considering
the evidence placed before him having given report the
charge being proved there is no reason to interfere either
in the Domestic Enquiry or the finding of the Enquiry officer
as well as the punishment imposed which is appropriate
against the misconduct proved against him.
4. Having regard to the allegations in the claim statement
touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry while framing
the Preliminary Issue as to
"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the
I "Party by the II Party is fair and proper?"
after receiving the evidence adduced by the management
through the Enquiry officer and exhibiting Ex M-1 to
Ex M-26, after affording the opportunity to cross-examine
him since same was not availed dispensing with his cross-
examination and providing further opportunity to lead
rebuttal evidence when that was also not availed having
regard to the evidence of the Enquiry Officer and the
documents exhibited in the evidence on preliminary Issue,
the Preliminary Issue came to be answered in the affirmative
on 28.04.2011 i.e., the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the
II Party against the I Party being fair and proper.
5. After holding the Domestic Enquiry fair and proper
though several opportunities were given to the I Party and
his counsel to address arguments to demonstrate the
Enquiry finding being perverse or the punishment imposed
is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against him
the same was being not availed the aruguments addressed
by the learned advocate appearing for the II party were
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6617
heard who supported the enquiry finding as well as the
punishment imposed.
6. The I Party while working as Cleark cum Cashier at
Sullia Branch of the II party by Order dated 26.05.2003/Ex
M-1 kept under suspension and after he submitted a letter
dated 25.06.2003/Ex M-2 admitting that on 26.05.2003 he
did misappropriated a sum of Rs. 59500.00 and has credited
out of it Rs. 56150.00 to the concerned account he was
served with charge sheet dated 31.07.2003/Ex M-3 as under:
"CHARGE SHEET
Whereas you have been placed under Suspension vide
order bearing reference No.MGB-HQ/IRD/890/2003 dated
24.05.2003 for the alleged acts of misappropriation of Bank's
funds etc.
Whereas the undersigned is empowered to initiate
disciplinary action and conduct departmental enquiry under
Regulation No. 38 of Netravati Grameena Bank (Officers &
Employees) Service Regulation, 2001.
Whereas it is proposed to hold an Enquiry against you
under Regulation No. 38 of Netravati Grameena Bank
(Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2001 in the
matter of alleged misconduct of misappropriation of Bank's
funds etc.
Whereas the Articles of Charges and Statement of
Imputations of misconduct in respect of which the enquiry
is proposed to be held are mentioned here below:
ARTICLES OF CHARGES
That you were functioning as Cleark-cum-Cashier at
our sullia branch since 14.05.2002 and while functioning in
your position as such, you misappropriated Bank's funds
amounting to Rs. 63,150/- by resorting to misdeeds of
fraudulent nature more fully detailed here below in the
Statement of Imputation of Misconduct:
By your above acts, you have failed to serve the Bank
honestly and faithfully and also failed to use your utmost
endeavour to promote the interest of the Bank which
constitute breach of Service Regulations under the
provisions of Regulation No. 17 and 19 read with regulation
No. 38 of Netravati Gramenna Bank (Officers & Employees)
Services Regulations, 2001.
Now therefore, you are hereby directed to submit your
written statement of defense, if any, within 15 days of receipt
of this charge-sheet showing cause as to why regular
departmental action should not be taken against you.
Statement of Imputations of Misconduct
I. You were functioning as clerk-cum-cashier at Sullia
branch since 14.05.2002 and while functioning in your
position as such, you misappropriated Bank's funds by
resorting to misdeeds of fraudulent nature as under:
(i) By not accounting in the Books of the bank and
by not releasing the cash vouchers in respect of
cash deposited by the customers:
Whenever the customers of the Bank tendered cash at
the cash counter along with the cash voucher, you used to
accept the cash and make entry in the pass book and/or
ledger sheet and dispose off the customers. You never
used to record in the cashier's scroll and never made entry
in the concerned deposit or loan ledgers, day book etc.
and never used to release the cash vouchers and
misappropriated the amount in such cases. The details of
the account in respect of which you have misappropriated
the cash by not accounting and releasing the cash vouchers
are as under:
Sl. Name of the
Date of
Type of
Amount tendered
No. Account holder
Deposit
account &
at the cash
of cash
A/c. No.
counter &
misappro-
priated
1
2
3
4
5
1. Smt Neelavathi
21.10.2002
SB-165
Rs. 2500
2. Sri ishwar Kumar
14.05.2003
Mangala
Rs. 2000
Bhat
Deposit-
107
3. Sri Thirthrama
05.02.2003
SB-71
Rs. 7900
AV
4. Sri Keshava
14.12.2002
SB-563
Rs. 3000
Kekunnaya
5. Sri N. Seetharama 25.01.2003
SB-927
Rs. 2000
6. Sri Yashawantha
10.04.2003
SB-952
Rs. 2500
GB
7. Sri A V Harish
09.11.2002
SB-911
Rs. 1500
Kumar
8. Sri Sadananda
17.10.2002
SB-602
Rs. 1000
Nayak
9. Sri B Venkappa
28.10.2002
SB-844
Rs. 4500
Gowda
10. Sri Suresh Kumar
09.09.2002
SB-316
Rs. 6000
11.09.2002
SB-316
Rs. 1500
11. Sri Poppy Johny
29.08.2002
SB-213
Rs. 2000
12. Smt Kamala
16.11.2002
SB-264
Rs.3750
13. Sri Santosh
24.12.2002
SB-974
Rs. 2000
Kumar EN
14. Smt Sheelavathi
03.03.2003
SB-518
Rs. 2000
15. Smt K K Pramoda 24.03.2003
SB-348
Rs. 1000
16. Sri H Shashidhar
16.05.2003
Loan RT
Rs. 1000
Rao
11/03
6618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The following circumstances appear against you in the
above transactions:
1. Cash vouchers in respect of cash deposited by the
customers are not available in the branch and not accounted
in cash book and Day book whereas counterfoils issued
by you to customers, pass book entries show that you had
received said amounts. As such you had destroyed/caused
destruction of relevant credit vouchers/Bank's records and
misappropriated the cash deposited by the customers of
the Bank.
2. As and when the account holders came to the branch
subsequently along with the Pass Book it came to lights
that you have misappropriated the Bank's funds and not
released the relevant such vouchers but did only the entries
in the Pass Book for having received the cash, thereby
failed to account for in the Books of Account.
3. When the said acts came to light you have on your
own credited back to the respective accounts the amount
so misappropriated, the details of which are as under:
Sl. Type of A/c
Name of the
Amt. tendered Credited
No. & A/c. No.
account
at the cach
on
holder
counter &
misappapro-
pirated
1. SB-165
Smt. Neelavathi
Rs. 2500
25.6.03
2. Mangala
Sri Ishwar Kumar Bhat
Rs. 2000
25.6.03
Deposit-107
3. SB-71
Sri Thirthrama AV
Rs. 7900
25.6.03
4. SB-563
Sri Keshava Kekunnaya
Rs. 3000
26.6.03
5. SB-927
Sri N Seetharama
Rs. 2000
26.6.03
6. SB-952
Sri Yashawantha GB
Rs. 2500
25.6.03
7. SB-911
Sri A V Harish Kumar
Rs. 1500
25.6.03
8. SB-602
Sri Sadananda Nayak
Rs. 1000
26.6.03
9. SB-844
Sri B Venkappa Gowda
Rs. 4500
25.6.03
10. SB-316
Sri Suresh Kumar
Rs. 6000
25.6.03
SB-316
Rs. 1500
11. SB-213
Sri Poppy Johny
Rs. 2000
25.6.03
12. SB-264
Smt. Kamala
Rs. 3750
25.6.03
13. SB-974
Sri Santosh
Rs. 2000
25.6.03
Kumar E N
14. SB-518
Smt. Sheelavathi
Rs. 2000
25.6.03
15. SB-348
Smt. K K Pramoda
Rs. 1000
25.6.03
16. Loan RT
Sri H Shashidhar Rao
Rs. 1000
21.7.03
11/03
4. You have not entered in the prescribed Cashier's
Scroll, the receipt of cash in respect of any of the above
cash transactions and consequently it has not been recorded
in the Day Book and also not accounted in the Bank, the
transaction on the respective dates. Whereas Credit entries
have been made in the ledger sheets in respect of above 3
to 15 dealings referred above. The transactions under Sl.
No. 1, 2 and 16 were not entered in the ledger. SB balancing
has been tallied by taking fictitious page total in order to
conceal the misappropriation.
From the above circumstance appearing against you , it
has come to light that you have misappropriated Bank's
funds by resorting to misdeeds of fraudulent nature.
II. In respect of following accounts you have released
the cash receipt vouchers for amounts lessor than the
amount actually deposited by the customer but at the same
time made entries in the Pass Book for the actual amount of
cash deposited by the customers, thereby misappropriated
part of the amount deposited into the Bank.
Sl. Name of the A/c
Date of
Type of Amount tender-
No. Holder
deposit
account
ed at the cash
of cash & A/c No.
counter
1
2
3
4
5
1. Sri A V Harish Kumar
15.10.02
SB-911
7000
2. Sri Ramkrishna Bhat
09.04.03
SB-43
20000
3. Sri Janardhana Kathyal
11.04.03
SB-601
15000
Amount acctu-
Amount
Date of recredit
Amount
ally credited
misappropriated
recredited
to account
6.
7.
8.
9.
5000
2000
25.6.03
2000
10000
10000
25.6.03
10000
10000
5000
25.6.03
5000
The following circumstance appear against you:
1. The Ledger entries in respect of (1) and (3) above
appears to have been altered subsequently to a lesser
amount.
2. The Credit slips of lesser amount were prepared by
you and entered in cash book and day book. The original
credit slips are not available in the Bank.
3. You have destroyed/caused destruction of credit
vouchers/Bank's records. Amount so entered in the ledger
sheet has not been accounted in cash scroll/day book and
SB balancing has been tallied by taking fictitious page
totals in order to conceal the misappropriation.
4. On verification of pass books produced by the
customers, subsequently, it came to light that you have
misappropriated the bank's funds by not crediting the actual
amount tendered by the customers on the same day.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6619
5. When the irregularity came to light you have on your
own credited back the amount on 25.6.2003 to the Cash
Misappropriation on Account which in turn credited to the
respective accounts.
In the above circumstances it is indicative that you have
misappropriated the Bank's funds.
III. You have vide letter dated 25.6.2003 addressed to
the Branch Manager of Sullia Branch admitted that you
have credited Rs. 59, 500/- to Cash misappropriation
account out of which Rs. 56,150/- has been appropriated to
different accounts of customers. You have also undertaken
to reimburse the amount to the Bank, if found
misappropriated by you in future.
The above circumstances go to show that you have
misappropriated banks funds, resorted to falsification of
records, destroyed/caused destruction of credit vouchers/
Banks records.
IV. You above acts have resulted in the Bank being
deprived of legitimate interest income which the Bank would
have otherwise earned by beneficial deployment of funds.
V. By your above acts, account holders have suffered
loss of interest in accounts which the Bank is obliged to
make good to them.
VI. Fair name and image of the Bank is tarnished due to
your above Acts.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.
C.C. To: The Branch Manager, Sullia branch-Please
arrange to deliver original of this charge sheet to the
employee against his acknowledgement. If he does not
turn up at the branch; you may send the same to his last
known residential address by Registered Post
Acknowledgement Due. Please confirm the date of postal
delivery of the Charge Sheet to the employee, at the earliest.
Sd/-
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY"
7. The Enquiry Officer after observing the formalities of
the Preliminary hearing and receiving the evidence of Sri
Ramachandra Naik, Sri K. Ramakrishna Bhat, Smt.
Neelavathi, Sri Shashidhara H and Sri Ramakrishnan Rao K
for the Management as MWs 1 to 5 and exhibiting MEx 1
to MEx 136 when the I Party submitted that he has no
evidence after affording opportunity to file return
submissions submitted his finding dated 10.09.2004/Ex M-
16 holding all the six charges being proved. Thereafter the
Disciplinary Authority while issuing second show cause
notice affording opportunity of hearing imposed the
punishment of dismissal by his Order dated 29.12.2004/Ex
M-24 and same came to be affirmed by Appellate Authority
on the appeal preferred by the I Party by his order dated
24.02.2006/Ex M-26.
8. It is borne out from the records that on II Party placed
the I Party under suspension by order dated 26.05.2003 the
I party has given letter admitting the misapproporiation of
Rs. 59,500.00 and making good a sum of Rs. 56,150.00 by
crediting it to the concerned account a detailed charge
sheet was served on him as per Ex M-3 and there also by a
letter in his own handwriting/Ex M-6 he admitted the
charges levelled against him. Inspite of it the Enquiry Officer
while receiving the evidence of Sri Ramachandra Naik, Shri
K Ramakrishna Bhat, Smt. Neelavathi, Sri Shashidhara H
and Sri Ramakrishnan Rao K and M Ex-1 to M Ex-136 after
receiving the written submissions of both the sides
submitted his detailed enquiry finding on 10.09.2004. Prima
Facie, in view of the clear cut admissions made by I Party
through letters in his own handwriting exhibited as Ex M-2
and Ex M-6 further corroborated by the evidence of the
management witnesses the Enquiry Officer did not commit
any error in holding the charges being proved. When the
Domestic Enquiry is held fair and proper and the allegations
of the I Party that the reply to the suspension order and the
Charge sheet was managed to be taken by the officials of
the II party being not proved and the Domesitc Enquiry
issue came to be answered in favour of the management it
was for the I Party to demonstrate how the enquiry finding
is perverse and not acceptable. As already adverted to by
me above inspite of providing sufficient opportunity to
address arguments on the perversity of the enquiry finding
or the punishment imposed being disproportionate to the
misconduct proved same being not availed, I have no
reasons to say that the enquiry finding is perverse or the
punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct
of misappropriation by the I Party. Under the circumstances,
I have arrived at conclusion there being no reason to
interfere either in the enquiry finding or the punishment
imposed for the misconduct of misappropriation proved
against the I party. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
The reference is Rejected holding the order of
punishment imposed on Sri Suresh B Hosamani
dismissing him from the services vide order dated
29.12.2004 of the management of Karnataka Vikas
Grameena Bank is legel and justified and that he is
not entitle for any relief.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 4th October, 2013)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
6620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2569.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj 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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 69@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@41@2012&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 69/2012) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Northern Railway, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L-41011/41/2012-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
Dr. MANJU NIGAM,
Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 69/2012
Ref. No. L-41011/41/2012-IR(B-I) dated: 21.08.2012
BETWEEN
The President
RMU
C/o Hemraj Sharma
H.No. 570/66, Gopalpuri
Alambagh
Lucknow.
(Espousing cause of Amrit Lal & 25 others)
AND
1. The Divisional Railway Manager
Northern Railway
DRM Office
Hazratganj
Lucknow.
2. The General Manager
Northern Railway
Baroda House
New Delhi.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/41/2012-IR(B-I) dated 21.08.2012
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between the President, RMU, C/o Hemraj
Sharma, H.No. 570/66, Gopalpuri, Alambagh, Lucknow and
the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, DRM
Office, Hazratganj, Lucknow & the General Manager,
Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi for
adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the demand of the Union for appointment
of Shri Amrit Lal S/o Shri Chandra Pal and 25 others
(list enclosed) who have worked as sub-station
porters, is legal and justified? To what relief the union/
workman are entitled?"
3. The order of reference was endorsed to the President,
RMU, C/o Hemraj Sharma, H.No. 570/66, Gopalpuri,
Alambagh, Lucknow with direction to the party raising the
dispute to filed the statement of claim along with relevant
documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal
within fifteen days of the receipt of the order of reference
and also forward a copy of such a statement to each one of
the opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10
(B) of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957.
4. The order of reference was registered in the Tribunal
on 11.09.2012 and the office was directed to issue registered
notice to the workman' union for filing the statement of
claim with list of reliance & list of witnesses on 11.10.2012;
but no statement of claim together with documents etc.
was filed on 11.10.2012, in spite of registered notice dated
17.09.2012; and the next date 08.11.2012 was fixed for further
order. On 16.11.2012 the management filed its authority in
favour of Shri U.K. Bajpai, Advocate, which was taken on
record. On the date fixed i.e.on 08.11.2012, none turned up
from union. Likewise, the union kept itself absent on
14.01.2012, 30.01.2013, 20.03.2013, 07.05.2013, 08.07.2013 and
06.09. 2013. The union did not move any application or
adjuournment seeking time to file the statement of claim.
More than a year's time has passed and the woman's union
has failed to file its statement of claim, therefore, the case
was reserved for award keeping in view the reluctance of
the workman's union to contest the case.
6. In the above circumstances, it appears that the
workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on the
basis of which it has raised the present industrial dispute;
therefore, the present reference order is decided as if there
is no grievance left with the workmen's union. Resultantly
no relief is required to be given to the workmen concerned.
The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6621
8. Award as above.
LUCKNOW.
09th September, 2013.
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2570.—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@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 80@88½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@46@86&Mh&2 ¼ch½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/88) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of South East Railway, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L-41012/46/86-D-2(B)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/80/88
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri L. Ramulu,
Truck Khalasi,
Railway Qr. No. 11/13-B,
Kirandul, PO Kirandul,
Distt. Bastar
Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
S.E. Railway,
Waltair Division,
PO Waltair,
Distt. Vizag (AP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 9th day of July, 2013
1. As per letter dated 22-7-80 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/
46/86-D-2(B). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the demand of Ramulu, Truck Khalasi
working under PWI, Kirandul, S.E. Railway is legal
and whether he be granted permission to resume
duties. 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.
The case of Ist party is that he was employee of S.E.
Railway, Waltair division, he was posted as Truck Kahalasi
in Inspector of works, Kirandul. That he was permanent
employee and was confirmed. He was discharging duties
to the satisfaction of his superiors. That he was active
member of Union. Mr. M.N. Nair was Secretary of the Union
called S.E. Railway Mens Congress, Branch Kirandul. That
workman was member of another Union. That Mr. Nair was
annoyed with applicant and implicated in false charges to
take revenge. It was alleged that on 21-1-83, when IOW
Mr. Nair was trollying between BCHL-BHNS for inspection,
it was noticed that Ramalu was going for duty very late. In
question by him, he arrogantly replied to him asking him to
go back to headquarters. The workman was called to attend
his office on 21-1-83 at Kirandul. When the workman entered
chamber of Mr. Nair, he was abused in filthy language.
Workman claims that he was going for duty and he has not
abused anybody. Workman was immediately suspended
by Mr. Nair and confirmation of suspension order was got
from Asstt. Engineer.
3. The order of suspension was issued on 22-1-83. The
workman was under suspension till 17-2-83 for period of 25
days. The management conspired and claimed that
workman had submitted resignation in duplicate with a
view that his resignation should be accepted. Workman
challenges the action of management preparing of a false
resignation letter of workman for victimizing him. The
documents were fabricated causing harm to the workman.
It is submitted that in pursuance of acceptance of
resignation, workman was not allowed to attend duties.
His claim that the thumb impression of workman was
obtained under the pretext that the application for leave
was to be written on blank paper in which his thumb mark
was obtained. That his repeated request were not paid any
attention. He was also allowed to join duty, no enquiry was
conducted against him. Workman has not submitted
resignation. Management also committed act of
victimization. That his services cannot be terminated
without notice or holding Departmental Enquiry. That his
competent authority is DRM. IOW or Asstt. Engineer have
no right to suspend him. That false case was prepared
against him as Mr. Nair was annoyed from the workman.
That Mr. Nair IOW or Asstt. Engineer cannot issue
chargesheet. They have no authority to issue suspension
order. The resignation was obtained from workman
6622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fabricating the document bearing his thumb impression.
The resignation was illegally accepted by the competent
authority. Suspension order was also revoked by
incompetent authority. However he was not allowed to
resume duty. On such ground, workman prays that action
of management of IInd party is not justified. He may be
reinstated with full back wages.
4. IInd party management filed Written Statement at Page
4/1 to 4/8. All material contentions of workman about
fabricating case by IOW Mr. Nair. The fabrication of
documents and conspiracy by Nair with Asstt. Engineer
are denied. It is submitted that the workman on enquiry by
IOW Mr. Nair arrogantly replied. It is denied that Mr. Nair
asked him to go back to headquarter Kirandul and attend
office on 22-1-83. The workman on entering the chamber of
IOW, started shouting in filthy language with Mr. Nair.
Management contents that the charges were correct.
Workman had abused and threatened to kill Mr. Nair after
entering in his office. The workman was suspended on
22-1-83. Chargesheet was issued to him. Workman
submitted resignation on 8-2-83. His resignation was
accepted. The suspension order was revoked, the orders
were passed by Competent Authority. The powers were
delegated to Asstt. Engineer under discipline and Appleal
Rules. IInd party submits that workman's contention that
Mr. Nair was secretary of S.E. Railway Mens Congress has
denied. According to management, Mr. Nair was working
as IOW. He has taken action as per rules, not as a Secretary
of Union of Railway Mens Congress. The action taken by
management is proper and legal as workman was suspended.
He has submitted resignation, resignation was accepted.
Workman is not entitled to any of the relief prayed by him.
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 demand of
In Affirmative
Ramulu, Truck Khalasi
working under PWI,
Kirandul, S.E. Railway is
legal?
(ii) Whether permission
Workman is entitled for
should be granted to
reinstatement with 50%
him for resuming his
back wages
duty.
(iii) If so, to what relief the As per final order
workman is entitled to?''
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging act of management is passing
the order of his suspension accepting resignation,
revocation of suspension and not allowing to resume duties.
In his evidence, workman stated that he was working under
IOW Mr. Nair. While returning from duty on 21-1-83, around
10 AM, Mr. Nair had asked him to attend his office on next
day. Mr. Nair developed enemity out of the rival Union and
therefore workman was falsely suspended. The order of
suspension, acceptance of resignation and revocation of
suspension were issued by the Competent Authority. All
other allegation of workman are denied by management of
IInd party. Workman filed affidavit of evidence. He has
stated in his affidavit that he was appointed as helper in
1970. In September 1970, he was regularized on the post of
Truck Khalasi. He was posted in office of IOW Kirandul.
On 21-1-83 morning, he was returning from duty from
Bacheli. That Mr. Nair was Secretary of the other Union
and developed enemity with him. At his instance, he was
falsely implicated. Order of suspension was issued to him.
When he attended office on 22-1-83, Mr. Nair obtained his
thumb mark and prepared letter of his resignation, the order
of suspension was revoked on same day misusing the paper
on which his thumb impression was obtained. In his cross-
examination, workman says that he was scolded by
Mr. Nair. That he had not abused Mr. Nair, the order of
suspension was issued by incompetent authority. That he
had not submitted resignation but his thumb mark was
obtained. That he had not asked for immediate acceptance
of his resignation.
7. Management examined Mr. Nair to substantiate his
claim. Mr. Nair has deposed most of the facts covered in
Written Statement filed by management. He denied that he
called him to his office at Kirandul. That the workman had
admitted that he was late in duty and committed mistake. It
was the IInd time such incident occurred. That workman
Ramulu was abusing in indescent language and threatening
him. He denied allegations that the order of suspension,
revocation were not issued by competent person. He further
says that workman himself had submitted application for
accepting his resignation. In his cross-examination all
points of suggestion to the witness are denied by him.
However he admits that chargesheet was not issued to
workman, no Department enquiry was held.
8. The perusal of document Exhibit R-1 is submission of
resignation is written in English. It bears thumb mark of
workman. Application was submitted on 8-2-83. It was
accepted on the same day. It also bears endorsement that
the application forwarded to Asstt. Engineer. However
without waiting for approval, resignation was accepted on
same day. The evidence in cross-examination of
management's witness shows that no entry of application
is taken in inward register while forwarding to the office of
Asstt. Engineer. Document R-4 is letter from office of Asstt.
Engineer that the resignation was accepted on the same
day. However no outward number is given on the said
document. There is no evidence as to who had written
application for submitting resignation by workman. Such
person is not examined who had obtained thumb marks on
application. No evidence is adduced by management. As
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6623
the workman is illiterate his thumb mark was obtained.
Without such application, it cannot be said that the
workman had submitted his resignation. There appears
from office of IInd party without examining genuineness
of resignation, were accepted on same day, no statutory
provision was made. Therefore the so called resignation
from service of workman cannot be said legal. As per
evidence on record, workman has not received any
notice, no chargesheet was issued to him, enquiry was
not conducted against him but workman was not allowed
to resume duty. It amounts to illegal retrenchment in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons,
I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
9. Point No. 2 & 3 — In view of my finding on Point
No.1 that the services of workman are illegally terminated
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, question arises
as to what relief workman is entitled. Workman is out of
service since 8-2-83 for period of more than 20 years.
The age of workman shown as 51 years in affidavit of
evidence filed on December-94. No evidence is adduced
on record by management that workman was not
gainfully employed. Considering evidence on record, in
my considered view, reinstatement of workman with 50%
back wages would be appropriate and meet the ends of
justice. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No.
2 & 3.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
1. The action of IInd party management in not
allowing the workman Ramulu on duty amounts
to retrenchment in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. It is illegal.
2. IInd party management is directed to reinstate
workman with 50% back wages.
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 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2571.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flVh 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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 49@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@11@88&Mh&4¼,½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2002) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of City Bank, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L-12011/11/88-D-4(A)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Dr. Manju Nigam, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 49/2002
Ref. No. L-12011/11/88-D-4(A) dated: 12.10.1988
BETWEEN :
Mahasachiv
City Bank Staff Association,
3, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi
AND
Vice President,
City Bank (NA),
3, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi
AWARD
1. By order No. L-12011/11/88-D-4 (A) dated: 12.10.1988
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Mahasachiv, City Bank Staff
Association, 3, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and Vice President,
City Bank (NA), 3, Sansad Marg, New Delhi for
adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
''Whether the action of the management of City Bank
in engaging Shri M.A. Khan and 15 Others in the
prohibited category of watching and cleaning as
contract labour and denying them regularization is
justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned
workmen entitled''.
3. The case of the workmen's union, in brief, is that all
the sixteen workmen under reference are working with the
opposite party as contract labour which is totally in violation
6624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, which deals with the
prohibition of employment of Contract Labour in certain
categories of employment. It has further been submitted
by the union that the workmen are engaged as watch &
ward staff/Armed Guards and cleaners and sweepers and
had been discharging all the duties of regular employees
as they have been working in their position but they are
termed as contract labour for the purpose of salary without
any benefit, such as P.F.,Leave etc. The union has submitted
that neither the management is registered as Principal
Employer nor the Contacts are duly licensed under the
Contract Labour Act, therefore, the workmen are deemed
to be the employees of the Bank and are entitled to wages
and other benefits as per Bipartite Settlement. It is also
submitted that the management is taking work of watch &
ward/armed guards in the Bank premises through M/s. Vigil
Services Pvt. Ltd. Similarly the work of cleaning and
sweeping was done through a contractor viz. M/s. Lion
Carpet and Cleaning Co. The workman's union has alleged
that engagement of workman as contract labour, in violation
to the provisions contained in Contract Labour Act, is unfair
labour practice as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Accordingly, the workmen's union has prayed that the
workmen employed though Labour Contract be given all
the benefits as that of the regular employee from the date
of their initial appointment and the management be directed
to regularize all the workmen under reference.
4. The management of the City Bank has denied the
allegations of the workman's union and has submitted that
at present there are three full time sweepers-cum-cleaners,
who could not maintain adequate standard of efficiency
and therefore, the management has to hire the services of a
professional firm of cleaners viz. Lion Carpet Clearing
Company who in addition to specialized work of
disinfestations and disinfection of the Bank premises which
the whole time sweepers-cum-cleaners could never do, did
specialized cleaning of carpets, upholstery, furniture etc. It
is further submitted that due to security threats from
terrorist, the Bank had to avail services of professional
security services though some contractor viz. Vigil Services
Private Limited. The management has denied that there is
any relationship of employee and employer between the
workmen and the management as alleged. It has further
been submitted by the management that the question of
payment of wages was not within the competence of the
management since the persons concerned were not its
employee and they have always, looked all along to their
own employers for payment of their wages. Moreover, it
was also a condition with the contracting company that
anything done by their employees would not constitute
any relationship of employer and employee between the
management of the bank and the workmen. It has also been
submitted by the management that the Bank notified some
vacancies which were open to all including workmen under
reference to apply for said posts. Accordingly the
management has prayed that the claim of the workman's
union be rejected out rightly as devoid of any merit.
5. The workman's union has field its rejoinder wherein it
has stated nothing new apart from resubmitting the
averment already made.
6. The parties submitted documentary as well as oral
evidence in support of their case. The workman's union
has examined its General Secretary, Jag Mohan Riyal;
whereas the management examined Shri Rahul Sharma,
Manager (HR) in support of their case. The authorized
representative of the management argued its case whereas
the workman's union refrained from arguing their case.
When the workman's union did not turn up for long, the
case was reserved for award, keeping in view the long
pendency of case since year 2002 before this Tribunal and
reluctance of the workman's union to contest their case.
7. Heard authorized representative of the management
and perused entire evidence on record.
8. The workman's union has come up with a case that
the management had engaged workmen through
contractor/agency to deprive the workmen of wages, PF
and leave etc.; and this act of the management is in violation
to the provisions contained in the Contract Labour Act. It
was further argued that the workmen be treated employees
of the Bank as the agencies supplying the labourers did
not have any license for the same and also that there was
no valid contract between the management and the agencies
for supply of the labourers.
The workman's union had examined Shri Jag Mohan
Riyal, General Secretary of the union who has stated in his
examination-in-chief that eight workmen were employed as
watch and ward Armed Guards through contractor
viz. M/s. Vigil Services Pvt. Ltd. and the remaining eight
were employed as cleaner-cum-sweepers though another
contactor viz. M/s. Lion Carpet and Cleaning. It was further
stated that the duties were assigned to these workmen by
the officer of the Bank and were also supervised by them.
However, the payments of wages were made through the
Contractors. It was further stated that none of the workmen
were given any notice of termination, retrenchment
compensation in lieu of notice in violation to the provisions
contained in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act.
9. In rebuttal the management has taken the plea that
the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations and
Abolition) Act 1970 do not apply to the establishment of
the bank at New Delhi. Moreover, it has been submitted
that there is no relationship of employer and employee
between the management of the Bank and the workmen
under dispute. In fact they are the employees of the agencies
sponsoring them to carry out certain specialized work that
cannot be done by the regular employees. The management
has contended that the workmen not being employee of he
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6625
Bank are not entitled for seeking regularization into the
Bank services. Moreover, it has take plea that the union
has no locus standi to espouse the cause of workmen as
they are not permanent members of the union.
The management examined Shri Rahul Sharma, Manager
(HR) who stated that the bank had in its employement
regular sweeper-cum-cleaners for carrying out the routine
sweeping and cleaning jobs. Moreover, to carry out the
specialized cleaning of the carpets, upholstery, furniture
etc. and for carrying out disinfection of the bank premises
the bank had to hire the services of professional firm of
cleaners viz. M/s. Lion Cleaning Co. It was further stated
that consequent to bomb blast the bank had to hire services
of trained guards from an agency viz. Vigil Services.
12. I have gone through entire evidence available on
record and have given my thoughtful consideration to the
pleadings of the either parties.
13. In the instant case, the management has taken a
preliminary objection that the representative workmen's
union has no locus standi to contest the present case on
behalf of the workman. It has pleaded that the workmen are
being supplied by some agency and they are not the
permanent members of the union, therefore, their cause
cannot be espoused by a union which does not have
workmen in their member's list. The union has opposed the
submissions made by the management. It was submitted
that a resolution was passed to represent the case of these
contract labour and accordingly, the union is contesting
the case. But the union has not filed any copy of resolution
before this Tribunal; besides the affidavit of the Secretary
to the union. Under the circumstances, there appears no
merit in the submission of the workmen's union, even then,
I do not consider appropriate to disposed of the case on
this ground alone at such belated stage. Hence, I am inclined
to decide the same on merits.
14. While entering into the merit of the case, in nut shell,
it comes out that as many as 08 workmen were engaged by
the Bank to carry out some specialized cleaning work; and
other 08 workmen for watch and ward services. The
workmen were hired from two different agencies viz.
M/s. Lion Cleaning Co. and M/s. Vigil Services (P) Ltd.
Respectively. It is alleged by the union that the management
of the Bank engaged the workman in prohibited category,
in violation to the Contract Labour (Abolition and
Regulation) Act, 1970 and after taking services of the
workman for long the management has terminated their
services. It has also been pleaded that the management
after disengaging the workmen has engaged some new
persons in their place. Apart from pleadings and the solitary
oral evidence of the Secretary of the union, the workmen
has neither produced any documentary evidence like
attendance register, pay slip etc. to substantiate their
contention that he actually worked with the management.
In 2006 (108) FLR R.M. Yellatti & Asstt. Executive
Engineer Hon'ble Apex court has observed that initial
burden of proof to substantiate its pleadings through
cogent evidence, lies upon the workman.
The documents available on record i.e. identity card
and attendance sheet shows that they were employees of
the agency viz. M/s Vigil Services (P) Ltd. As the identity
cards were issued by the M/s Vigil Services (P) Ltd. And
the attendance sheets also pertain to the same agency.
The union has not filed any documents nor has produced
any of the workmen to substantiate its averments nor has
tried to summon relevant documents such as vouchers
making payments and salary slip or attendance register if
they were employee of the Bank.
15. The argument of the workmen's union that the
workmen were employees of the Bank is based on the fact
that the Bank did not obtain any registration from the
concerned Department nor the contractors had any license
for the employing the employees. Therefore, they may be
deemed to be the employees of the Bank and may be
considered for regularization in the services. Though there
is there is an admission from the Bank about non-availability
of registration etc.; but since the workmen's union has
failed to discharge its burden through reliable evidence
that they are the employees of the Bank by filing
appointment letter, payment slips, which they were required
to prove, therefore, they are not supposed to take the
advantage of the omissions of the opposite party. The law
requires that it is the employee who has first to establish
its case through reliable evidence. Here it is pertinent to
mention that the women's union has neither produced any
documents relating to their services in the Bank nor the
same were summoned from Bank if they were not in their
possession. None of the workmen has entered the witness
box to substantiate this fact that they were the employees
of the Bank; all the more there is an admission on behalf of
the workmen's union that they were contact labourers. The
documents filed by the union do not establish that they
were employees of the bank rather it make contrary
indication that they were employees of the supplier agency.
Besides the union has also not pleaded that the workmen
were engaged/appointed following due procedure of law.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and
others vs. Uma Devi and others 2006 (109) FLR 826 has
observed that "all ad-hoc, temporary or casual employees
engaged without following regular procedure should not
be made permanent"; and it further observed that the "State
could not invoke its power under Article 162 to regularize
appointments made in contravention of mandatory
provisions."
20. Even for the argument sake, if it is considered that
the workman had worked with the management of the City
Bank and due to non-existence of any valid contract
between the management and contactor supplying the
labourers, they may be deemed as the employee of the
6626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bank and considering their long services they may be
reinstated. But the workmen's union does not deserve
advantage of the others' wrong. It should have established
it case first i.e. they are the employees of the Bank through
reliable evidence of which the union failed to prove. Further
the reinstatement can be considered only if it is established
that they are the employees of the Bank. Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg.
Board (2009) 15 SCC 327: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545:
Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs.
Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"However, in recent past, there has been a shift in
the legal position and in a long line of cases, this
Court has consistently taken the view that relief by
way of reinstatement with back wages is not
automatic and may be wholly in appropriate in a given
fact situation even though the termination of an
employee is in contravention of the prescribed
procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement
has been held to meet the ends of justice.
The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a
case where the workman has completed 240 days of
work in a year preceding the date of termination,
particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be
proper by this Court and instead compensation has
been awarded."
21. In the evidence it has been stated that the
management has terminated the services of the workmen
without complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of
the Act but it has not been pleaded by the workmen's union.
If not pleaded the evidence led on the point is meaningless.
However, even for the argument's sake, if the point is
considered then again it is the burden of the workmen's
union to prove that they have worked for 240 days in
preceding one years from the date of termination as per
provision of the Act and as per law laid down in 2005
(107) FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar Panchayat and
another Vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai Hon'ble Apex Court
came to the conclusion that where the workman failed to
prove that he had been in employment with the employer
for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly, he is not entitled
to the protection, in compliance of section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry before the
Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding
the date of termination to decide the question of the
continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed as under:
"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not
produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or
wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or
engagement for that year to show that he has worked
with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit
under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It
is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead
evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240 days
in a year preceding his termination."
Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in
order to take any relief for non-compliance of mandatory
provisions contained in section 25F of the Act, it is
necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect
that the was actually in employment of the opposite party
for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he
was actually paid for it. In the instant case neither there is
any averment in this regard nor there is any iota of evidence
to show that the workmen worked for 240 days with the
management of the City Bank in twelve calendar months
preceding the date of termination. It is pertinent to mention
here that the union has failed to substantiate this fact that
the workmen worked for 240 days in a year preceding the
termination; and also has failed even to mention the date
of termination in respect of the workmen without which it
is impossible to count the number of working days in
respect of each workman under reference.
22. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case and the case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, I am of considered opinion that the workmen's claim
for regularization in the services of the City Bank does not
sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly, the reference is
adjudicated against the workmen's union and the workmen
concerned are not entitled to any relief.
23. Award as above.
Lucknow
10th September, 2013.
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2572.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ fd èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstd vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]
eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@6@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@39@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 2/6/1999) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.2, Mumbai
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6627
the management of Central Railway, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/11/2013.
[No. L- 41012/39/98-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/6 of 1999
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF CENTRAL RAILWAY
The General Manager
Central Railway
Mumbai CST
Mumbai-400 001.
AND
Their Workmen
Mr. Madho Singh Samant
C/o. Madhya Railway Karmachari Sangh
33, Moti Bhavan,
Dr. D''Silva Road,
Dadar,
Mumbai-400 028.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER
: Mr Abhay Kulkarni, Advocate
FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 26th August, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-41012/39/98-IR (B-I), dated
31.12.1998 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 General Manager, Central
Railway in terminating the services of Shri Madho
Singh Samant, Ex-Bungalow Peon to SR Dy. G.M. of
Central Railway w.e.f. 31/03/97 is justified? If not to
what relief the Workman entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued to
the parties. In response to the notice second party workman
filed his statement of claim at Ex-7. According to him as per
the recommendation of Dr. (Mrs. Saroj S. Kunwar) Chief
Medical Superintendent, Central Railway Hospital, Kalyan
he was appointed as a Bungalow Peon in the pay scale of
Rs. 750-940. He was appointed with prior approval of
General Manager, Central Railway Mumbai-CST. He was
transferred and posted as Bungalow Peon to Sr. Dy. G.M.,
Mr. B.S. Kushwaha, Central Railway, Mumbai CST. Before
that he was medically examined and found fit for
appointment. From the date of his appointment as Bungalow
Peon from 18/01/1996, he had worked continuously till the
termination of his services. According to him by his letter
dt. 12/3/1997 he had applied for leave for 30 days from
12/3/1997 to 12/4/1997. He submitted his leave application
to Mr. Kushwaha, Sr. Dy. G.M. and after obtaining his
approval, he proceeded to his native place. After availing
the leave he returned back to resume duty on 13/04/1997
when he was not allowed to resume duty and Sr. Dy.
Manager told him that his services are no more required.
Assistant Personnel Officer told him that his services were
already terminated vide letter dt. 31/03/1997. The workman
did not receive any such letter as he had been to his native
place. He received one envelope containing a cheque of
Rs. 3,390/- and there was no letter of termination. Therefore
he approached Sr. D.G.M.S (Personnel Officer) to know the
reason for not allowing him to resume duty. They gave him
xerox copy of termination letter and workman came to know
about the same.
3. According to the workman he had worked more than
240 days continuously in a calendar year. His services were
terminated illegally. Therefore he has raised industrial
dispute. As conciliaiton failed, on the report of ALC (C),
the reference was sent to this Tribunal. The workman prays
that action of management, Central Railway, Mumbai
terminating his services be declared illegal, invalid and void
ab-initio and they be directed to reinstate him in service
with full back-wages and continuity of service.
4. The first party management resisted the statement of
claim vide their Written statement at Ex-10. According to
them Railway is not an "industry". It is performing
Governmental functions. Therefore Reference is not
tenable. The second party workman was appointed as
temporary Sub-Bungalow Peon. He was not appointed by
following the recruitment procedure. His case falls under
exception of Section 2 (oo) (bb) as he was governed by
service conditions of substitute Bungalow Peon in
accordance with the letter dt. 01/10/1972 and 11/06/1996.
He remained absent from duty form12/03/1997. His absence
was unauthorised and without taking prior permission. His
contention is false that he had applied for leave from 12/03/
1997 to 12/04/1997. As the workman remained absent the
first party terminated his services alongwith letter of
termination, one month's notice pay and retrenchment
compensation total cheque of Rs. 3319/- was sent to the
workman. The workman was temporary and his service
was likely to be terminated without assigning any reason.
Therefore the workman was not entitled to any protection.
6628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the circumstances first party contended that the workman
is not entitled to be reinstated int he service and prays that
the reference be dismissed with cost.
5. Following are the issues re-casted after the reference
was remanded by Hon'ble High Court. I record my findings
thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr. issues
Findings
No.
1. Whether the termination of
No
services of the workman by
the first party is legal and
justified?
2. If not, whether the workman is
No
entitled to be reinstated with
full back wages?
3. What relief the workman is
As per order below
entitled to?
4. What order?
As per order below
REASONS
Issue No. 1:—
6. In this reference my Ld. Predecessor had framed the
issues, recorded the evidence of both the parties and had
passed the award and directed the first party to reinstate
the second party workman with full back wages and
consequential benefits. The said award was challenged in
writ petition no. 2378/2004 before Single Judge of Hon'ble
Bombay High Court. Wherein the Hon'ble Court set aside
the award and by its order dated 11/10/2004 and the
reference came to be rejected. The said order of Hon'ble
Single Bench was challenged in Writ Appeal no. 787/2005
before Divison Bench of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The
Hon'ble Division Bench set aside the award passed by
CGIT as well as set aside the order of Single Bench and
remanded the reference Back to this Tribunal for de-novo
trial and disposal in accordance with law. In this respect
the Id. adv. for this first party pointed out that neither the
second party was appointed after following the procedure
prescribed for appointment of a Bungalow Peon nor he
was given any permanent appointment. Therefore
according to the Id. adv. for the first party as per the letters
of 1972 and 1996 in respect of appointment, the sub-
Bungalow Peon remains as a temporary employee for three
years until he is taken into the regular cadre of Peon. Till
then his services can be terminated without assigning any
reason.
7. In respect of the appointment the fact is not disputed
that neither there was any advertisement nor the workman
had appeared for any test or interview. Even according to
the workman he was appointed as per the recommendation
of Chief Medical Superintendent, Central Railway Hospital,
Kalyan. He was appointed as per the letters of 1972 & 1996
referred in the written statement of the first party. Therefore
the workman remained as a temporary employee of the first
party for the period of three years and after three years he
would have been absorbed in the regular service of the
first party. In the circumstances the Ld. adv. for the first
party submitted that the position of the employee during
the period of three years is like probationer. The Ld. adv.
further submitted that workman remained absent for about
a month. Therefore as his service was found unsatisfactory,
he was terminated from the services. This termination does
not attach any stigma. In this respect it was submitted on
behalf of the second party that he was not unauthorisedly
absent from duty. On the other hand he had submitted
leave application and has also obtained permission from
the concerned officer at whose bungalow he was working.
However workman has not produced any document to
show that he had submitted any application for leave. On
the other hand the first party has submitted on record at
Ex-42 the letter of apology dated 29/04/1997 written by the
workman wherein he has apologised for his unauthorised
absences.
8. From the above facts and circumstances on record it
is clear that the workman was not appointed after following
the procedure prescribed for recruiting an employee of
Railway. On the other hand he was appointed as per the
recommendations of Medical Officer. From the record it
also clear that the workman had worked more than 240
days continuously in a calendar year. Therefore the workman
claims that his services cannot be terminated without notice
and without giving him hearing. In this respect I would like
to point out that as per the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.
V/s. Umadevi & ors 2006 II CLR 261, a person recruited
without following the procedure prescribed for the
recruitment though continued in service for more than 240
days, he cannot claim regularisation in the service. In this
respect I would also like to refer another Apex Court ruling
in Delhi Transport Corporation V/s. Moolchand (2009) 1
SCC (L & S) 106 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that;
"Continuance on ad-hoc basis for a long period did
not confer any right for regularization when initial
appointment itself was not made by following due
process of selection."
Though such employee cannot claim regularisation that,
does not mean that he can be terminated at any time. On the
other hand I would also like to point out that even a temporary
worker if worked for 240 days or more cannot be removed
from service arbitrarily as he is entitled to the protection
under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
9. In the case at hand though the workman is not entitled
for regularisation in the service and his service can be
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6629
terminated by following the procedure prescribed under
Section 25 F of I.D. Act. Now I would like to ascertain
whether the procedure prescribed under Section 25 F of
I.D. Act was followed while terminating or retrenching the
workman by the first party. In this respect it was pointed
out on behalf of first party that alongwith termination letter
cheque of Rs. 3,319/- was sent to the workman. However
details thereof are not given. Even the figure of his last pay
is not given by the first party. They have also not mentioned
either in the written statement or in affidavit of any of the
witnesses what was the last pay of the workman and
whether the amount sent by way of retrenchment
compensation was due compliance of Section 25 F of I.D.
Act? No doubt the termination/retrenchment in the case at
hand was without show cause notice to the workman.
Therefore termination or retrenchment can be called illegal
if there is no strict compliance of Section 25 F of the I.D.
Act. Merely sending cheque of an amount of Rs. 3319
does not suffice the purpose as there is no reference as to
what was the last pay of the workman. There is also no
evidence to show that the amount of retrenchment
compensation was sufficient as contemplated under Sec.
25 F of the I.D. Act. In this respect suggestion was given to
the workman in his cross examination at Ex-32 and he has
replied that he cannot say whether cheque of retrenchment
compensation was not less than his pay. From this reply
conclusion cannot be arrived at that, the amount sent by
cheque was sufficient and due compliance of Section 25 F
of I.D. Act. Therefore I hold that the order of termination/
retrenchment passed by the management is no doubt illegal.
10. The order of termination is found to be illegal. In this
back drop the Ld. adv. for the workman has submitted that
workman should be reinstated with full back wages. In this
respect I would like to point out that the workman was
recruited without following the recruitment procedure
prescribed therefor. Therefore he cannot claim regularisation
in the service and at any time the management can terminate
his services by following the procedure laid down under
Sec. 25 F of the I.D. Act. In this back drop there is no point
in directing the first party to reinstate the workman with
back wages etc. On the other hand to avoid the eventuality
and multiplicity of litigations, I think it proper to award
compensation to the workman for his illegal termination.
While fixing the amount I would like to consider the fact
that the litigation is pending since 1999. The matter was
taken to Hon'ble High Court in Writ petition. The order and
judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge was challenged in Writ
Appeal. In writ Appeal the Hon'ble Court remanded the
matter back to the tribunal. During the period of more than
last fourteen years the workman must have sustained huge
monetary loss. At the same time I also consider the fact
that his appointment was not as per the recruitment norms.
In the circumstances to meet the end of justice, I think it
proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000.
Thus I decide this Issue No. 1 in the negative that,
termination of services of the workman is not legal and
proper, so also I hold that the workman is not entitled for
reinstatement. Instead of reinstatement I think it proper to
award compensation for illegal termination. Accordingly
this issue No. 2 is aslo decided in the negative. In respect
of issue No. 3 I hold that the workman is entitled to the
compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for his illegal termination.
Thus I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The reference is party allowed with no order as to
cost.
(2) The order of termination is declared to be illegal.
(3) The workman is not entitled for reinstatement.
(4) Instead of reinstatement, the first party is directed
to pay compensation to the workman to the tune
of Rs. 1,00,000.
Date: 26.08.2013
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2573.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ fd èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwohZ jsyos
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 237@89½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@5@89&Mh&2 ¼ch½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 237/89) 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
11/11/2013.
[No. L-41011/5/89-D-2 (B)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
6630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/237/89
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE
The Secretary,
South Eastern Railway Men's Union,
Shahdol Unit,
Qt. No. 245/2, Railway Colony,
Distt. Shahdol
Workman/Union
Versus
Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
S.E. Railway,
Bilaspur
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of September 2013
1. As per letter dated 30-10-89 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-41011/
5/89-D-2(B). The dispute under reference relates to :
"Whether the action of the management of Bilaspur
Division of South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur in
terminating the services of their workmen S/Shri
Ravindra Kumar Shrivastava, Surajbali Singh, Mumtaj
Khan, Mahmod Khan, Suresh Kumar Yadav, Mohd.
Samim and Ram Kumar, Substitute Shed Khallasi of
Locoshed Shahdol is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at
Page 8/1 to 8/5. The case of Ist party Union is that the
workmen Shri Ravindra Kumar Shrivastava, Surajbali Singh,
Mumtaj Khan, Mahmod Khan, Suresh Kumar Yadav, Mohd.
Samim and Ram Kumar are sons of Railway employees.
They were appointed under orders of Sr. Divisional
Mechanical Engineer, S.E. Rly, Bilaspur as substitute Shed
Khalasis in the Loco shed, Shahdol from 1-1-1984. That
those employees were subjected to Medical Test before
they joined their duties. Their service was with the entire
satisfaction of their superiors. After working of about 1
year 3 months, these workmen and some other workmen
were not allowed to perform duty from 4-4-85. Orally they
were told that their services were terminated, nothing was
give in writing to them, notice of termination was not given,
pay in lieu of notice was not paid to them, retrenchment
compensation was not paid.
3. It is submitted that termination of their services is in
violation of provisions of I.D. Act. the provision of Indian
Railway Establishment Manual were not complied. Hat the
services of these workmen were to be terminated on any
other ground/misconduct, the management should have
issued chargesheet. Those workmen did not received
chargesheet from management, they were not given
reasonable opportunity by the management for their
defence. That some of the workmen appointed under the
same office order were allowed to continue to work namely
Ramkumar was taken on duty after long time. Thus it is
reiterated that the service of those 7 workmen are terminated
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The termination is
illegal. Union prays for reinstatement for all 7 workmen
with consequential benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 9/1 to 9/9. It
is submitted that the Ministry of Railway vide letter dated
7-6-84 advised all Railway Organisation to stop engagement
of fresh employees. Under said order strength of casual
labour as existing on 1-1-84 was to be closen. Earlier to
these orders there were clear instructions that no fresh
candidate should be engaged without personal approval
of General Manager. That 10 substitutes were engaged in
Loco/SDL to meet casualties exceeding leave reserve
provided from various dates from 12-1-84, it was presumed
that they had rendered service in Railway earlier. Complaints
were received in early 1985. Those persons engaged in
Loco/SDL on the basis of forged and false certificates of
admission.
5. In fact-finding enquiry, Committee of two officers i.e.
Asstt. Personnel Officer and Asstt. Mechanical Engineer,
Bilaspur was ordered. The records of engagement and
interview of 10 substitutes were asked to be produced.
The Certificates produced by the substitutes were verified
by the Committee from salary bills, LP sheets, through
which the payment of salary was made. On the basis of
report of said committee, 10 substitutes were terminated
from 4-4-85. Later 3 substitutes produced genuine
certificates of earlier service which they could not produce
at the time of enquiry, they were reengaged. It is submitted
that the termination of services of those substitutes is not
a retrenchment under I.D. Act. It was disciplinary measure
taken after the enquiry giving opportunity to the concerned
persons. The question which was referred to the Vigilence
Commission is to locate persons who are involved in
forgery of certificates. That production of false certificate
in the Division is not solitary case of the persons in Loco/
SDL. Such cases are being occurred at various places. The
cases involved making of forged signatures of the Unit
Supervisors, getting rubber stamps of railways units
prepared in the market and using them for making false
certificates and false papers. The services were terminated
as the earlier service certificate were found not genuine.
On such grounds, IInd party submits that workmen are not
entitled to relief prayed by them. If their services are not
retrenched rather their services are terminated as they had
submitted bogus certificate of past service.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6631
6. Union filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2 reiteration
its contention that termination of their service is in violation
of I.D. Act without giving opportunity to the workmen for
their defence.
7. Considering pleadings on records, 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 Bilaspur
Division of Sough Eastern
Railway, Bilaspur in
terminating the services of
their workmen S/Shri
Ravindra
Kumar
Shrivastava, Surajbali
Singh, Mumtaj Khan,
Mahmod Khan, Suresh
Kumar yadav, Mohd. Samim
and Ram Kumar, Substitute
Shed Khallasi of Locoshed
Shahdol is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workmen are
rejected.
REASONS
8. Union is challenging termination of services of those
7 employees names appearing in the order of reference for
violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. That no chargesheet
was issued to him, no enquiry was conducted, notice for
termination of service was not issued, retrenchment
compensation was not paid and pay in lieu of notice was
not paid to the employees.
9. Management denied those contentions. It is case of
management that those 7 employees had secrured job
producing bougs certificate of past service. Fact Finding
committee had verified genuineness of the certificate. The
Union did not adduce any evidence to substantiate its
claim. As per order sheet dated 15-9-95, the Union declined
to adduce evidence and the management examined the
witness to substantiate its defence. Documents Exhibit
M-2 proved from evidence of management's witness finds
clear reference of verifying past service certificate of all
those employees in the record of their service being citizens.
The certificates of past service produced by those
employees were found not genuine.
10. Evidence of management's witness Shri M.S.
Mondle has stated in his evidence that enquiry was
conducted by him alongwith one Mr. Agrawal. He has given
details about verifying correctness of the certificate of past
service produced by Shri Ravindra Kumar Shrivastava,
Surajbali Singh and Mahmod Khan. From muster register,
they are examined, no entries of those employees were
apperaring in it. In his Cross-examination, management's
witness says chargesheet was not issued to those
employees. That he had signed on report Exhibit M-2. In
said report, it is written that the muster roll do not show
the names of those employees. The evidence of
management's witness Rajesh Agrawal is on the point that
he had signed report Exhibit M-2. The enquiry was
conducted by him along with Shri Mandal. The witness
was not cross-examined on behalf of the Union. Witness
No. 3 R.K. Ingde in his evidence says he had enquiry muster
roll of Shri Suraj Bali and Suresh Kumar Yadav, their names
were not appearing in the muster roll at Bhilai. Their names
were not appearing in the Bill Book. In his cross-
examination, he says that he had received order in writing
for enquiry. He had not made enquiry from the workman
concerned. MW-4 shri Nemichand in his evidence says
that he had made enquiry in respect of Mohd. Khan from
PWI Bhatapara. He examined salary bills register from
24-1-83 to 23-1-84. Name of Shri Mohd. Khan was not found
by him. Counsel for Union declined to cross-examine the
witness. Evidence of management's witness Rajbir Singh
is on the point that he had examined record in office of PWI
Bonsera. Name of Mohd. Muntaz Khan; R.K. Shrivastava
were not found in original record. In his cross-examination,
he says that he was working at Umsara since July 1995, he
was not working at Umsara during 81 to 83. The evidence
of management's witness P.K. Biswas is on the point that
he was working as Head Clerk at PWI Office Baraduar. The
names of Suresh Kumar and Surajbali Singh were not
appearing in record of PWI Office during 1976 to 77. His
evidence is not shattered in his cross-examination.
Management's witness R.K. Ingle in his evidence of
affidavit states that in Bhilai complex, there was not
Inspector of Works in Railway Electrification office. He
investigated engagement of Mohd. Shamim and there was
no record existing nor in the office of IOW (RE) Bhilai. In
his cross-examination, the witness says only record about
said employee was not with the management.
11. Affidavit of evidence of management witness R.
Shankaran is filed exhaustively about the verification of
the past service record of all 10 employees, after vertification
past service record of all 7 workmen were found bogus. 3
other employees had produced documents of past service.
Subsequently his evidence remained unchallenged.
12. The report Exhibit W-2 corroborates evidence of
management's witnesses. I did not find reason to discuss
their evidence, no witness is examined by the Union to
substantiate their contentions. When all those 7 employees
were employed as substitutes, they submitted bogus
certificate of past service, there was prohibition in engaging
new faces. That new faces should be engaged only with
prior approval of the General Manager. The evidence of
record is cogent that 6-7 employees secured employment
producing bogus certificate of past service. On said
grounds, their services were terminated. The fact Finding
6632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Committee was appointed. He verified the record and
submiteed report Exhibit W-3. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Bilaspur Division
of Sough Eastern Railway, Bilaspur in terminating
the services of their workmen S/Shri Ravindra
Kumar Shrivastava, Surajbali Singh, Mumtaj
Khan, Mahmod Khan, Suresh Kumar Yadav,
Mohd. Samim and Ram Kumar, Substitute Shed
Khallasi of Locoshed Shahdol is propoer and
legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workmen are rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2574.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bankSj izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 9@90 dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@240@89&vkbZvkj ¼ch&III)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 9/90 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 11/11/2013
[No. L-12012/240/89-IR (B-III)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/9/90
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE,
S/o Shri Anand Gupta,
S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Gupta
R/o Mayaram Sadan,
Jayeshwar Road,
Ambah,
Distt. Morena (MP)
Workman
Versus
Regional Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
Now State Bank of India,
Regional office,
Modi House, Gandhi Road,
Gwalior.
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of June 2013
1. As per letter dated 5-1-90 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-12012/240/889-IR
(B-3). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of the R.M.
State Bank of Indore, now State Bank of India. Gwalior
in not providing employment to Shri Anand Gupta,
clerk-cum-cashier after 27-3-1982 and whether his said
termination 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 submitted his statement of claim
at Page 5/1 to 5/3. The case of 1st party workman is that he
was appointed as clerk cum cashier at Ambah branch of
State Bank of Indore (now merged as State Bank of India),
he was appointed against clear vacancy as the work in the
Bank was increased. He was allowed to work till 27-3-82.
He had worked for total period of 75 days in the Bank. After
termination of his service, Bank employed Miss Uma Gupta
on 5-4-82 and she continued till 18-6-82. The practice of
hire and fire continued till the middle of June 1986 by the
Bank. After judgment by Industrial Tribunal, such practice
was disapproved, Ist party workman submits that he had
approached serveral times to the authority of Bank to take
him in service but his request was not considered.
3. The Bank is subsidiary of State bank of India
nationalized Bank and thus it is an authority Article 12 of
constitution, it cannot act in arbitrary manner in violation
of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Workman
submits that termination of service is in violation of Section
25-G, H of I.D. Act He prays for reinstatement with back
wages.
4. IInd party management filed Written Statement at page
8/1 to 8/5. It is contented by IInd party that workman had
not worked for 240 days preceding 12 months from alleged
retrenchment. Therefore the reference is not tenable.
Workman is not entitled to benefit of Section 25-G, H of I.D.
Act. As per Clause 69 of Desai Award, casual employees
are excluded from operation of said award. As per Clause
23.19 of Desai Award, Bank can employ casual employee
for 3 months in an year. The award does not provide for
confirmation of such employees. That the workman was
casually engaged for specific period. Discontinuation does
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6633
not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of I.D.
Act. Rather it is under exemption under clause (bb) of
Section 2 (oo) of the Act. The Bank is a public sector under
administrative control of Central Government. The
recruitment policy for the Bank needs written exam for all
eligible candidates. The written examination is conducted
by Regional Recruitment Board. The IInd party submits
that workman was engaged for 30 days from 12-1-82 to
10-2-82, thereafter for another 30 days from 11-2-82 to
12-3-82 then from 13-3-82 to 27-3-82 for 15 days. The
workman has not completed 240 days continuous service.
He is not entitled to benefit under Section 25-G, H of I.D.
Act. The discontinuation of workman does not amount to
retrenchment. On such grounds, IInd party prays for
rejection of the claim.
5. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2 reiterating
its contention that discontinuation of his service in
violation of Section 25-G, H 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 Affirmative
management of the R.M.
State Bank of Indore, now
State Bank of India, Gwalior
in not providing employ-
ment to Shri Anand Gupta,
clerk cum cashier after
27.3.1982 and whether his
said termination is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is
rejected.
REASONS
7. Though the workman has contented that his
discontinuation from service is in violation of Section 25-G,
H of I.D. Act, the workman has failed to adduce evidence.
Workman was proceeded exparte on 14-11-2006.
Management of IInd party filed affidavit of evidence of
Shri Ambarishchandra Dixit. The witness of management
has stated that workman had not completed 240 days
continuous service. He is not entitled to protection of
Section 25-G, H of I.D. Act.Workman was engaged as casual
employee.The dispute is filed after six years is belated. As
per settlement dated 19-10-66, the Bank has power to
engage casual employees for three months, the services of
employees are automatically terminated. It does not amount
to retrenchment. The management's witness remained
unchallenged. Workman fails to cross-examine the
management's witness. I do not find reason to disbelieve
evidence of said witness. The workman has failed to
establish that the action of the management in not providing
him employment is illegal.
8. Counsel for management Shri Chaturvedi relies in
ratio held
"In case of S.M. Nilajkar Versus Telecom district
Manager reported in 2003(4) Supreme Court Cases
27. Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with
scope of Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act held burden to
prove the ingredients of sub caluse (bb) on employer,
employment must be shown to be under a contract
which stipulates that it, would come to an end with
the expiry of the project or scheme and the workers
must be shown to have been made aware of such
stipulation at the commencement of their
employment.
No such evidence is adduced by the employee therefore
ratio in above cited case cannot be applied to present case.
Next reliance is placed on ratio held in
“Case of General manager, Haryana Roadways verus
Rudhan Singh reported in 2005(5) supreme Court
Cases 591. Their Lordship dealing with the point of
back wages, grant and quantum held there is no rule
of thumb that in every case where Industrial. Tribunal
gives finding that termination of service was in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, entire back wages
should be awarded order for payment of back wages
should not be passed in a mechanical manner but a
host of factors have to be considered. Said factors
enumerated and discussed method and nature of
appointment, qualifications of workman, length of
service and availability of alternative work are the
main heads under which these considerations would
fall.”
In the present case, violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act
is not proved. Therefore the workman cannot be allowed
reinstatement or back wages. Therefore ratio cannot be
applied beneficially.
In Case of Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Sowaran
Singh reported in 2005(8) supreme Court Cases 481, their
Lordship dealing with scope of Section 2(oo) (bb) and
Section 25-F, H of I.D. Act held that workman engaged on
casual basis on daily wages for specific period.Termination
of services of if retrenchment held such workman cannot
be said to have been retrenched in view of Section 2(oo)(bb).
Hence direction to reinstate workman with back wages.
In the present case, there is no evidence that workman
was engaged for specific period for specific work therefore
the ratio held in the case cannot be applied to the case at
hand.
9. However the workman has not adduced evidence to
substantiate his claim as discussed above, any kind of
illegality in action of management is not proved. Therefore
I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
1. The action of the management of the R.M. State
Bank of Indore, now State Bank of India, Gwalior
in not providing employment of Shri Anand Gupta,
clerk cum cashier after 27-3-1982 and whether his
said termination is legal.
2. Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2575.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ fd /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bafM;k izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 33@2000 dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@359@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 33/2000 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 11/11/2013.
[No. L-12012/359/99-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/33/2000
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra,
S/o Shri J.P. Mishra,
C/o Vinod Kumar Mishra,
6-LIG, Vishram Baba Housing Board Colony,
Jabalpur Road, Katni
Workman
Versus
Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Zonal Office, Civic Centre,
Marhatal,
Jabalpur (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 3rd day of October 2013
1. As per letter dated 20-1-2000 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
359/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, Region-I, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri J.P.
Mishra serving previously at the Market Branch,
Katni w.e.f. 8-3-99 after serving continuously from
1994 is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Workman filed statement of claim at page 2/1 to
2/4. Case of workman is that he was initially appointed as
Messenger from 1-4-93, he was continously working till
8-3-99. That he had worked for 204 days in 1993, 287 days
in1994, 267 days in 1995, 268 days in 1996, 260 days in 1997
& 258 days in 1998—the actual working days. If holidays
and other rest is included the total number of days would
be more. That he is covered under Section 25-B of I.D. Act.
That the IInd party Bank is established under SBI at 1955.
The work performed by him is of permanent nature.The
post were available. His services were arbitrarily terminated.
He has challenged termination order in Writ Petition
622/88. At the time of hearing of Writ petition, observations
were made that remedy under I.D. Act should be resorted.
The petition was disposed.
3.That despite of continuously working for many years,
his services were not regularized. His service is terminated
in violation of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act. On such
grounds, Ist party workman prays for his reinstatement
with back wages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statment at Page 6/1 to
6/3. IInd party denies, that the workman was posted as
Messenger. According to IInd Paty, Ist party workman was
working as canteen boy in a canteen run by Local
Implementation Committee of the staff of the State Bank of
India, Katni Market Branch from March 93 to February 99.
He was paid from Account to Staff Welfare Fund. There is
no employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Ist party workman was never in employment of bank. The
Bank is not under obligation to reinstate him or continue
him in service. Workman never worked for more than 240
days in a calendar year. It is denied that workman is coverd
under Section 25B of I.D. Act. All other adverse contentions
of workman are denied by IInd party. IInd party prays for
rejection of claim of Ist party workman.
5. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2.
Workman has reiterated his contention in Statement of claim
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6635
that he was continuously working with the IInd party Bank
from March, 93 to February, 99. He had completed 240 days
continuous service during each of the year. That his services
were terminated in violation of provisions of I.D. Act. He
has reproduced details of his working days and prays for
his reinstatement.
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 India, Region-I, Jabalpur
(MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Santosh
Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri J.P.
Mishra serving previously
at the Market Branch, Katni
w.e.f. 8-3-99 after serving
continuously from 1994 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Workman is challenging legality of his termination
from 8-3-99. It is case of Ist party workman that he was
initially engaged as messenger from March, 1993. He was
continuously working for more than 240 days during each
of the year. His services are terminated without issuing
notice or paying retrenchment compensation violating
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. IInd party denied all those
contentions. It is contended that Ist party workman has
completed 240 days continuous service. Workman was
working as canteen boy. There is no employer employee
relationship between parties.
8. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence
covering most of his contentions that he was initially
appointed. As Messenger from 1-4-93. He was
continuously working for more than 240 days all the
years.That his name is accorded as messenger in Local
Dak Book from 6-7-93 to 11-07-97. His services are
terminated without paying retrenchment compensation,
notice was not issued. The chargesheet was not issued no
enquiry was conducted. In his cross-examination workman
says he was not given letter of appointment. He was orally
engaged. His name was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange. The post was not advertised. He
denies that he was engaged as canteen boy. That Writ
Petition No. 622/98 was filed by him, copy is produced at
exhibit M-1. That his discontinuation on 8.3.99, he was
regularly working in the Bank. After termination of his
service, he is unemployed.
9. The management filed affidavit of witness Shri
Prakash Chandra convering contentions of the IInd party
that the workman was engaged as canteen boy during
the period from March, 1993 to February, 1999 by the
Local Implementation Committee. He was not appointed
by Bank as messenger. There is no relationship of master
and servant or employer employee. The Ist party workman
was never appointed by the Bank as such he did not
worked for more than 240 days in any of the calender
year. In his cross-examination, management's witness says
that the workman was working at Katni Market Branch of
the Bank. It is denied that workman was working as
messenger. The witness reiterates that he was working as
canteen boy. The Local Implementation Committee is not
registered under any Act. Said Committee works on welfare
of the employees. The work of Bank is extracted from its
employees. During 93 to 99, he was not working at Katni
Branch. That he had given evidence as per available
record. However record is not produced. He again says
that no attendance is maintained of canteen boy. That he
had made enquiry from the old employees and came to
know that the workman was working as canteen boy. Any
of those employees are not examined as witness of the
management, no documents are produced by IInd party
to show that the Ist party workman was working as
canteen boy. Any office bearer of the Implementation
Committee of the Bank is not examined as witness. It is
clear that evidence of management witness is heresay.
The evidence of workman that he was working as
messenger in the Bank is supported by Document Exhibit
W-1. The Local Dak Book shows name of workman as
messenger from 6.7.93 till 11.6.97. The entries from 1993
to 1997 is for very long period. The name of workman
shown as messenger. The management has not explained
how those entries were recorded. The evidence is cross-
examination of management's witness shows that the entry
of canteen boy is not taken in the Local Dak Book.
Therefore the evidence of workman corroborated from
the entries in document Exhibit W-1 needs to be accepted
instead of the here-say evidence of the management's
witness. The evidence discussed above therefore clearly
establish that the workman was working as messenger in
the Bank and he had completed more than 240 days
continuous service during each of the year.
10. Consel for 1st party workman Shri Aditya Ahiwasi
relied on ratio held in—
Case of Shrimati Sunita Gupta versus Nagar Palika
Parishad Sabalgarh and another reported in 2010(3) M.P.H.T.
243, Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. versus Mohammed
Rafi reported in 2009(11) SCC-522 and Case of Sanjay Kumar
versus Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam
reported in 2010(3)-MPLJ 457. The ratio held in those cases
about burden lies on workman about completion of 240
days service.
6636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In present case, the evidence adduced by workman and
the document Exhibit W-1 proves as the workman was
working as Messenger for more than 240 days since March
1993 till termination of his service. As the burden in
discharged by workman, detailed discussion of those cases
is not required.
Reliance is also placed in ratio held in—
"Case of Devinder Singh versus Municipal Council,
Sanaur reported in AIR-2011 Supreme Court Cases
2532. The Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with
Section 2(s) of I.D. Act held the definition of workman
also doesnot make any distinction between full time
and part time employee or a person appointed on
contract basis. There is nothing in the plain language
of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only
a person employed on regular basis or a person
employed for doing whole time job is a workman and
the one employed on temporary, part time or contract
basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for
doing duty for fixed hours is not a workman.
12. From evidence of workman, it is clear that his services
are terminated without paying retrenchment compensation,
without issuing notice as such termination of his services
is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
13. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of service of workman is in violation of Section
25-F. The question arises to what relief the workman is
entitled. Workman was working as Messenger from March
93 to Feb., 99 for about 6 years. Learned Counsel for
Ist Party Mr. Aditya Ahiwasi submits that his termination
of services of Ist party workman is in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act, relief of reinstatement with back wages
would be allowed. In support of his argument, relies on
ratio held in
"2010-III-MPLJ-457 case of Sanjay Kumar versus
Chief Executive Officer, Ratlam, in concluding para,
their Lordship observed in facts and circumstances
of the case Court is of the view that learned trial
Court rightly allowed the petition by the petitioner
and set aside the order of termination. That there
was no justification on the part of learned court
below in not awarding the back wages."
14. Mr Tripathi learned counsel for management on the
point relies on :
"Ratio held in case of Santokh Singh versus
Chandigarh Administration reported in 2006(13)
Supreme Court Cases 751. Their Lordship dealing
with the relief after termination of service,
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and pensionary
benefits. Temporary employee allowed to put in 34
years of service and relieved by termination
simpliciter. He having no legally enforceable right.
Held this case deserves sympathetic consideration
on humanitarian grounds. Respondent authority to
pay the appellant a lumpsum amount of Rs. 50,000.
In case of M/s Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. versus
Shri P.P. Chopra reported 1969(3) Supreme Court Cases
653. Their Lordship held that (i) normal rule is that in case
of invalid orders of dismissal, industrial adjudication would
direct reinstatement of a dismissed employee. Nevertheless
there would be cases where it would not be expedient to
adopt such a course.
(ii) In the present case, the reinstatement directed by
the Tribunal was inexepedient. For the respondent had
served the company only for 12 months. No one induced
him to give up service. The Company's establishment was
small. The respondent, as a stenographer in whom trust
could be placed did not inspire confidence in the Regional
Manager. The Tribunal erred in reinstating him. It should
have awarded him only compensation."
The facts of present cases are not comparable with the
case at hand. The services of workman are not terminated
in any kind of misconduct, therefore ratio held in above
case cannot be applied to the case at hand.
In case of Shri Rajkumar versus Jalagaon Municipal
Corporation reportred in 2013(2) Supreme Court Cases 751.
Their Lordship in para-5 of the judgment observed in view
of findings recorded by Learned Single Judge and Division
Bench of High Court recorded a finding that appellants
were temporarily appointed on daily wages as and when
work was available and not posted on regular basis against
any sanctioned post. Hence held there is no reason and
justification to interfere with the orders passed by the two
courts refusing to set aside termination of appellants.
However we are of the view that direction for payment of
Rs. 10,000 to the appellants will not compensate them hence
appellants who approached for conciliation after 8 to
10 years from the date of termination are entitled to a sum
of Rs. 50,000 each whereas appellant who approached
conciliation officer within 2 to 3 years shall be entitled to
get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.”
15. Learned Counsel for workman relies in ratio held
in—
"Case of Hajinder Singh versus Punjab State
Warehousing Corporation reported in 2010(3)
Supreme Court Cases 192. The finding of the Labour
Court termination holding unlawful and awarding
reinstatement with 50% back wages was upheld by
the Lordship. Careful reading of this judgment clearly
shows that the workman was in service from 5.3.86
after 7 months, the engineer of the corporation issued
order dated 3.10.86 whereby the appellant as work
Munshi in the pay scale of Rs. 350-525 for three
months. His services ended on 4.5.87.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6637
The judgment in Case of Shri Rajkumar versus Jalagaon
Municipal Corporation reported in 2013(2) Supreme Court
Cases, compensation Rs. 50,000 was allowed to some of
the employees who had approached for conciliation
proceedings after lapse of 8 to 10 years and Rs. 1 Lakh to
the employees approaching for conciliation proceeding
within 2-3 years.
In present case, such long lapses are not noticed. In
present case, workman was in continuous service for
6 years. Considering his services are not terminated for
any kind of misconduct, considering his length of services
and age at the time of termination, in my considered view,
compensation Rs. 1,50,000 would be appropriate.
Accordingly I hold and record my finding in Point No. 2.
16. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of India,
Region-I, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Santosh Kumar Mishtra, S/o Shri
J.P. Mishra serving previously at the Market
Branch, Katni w.e.f. 8.3.99 after serving
continuously from 1994 in not proper.
(2) Management is directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 as
compensation to the workman Shri Santosh Kumar
Mishra.
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 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2576.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ fd /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k eas dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwohZ 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]
ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 64@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@94@2005&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2007) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of South East Central Railway, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
11/11/2013.
[No. L-41012/94/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/64/2007
Date: 18.10.2013
Party No.1 :
The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager,
South East Central Railway, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
Party No. 2 :
The General Secretary,
Parcel Porter Sanghtana,
South East Central Railway,
New Mankapur, Plot No. 37,
Mhada Colony, Nagpur-440 030.
AWARD
Dated: 18th October, 2013
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of SECR and their workman, Shri Arun
Barsagade, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-41012/94/
2005 dated 14-11-2007, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the Parcel/Hammal is workman of the
Railway Administration? If so, whether the action of
the management of South East Central Railway,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur (MS) in terminating/
stopping from the services of Shri Arun Barsagade,
Parcel Porter w.e.f. 03-01-2005 is proper and justified?
If not, what relief the parcel porter is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the claimant, Shri Barsagade,
("the claimant" in short), filed the statement of claim.
However, the management of SECR, ("Party No. 1" in short)
failed to file their written statement.
The case of the claimant as presented by the union in
the statement of claim is that it (the union) is a registered
trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the
claimant is its member and the Indian Railway have been
divided into various railways including South Eastern
Central Railway and the Railway is engaged in various
systematic activities with the motive to make gain and
6638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
profit and management of Railways carry the business of
transportation of goods/parcels and accept parcels at all
the Railway stations to send the same to different places
and the parcels are loaded in and unloaded from wagons
and for the same, the wagons are required to be opened
and re-sealed, whenever it is required and for such loading,
unloading, opening, sealing or re-sealing, the labourers
called parcel porters are being engaged in all Railway
stations and the said works are of permanent and perennial
in nature and under the contract Labour (Abolition and
Regulation) Act, 1972, contract labours cannot be engaged
from execution of permanent and perennial nature of work.
The future case of the claimant as presented by the
union is that the claimant was working in Gondia Railway
station as a parcel porter from the year 1994-95 and he had
completed more than 240 days of continuous service and
he was entitled to be treated as a Regular Railway Parcel
Porter from the date of his initial appointment and he is
also entitled for the same salary ,which was being paid to
regular parcel porters and the appointment/recruitment of
the claimant was made through the notification dated
08.08.1994, after interview and following other procedures
laid down in the Railway Recruitment Rules as parcel porter
and the Railway administration allowed the claimant to
work in parcel office only for four hours in a day since 1994
to May, 1997 and subsequent to May, 1997, the working
hours were increased to eight hours in a day, but the
management did not allow the claimant to work for the
whole month like the regular railway parcel porters and the
claimant was allowed to work for 20 to 25 days, in a month
and his wages was also reduced, in violation of section 9-
A of the Act stating that there was no sufficient work in the
station and the workman was working under the control of
the Railway administration and payment for such work was
also being made by the Railway Administration and there
was employer and employee relationship between the Party
No. 1 and the claimant and the claimant was a "workman"
as per the definition of section 2(s) of the Act. It is also
pleaded that the claimant was a casual parcel porter and
not a licensed porter and he was in the muster rolls of Party
No. 1 and he had completed 120 days of work long before,
as causal parcel porter and he was entitled for temporary
status with the pay scale of Rs. 2540-3200 and he was
issued experience certificate and identity card by the station
manager and Party No. 1 acted in violation of the directives
of the Railway Board dated 30.07.1997 and the Senior
Division Commercial Manager, SEC Railway issued one
circular dated 19.10.2004 without any authority or valid
reason, drastically reducing the wages of the claimant and
other casual parcel porters, in utter disregard to the earlier
circulars issued by the Railways for payment of wages to
the parcel porters under the Minimum Wages Act and when
the parcel porters refused to accept the reduced wages,
the management of party No. 1 stopped the claimant and
other parcel porters from carrying out their routine duty of
loading and unloading railway parcel and Party No. 1 after
sitting over the issue for several years, lastly in the year
2009, paid arrears of wages to the parcel porters as per the
Minimum Wages Act and the claimant had completed more
than 120 days of continuous service with Party No. 1 on
several occasions in between his initial date of appointment
and January, 2005, when he was forcibly stopped to work,
by the Party No. 1 and the claimant had attained temporary
status immediately on completion of 120 days of work and
consequently, he should have been absorbed in the
employment of the Railways as per the existing rules of the
Railways.
It is also pleaded by the union on behalf of the claimant
that it (union) had initially raised the industrial dispute on
behalf of the parcel porters including the case of the present
claimant and the Government of India had made two
references and the said references had been numbered as
203 of 98 and 289 of 99 at the CGIT, Jabalpur and the said
references were tagged together and numbered as CGIT/
NGP/36/2002 by this Tribunal, after receipt of the same on
transfer and in the said case, award was passed by this
Tribunal in favour of 203 claimants on 28.03.2008 and the
Party No. 1 challenged the award dated 28.03.2008, before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in writ
petition No. 4472/2008 and the Hon'ble High Court vide
order dated 14-10-2009 remanded the case to this Tribunal
for disposal of the same afresh, as per the directions given
in the said order by the Hon'ble Court and this Tribunal
disposed of the case afresh, as per the award dated
15.07.2010, granting relief to152 parcel proters for their
regularisation by giving them temporary status with regular
pay and though the present claimant had filed his evidence
on affidavit, he could not present himself for cross-
examination and as the claimant did not prove his claim, he
was not granted the relief of regularization and as the
earlier case was not dicided on merits in relation to the
claimant, the principles of "resjudicata" will not apply and
the earlier case was for he relief of regularization, whereas,
the present dispute is against the illegal termination of the
services of the claimant.
Prayer has been made by the union to declared the
claimant as a workman and to treat the claimant as a regular
permanent Railway Parcel porter from the date of his initial
date of appointment and termination of the services of the
Claimant as illegal and the reinstate him in service with all
consequential benefits.
3. It is to be mentioned here that, this case was registered
on 26-01-2008 on receipt of the reference dated 14.11.2007
from the Central Government and parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement
and on 17-07.2008, the management of South East Central
Railway, Nagpur appeared in the case through their
counsels, Shri V.M. Gadkari and Shri R.G. Rathod. The
learned advocate for the management filed an application
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6639
on 17-07.2008 for adjournment to file reply. It appears a
from the record that the case was adjourned from
17-07-2008 to 07-10-2008, from 07.10.2008 to 16.12.2008 and
from 16.12.2008 to 08.04.2009, without any progress due to
absence of the parties. It also appears from the record that
from 08.04.2009, the case was adjourned to 14.07.2009 and
on 14.07.2009, though both the parties appeared in the
case, neither the statement of claim nor the written statement
was filed and the case was adjourned to 06.10.2009. The
record was not put on 06.10.2009 or thereafter till 06.08.2012
before the Presiding Officer. The parties also did not take
any action in the matter. On 06.08.2012, during formal
inspection of the records, the non put up of the record
came to light. The Bench clerk was warned for such lapses
and order was passed to issue notice afresh to both the
parties. Accordingly, notices to both the parties were sent
by registered post with acknowledgement due and the case
was posted to 10.09.2012 for filing of statement of claim
and written statement by the parties. On 10.09.2012, the
union representative for the calimant appeared and filed
the statement of claim and documents. Though the service
of the notice issued to the management by registered post
with acknowledgement due was sufficient, the management
neither appeared nor filed any written statement. As no
written statement was filed by the management, on
22.01.2013, order was passed to proceed with the case
without written statement and the case was posted to
25.02.2013 for adducing of evidence from the side of the
claimant, on affidavit. On 25.02.2013, the evidence of the
claimant, Arun Madhukar on affidavit along with one
document was filed and the case was posted to 14.05.2013
for the cross-examination of the claimant. On 14.05.2013, as
none appeared on behalf of the management to cross-
examine the claimant, in the interest of justice and to give
the management a fair chance to participate in the case, the
case was adjourned to 12.08.2013 for the cross-examination
of the claimant. On 12.08.2013 also, as none appeared on
behalf of the management to cross-examine the claimant,
order of "No cross" of the claimant was passed and the
case was adjourned to 19.09.2013 for hearing of argument
from the side of the claimant. On 19.09.2013, argument from
the side of the claimant was heard and the case was posted
for award.
4. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention that in
this case, order has been passed to proceed exparte against
the management as they failed to appear and file written
statement and take part in the case. However, it is well
settled that even where the management is set exparte, the
claimant is not absolve from the responsibility to prove his
case and it is also necessary for the court, in such cases, to
satisfy it that the claimant is entitled on the terms of statute
to the relief prayed for.
In view of such settled principles, now, the present case
is to be considered with the touch stone of the said
principles to find out as to whether the workman is entitled
to the reliefs as claimed by him.
In view of the own pleadings made by the claimant and
his evidence on affidavit that the union had raised the
industrial dispute of regularization of the parcel porters
including himself in case No. CGIT/NGP/36/2002 and the
said case was finally disposed of on 15.07.2010 by this
Tribunal, granting relief of regularization to 152 parcel
porters and though he had filed his evidence on affidavit,
he could not able to remain present for corss-examination
and thus failed to prove his claim and for that he was not
granted the relief of regularization and as the said case was
not decided on merits in respect of his claim and in the
earlier reference, the issue was regarding regularization of
the parcel porters, whereas, the present case is in regard to
the termination of his services, the reference is not hit by
the principles of res-judicata, at first, it is to be considered
as to whether the present reference is hit by the principles
of res-judicata and estoppels.
On perusal of the copy of the award passed on 15.07.2010
by this Tribunal in case No. CGIT/NGP/36/2007, it is found
that in the said reference, the disputes referred were as to
whether the parcel porters working with the Party No. 1 are
"workmen" and as to whether they are to be provided eight
hours work daily regularly and declare Railway
"employees" and to what relief they are entitled to.
However, in this reference, the schedule of reference is as
to whether the claimant is a workman as per the provision
of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as
to whether the action of the Party No. 1 in terminating his
services w.e.f. 30.01.2005 is proper and justified. It is found
that the first link of the schedule of reference of both the
cases is similar, whereas, the other links of the schedule of
both the reference are quite distinct and different. Moreover,
the first link as to whether parcel porters are workmen or
not had been answered by this Tribunal and so also, by
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in writ
petition No. 4472/2008 in favour of the parcel porters
holding that "Parcel Porters" are "workmen" in terms of
section 2(s) of the Act. Hence, it is held that this reference
is not hit by the principles of res-judicata or estoppels.
6. So far the question as to whether, the claimant is a
"workman" as per the provisions of section 2(s) of the Act
is concerned, it is clear from the materials on record that
the Party No. 1 is an industry and it is doing business of
transportation by sending parcels and different articles
and goods from one place to another and is earning huge
profit from the said business and parcel porters are being
engaged by the Railway for loading and unloading of the
parcels and articles in the wagons and are paid wages for
the same by the Railway and the Railway Authorities use
to have full control over the parcel porters. So applying the
definition of "workman" given in section 2(s) of the Act, it
is found that the claimant is a workman.
7. In view of the unchallenged testimony of the claimant
and the documentary evidence filed by the claimant on
6640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
record, it is found that the workman had worked for
240 days in the preceding calendar year of his date of
termination i.e. 03.01.2005. It is also found that the claimant
had also worked for more than 120 days continuously as
casual parcel porter and was entitled for temporary status,
as per circular of the Railway Board dated 15.05.1996. It is
also found that the workman was terminated from services
on 03.01.2008, without compliance of the mandatory
provisions of section 25-F of the Act amounts to
retrenchment and is held to be illegal.
8. Now, the only question remains for consideration is
as to what relief of reliefs the claimant is entitled to. After
taking into consideration that the work of parcel porter is
of permanent and perennial in nature and available round
the year and that the claimant was entitled for temporary
status and regularisation as an employee of Party No. 1
as per rules and his termination is illegal, the claimant is
entitled for reinstatement in service as a parcel porter
with continuity and all consequential benefits.
So far payment of the back wages is concerned, for
grant of back wages, it is necessary for the claimant to
plead and prove that from the date of termination, he was
not gainfully employed. In this case, the claimant has
neither pleaded nor proved that from the date of his
termination, he was not gainfully employed. Hence, the
workman is not entitled to back wages. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The Parcel/Hammal is workman of the Railway
Administration. The action of the management of South
East Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagapur (MS) in
terminating/stopping from the services of Shri Arun
Barsagade, Parcel Porter w.e.f. 03-01-2005 is improper and
unjustified. The claimant is entitled for reinstatement in
service as a Parcel Porter with continuity and
consequential benefits. The claimant is not entitled to
any back wages.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2577.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj iwohZ jsyos
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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 110@2011½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@32@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway
and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 11.11.2013.
[No. L-41011/32/2011-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 110/2011
Ref. No. L-41011/32/2011-IR(B-I) dated 27.07.2011
BETWEEN :
Working President,
Rail Sewak Sangh,
Purvottar Railway, Lucknow Division,
Lucknow
AND
1. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Purvottar Railway, Ashok Marg,
Lucknow
2. Sr. Divisional Engineer,
Purvottar Railway,
Lucknow
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41011/32/2011-IR(B-I) dated 27.07.2011
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Working President, Rail Sewak
Sangh, Purvottar Railway, Lucknow Division, Lucknow
(Espousing cause of Sri Lautan S/o Sri Mahavir) and the
Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, DRM
office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and the Sr. Divisional
Engineer, Purvottar Railway, Lucknow for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Whether the action of the management of North
Eastern Railway, Lucknow in not making payment of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6641
due retirement gratuity and pension to Shri Lautan
S/o Sri Mahavir on his retirement on 30.04.2009, is
legal and justified? To what relief the workman is
entitled?"
3. In brief of the case that workman was appointed
on 16.10.1972 as casual labour, Blacksmith (skilled
grade) under the then permanent way Inspector, NE
Railway Station Malhore, thereafter his services were
discontinued. The workman was again appointed as
Casual Labour Lohar on 16.05.1984 in class III skilled
category. He continuously worked from the date of his
appointment till date of his superannuation on
30.04.2009. Workman union stated that workman got
temporary status as Lohar w.e.f. 16.09.1984 and he
passed medical test in the year 1984. Workman was
regularized in service on 06.03.2009 and retired from
service on 30.04.2009. The workman union further stated
that workman rendered his services for 24 years so he
is entitled for retrial benefits. The workman prayed for
payment of gratuity and pension along with 12%
interest.
4. The management filed written statement and denied
the claim of the workman. The management stated that
Railway Board, New Delhi introduced a New Pension
Scheme w.e.f. 01.01.2004, under which the scheme for
grant of temporary service of casual labours has been
modified vide Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)II/2004/
CL/16/Policy dated 17.09.2004. The para No. 1 of the
letter is reproduced below:
As the New Scheme is based on defined contributions,
the length of qualifying service for the purpose of
retirement benefits has lost its relevance. Consequently,
no credit to casual labour service i.e. counting of the
service rendered under temporary status, for the purpose
of retirement benefits after their regularization, shall be
available to the casual labour on their regularization
against Group 'D' posts on or after 01.01.2004.
5. It was further stated by the management that no
deductions were made from the workman's salary
towards SRPF and GIS, hence the same was not payable
to him. The management has prayed that claim statement
filed by the workman being devoid of merit is liable to be
dismissed is not maintainable.
6. On 19.09.2013 the representative of the workman
filed an application W-15 stating therein that union is
not willing to contest this case further as such it may be
treated as withdrawn.
7. In the above circumstances, it appears that the
workman's union does not want to pursue its claim on
the basis of which it has raised present industrial
dispute; therefore, the present reference order is decided
as if there is no grievance left with the workman.
Resultantly no relief is required to be given to the
workman concerned. The reference under adjudication
is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
LUCKNOW
19.09.2013
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2578.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 11@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@268@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th November, 2013
S.O. 2578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2004) of the
Central 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 11/11/2013.
[No. L-41012/268/2003-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/16/2004
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Amresh Kumar,
S/o Shri Premnarayan,
R/o Barah Bunglow,
Qtr. No. 512 E,
Railway Colony,
Double Storey, Itarsi,
Hoshangabad
.....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Habibganj,
Bhopal
....Management
6642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 1st day of October 2013
1. As per letter dated 26-2-2004 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/
268/2003-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the DRM, Central Railway,
Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Amresh
Kumar S/o Shri Premnarayan w.e.f. 2-11-88 and not
regularizing him 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 submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of Ist Party workman is that he was
continuously working for more than 240 days prior to date
of his termination. That termination of his services amounts
to retrenchment under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. No
compensation was paid prior to termination of his
services. Therefore he is entitled to be reinstated with back
wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 5/1 to
5/2. IInd party denied claim of Ist party workman. The
claim of workman is not supported by documents. His claim
is vague, liable to be dismissed. That the claim of workman
suffers from latches. Workman has not sown period, place
and department of his working. He had not submitted
representation regarding termination from employment. IInd
party denied that the workman was continuously working
for 240 days in calendar year. That he has not produced
appointment letter issued by the IInd party. It is denied
that the termination from service amounts to illegal
retrenchment. On such ground, IInd party prays for
rejection of claim of workman.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at 7/1 to 7/3. Workman has
pleaded that he was engaged by IInd party as substitute
safaiwala from 6-4-86. He continuously rendered services
from 1-10-87 to 31-1-88 for 120 days. During the period
Feb-88 to Oct-88, he rendered service for 143 days. Thus
he was working for more than 240 days preceding 12 months
of termination of his services. That he is covered as
workman under Section 25-B of I.D. Act.
5. Workman further pleaded that he was given status of
monthly rated casual labour from 30-7-87 after medical
examination. He was paid monthly wages on regular pay
sheets from January, 88 without complying provisions of
Section 25 of I.D. Act. his services were suddenly
terminated. Compensaiton in lieu of notice was not paid to
him. Employees junior to him were engaged by IInd party
after dispensing his services. He was paid bonus Rs. 743
for the period 87-88 Rs. 1134 for the period 88-89. That IInd
party conducted Screening of ousted workman like him
pursuant to letter of DRM Bhopal dated 27-3-97. That
despite of screening for the post of safaiwala, IInd party
denied to give appointment to him. That he had acquired
temporary status on completion of more than 240 days
service. He was deserving absorption as permanent
safaiwala.
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
DRM, Central Railway,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Amresh
Kumar, S/o Shri Prem-
narayan w.e.f. 2-11-88
and not regularizing him
is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. As per terms of reference, legality of termination of
services of Ist party workman Amresh Kumar w.e.f. 2-11-88
and denial of regularizaton in service needs to be
adjudicated. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He
has stated in his affidavit that he was appointed by Chief
Yard Master, West Central Railway, Nishatpura, Bhopal
from 6-4-86 as safaiwala. That he rendered continuous
service from date of initial appointment till October 1988.
He was given status of monthly rated casual labour from
30-7-87. He was paid monthly wages from January 1988.
That he was given status of MRCL from 1-10-87 till October
1988. He rendered continuous service for more than
240 days. He was retrenched from 2-11-88. He was paid
bonus in 1987-88 and 88-89. The documents produced by
workman Exhibit W-1 shows that workman was
continuously working from 1-10-87 to 31-1-88. 31 days in
October 87, 30 days in November, 31 days in December 87
and 30 days in January 1988. He had worked for total 120
days. Document Exhibit W-2 shows the working days
during period 1986 to December 1987 and January 88 to
October 88 total 478 days Exhibit W-3 is Certificate of fitness
issued by the Medical Examiner. Exhibit W-4 is the copy of
order dated 2-11-88 taking out workman from work. Exhibit
W-5 is a document showing payment of bnus to workman
in 1987-88 and 88-89. Original of those documents are
produced on record.
8. Ist Party workman in his cross-examination admits
that he had passed 6th standard. Whenever regular
employee was proceeding on leave, he was taken on duty
of safaiwala. After regular employee was returning on duty,
his services were discontinued. He was paid bonus. He
had worked for 120 days. He denies suggestion that he
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6643
had not continuously worked for 120 days. In further cross-
examination, it is devoted that documents produced by
him bears signature of Officer Shri Sharma. That he had
worked till 1989. He also admits that he was working from
2-4-89 to 8-4-89. From his evidence, it is clear that Ist Party
workman was engaged as substitute during leave vacancy
of regular employee.
9. IInd Party filed affidavit of witness Shri Pradeep Singh.
Management's witness has stated that Ist Party workman
was engaged as casual labour on Staff Gap Arrangement.
He was not appointed as regular employee. He was engaged
as per exigency when regular employee was suffering from
illness. That he is not a regular employee. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says he was working
as Yard Master at Nishatpura, Bhopal on 6-4-86. He was
unable to tell in whose place, Ist party workman was
engaged as a substitute when regular employee had
returned to duty. From payment of bonus, it cannot be
proved that the Ist Party workman was continuously
working during 87-88 & 88-89. The services of Ist Party
workman were terminated from 2-11-88. Therefore working
days of workman during year preceding his termination
needs to be considered till 1-11-87. The documents Exhibit
W-2 shows working days during calendar 12 months comes
to 254 days.
10. Learned counsel for workman Shri Pranay Choubey
pointed out my attention to Railway Establishment Rules
and Labour Laws by Shri K.P. Sharma. Chapter 20 deals
with the casual labour. Rule-3 provides:—
"Where the engagement of fresh faces is sanctioned
by the General Manager personally, the following
procedure shall be followed—
(a) Persons to be engaged as fresh faces should be
drawn only from the lists to be prepared by each
Division for this purpose generally once a year.
(b) Inclusion of names in this list will be based upon
screening by a committee of three officers, one of
whom should be an officer of personnel
department and other from among the departments
concerned. Further one of the members of this
screening committee should be from SC/ST and
one from a minority community by co-opting a
fourth officer, wherever necessary.
Rule-8 deals with temporary status. Casual labour
excepting those working on projects on completion of
120 days continuous service either on the same work or
other work of some type shall be given temporary status.
(a) those who have completed five years of service
as on 1-1-81 to be treated temporary from
1-1-1981.
(b) Those who have completed three years service
but less than five years as on 1-1-81 to be treated
temporary from 1-1-82.
(c) Those who have completed 360 days but less
than three years on 1-1-1981 to be treated as
temporary from 1-1-1983.
Rule-9 provides benefits of temporary status. Casual labour
acquiring temporary status are entitled to all rights and
privileges as admissible to temporary Railway employees
i.e. revised scale of pay, house rent and compensatory
allowance, dearness allowance, increments, leave, medical
facilities, passes, PTOs, casual leave, hospital leave
advances, and 3 National Holidays PLB. Such casual labour
shall also be governed by the Conduct Rules, Discipline
and Appeal Rules.
Rule-19 provides casual labour whether employed on open
lines or constructions of Railway projects or in Workshops
if retrenched, the conditions required under Section 25-F
of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 re to obe complied with
otherwise retrenchment order would be invalid and casual
labour would be treated as in service till such conditions
are fulfilled. Therefore no workman or casual labour having
continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched until:
(a) One month's notice in writing indicating reasons
is given and the period of notice has expired or
the casual labour has been paid in lieu of notice
wages;
(b) He is given compensation equivalent to 15 days
average pay for every completed year continuous
service or part thereof; and
(c) Notice in prescribed manner is served.
11. The evidence and documents discussed above show
that the workman has completed 240 days continuous
service prior to termination of his service. IInd Party had
not issued notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid
to workman. Thus the termination of services of workman
is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act and Rule-19
discussed above. Therefore the action of the IInd Party is
not legal. I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
12. Point No. 2—In view of my finding on Point No. 2,
termination of services of workman is illegal. Provisions of
Section 25-F are not applied. The question arises to what
relief the workman is entitled? The services of workman
working as a substitute were terminated from 2-11-88 almost
25 years back. Workman was granted temporary status as
per document Exhibit W-1. He was not served with any
notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid. The
evidence of workman that he is not gainfully employed is
not shattered in his cross-examination. Notes of argument
submitted by IInd Party is devoted only on the point that
6644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman not completed 240 days continuous service and
therefore he is not entitled for reinstatement etc. As per
document Exhibit W-2, it is established that the workman
had completed 240 days service preceding the termination
of his service. As per entire finding on Point No. 1, the
termination of service of workman is illegal. Therefore
having in violation of Section 25-F and Rule 19 discussed
above, the workman was working from April 86 to October
1988 for about 2½ years, workman is out of employment for
about 25 years, in my considered view, reasonable
compensation would be appropriate. The relief of
reinstatement with back wages would not be proper.
Considering facts of the case and period of employment,
compensation Rs. 1 Lakh would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 1 & 2.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the DRM, Central Railway, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Amresh Kumar
S/o Shri Premnarayan w.e.f. 2-11-88 and not
regularizing him is not legal.
(2) IInd Party is directed to pay compensation Rs. 1
Lakh to the workman Amresh Kumar.
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.
14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2579.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l
fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2009½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@109@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2579.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award Ref. 12/2009 of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Umrer Area, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/109/2008-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/12/2009
Date: 28.10.2013.
Party No. 1 :
The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited, Umrer Area,
Post. & Teh. Umrer, Dist. Nagpur (M.S.)
Party No. 2 :
The General Secretary,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union
(CITU), Umrer Area, Qtr. No. B/170,
Umrer Colliary Qtrs., P.O. & Th. Umrer,
Distt. Nagpur. (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 28th October, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short) the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Western Coalfields Limited, Umrer Area
and their workmen, for adjudication, as per letter No.
L-22012/109/2008-IR (CM-II) dated 24.03.2009, with the
following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s WCL
in deducting penal rent from the salary of claimant
workmen (list enclosed) is legal and justified? To
what relief are these workmen entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, Lal Zanda Coalmines
Mazdoor Union (CITU), Umrer Area ("The union" in short)
filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workmen and
the management of WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the fifteen workmen as presented by the
union in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a
registered Trade union under the Trade unions Act and is
affiliated to CITU and all the fifteen workmen were allotted
with quarters along with 90 other employees by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 started deducting between Rs. 800 to
Rs. 1600 per month from the salaries of the workmen from
April, 2005, on the ground of their taking house building
advance from the management towards construction of
houses for themselves and at the same time, Party No. 1
started charging penal rent from the workmen for occupying
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6645
the quarters and such action was illegal, unjustified and
arbitrary and the workmen were duly allotted with the
quarters by Party No. 1 and they have no objection to-
wards deduction of loan installments and as deduction of
penal rent from their salaries was quite illegal, it lodged a
complaint with the Assistant Commissioner of Labour
(Central), ("the ALC" in short) against charging and
deducting penal rent from the salaries of the workmen, as a
result of which, the Party No. 1 stopped the deduction of
penal rent and it was contended by the Party No. 1 before
the ALC that the workmen, who had taken house building
loan from it (Party No. 1) and constructed their own houses
within the radius of 8 kilometers from the place of their
working should have vacated their quarters and should
have moved to their own houses and according to the
Party No. 1, in all, 107 employees have constructed their
own houses, but they have been in occupation of the WCL
quarters and out of the 107 employees, only the 15 workmen
have been picked up by the Party No. 1 for charging of the
penal rent and there was no justification in adopting the
pick and choose policy, in seeking vacation of the quarters
and charging penal rent and such action of Party No. 1 is
illegal and discriminatory and therefore, it is necessary for
the Party No. 1 to refund the amount already deducted
towards penal rent from the salaries of the workmen.
Prayer has been made by the union to answer the
reference in affirmative and to declare that the workmen are
entitled for the refund of the amount deducted towards
penal rent.
3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that all the workmen are not the members of the
union and the union has not demonstrated that it was
authorized by its members to raise the dispute for their
cause and they are members of the union and no evidence
has been placed on record to show that the union has
legally espoused and championed the said dispute and
therefore, no industrial dispute as contemplated by Section
2(k) of the Act is in existence and for that, the reference is
not tenable.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that normally quarters
are provided to employees as per the norms set out on the
subject by the employer and uniform norms on the subject
had been finalized during the course of Welfare Board
Meeting held on 17.10.2005 and the union is well aware of
the above norms and moreover, there is always shortage of
quarters and in the interest of workers, management is under
duty to allot the same to the needy employees as soon as
possible and the circular issued by the General Manager,
WCL on 18.10.2005 contains the guideline that, "The
employees who have constructed their own house within
the radius of 8 kilometers from the place of working shall
have to vacate quarters within six months. Failure to vacate
the company's quarters, the employees shall be liable for
payment of penal rent at double the market rate. The
employees shall also liable for disciplinary action." and as
per the Welfare Boards's Meeting held on 27.04.2004 and
circulated vide letter No. 5954 dated 11.06.2004 to all
members of the Board including the union amongst others
followed by circular dated 18.10.2005 of the General
Manager, Welfare In -charge of the Company's headquarters
it was decided that, "House building advance from WCL:
It was also discussed and agreed that the employees who
had taken loan and constructed house at the place of their
posting should not be allotted company's quarters. Such
empolyees should vacate the company's quarters and move
to their own house. Action be taken by Area CGMS/GMS/
GM(G&D) HQ." and therefore its action in deducting penal
rent from the workmen was fully consonance with the above
instructions and joint policy decision of the unions and
the management at company level and the action is
therefore just, fair and legal and 133 employees were given
the appropriate building advance and out of them,
26 employees built up their own houses in locations within
8 kilometers radius from their place of working, but they
did not vacate the quarters of the company, which were
earlier provided to them and therefore, in pursuance to the
instructions as referred above, they were given notices in
writing to immediately vacate their respective quarters and
the workmen neither replied to the said notice nor vacated
the quarters, so decision was taken by it to charge penal
rent, as the occupation of the quarters became unauthorized
and accordingly, penal rent ranging from Rs. 800 to 1,600
came to be recovered from the salary of the workmen from
the month of March, 2005 onwards and continued till
August, 2005 and as the dispute was raised, to avoid
aggravation of the matter and to maintain industrial peace,
such deductions were kept in abeyance and the union
having been party to the policy decision of deduction of
penal rent should not be permitted to agitate the issue, by
applying the principles of estoppels and the workmen are
not entitled to any relief.
4. In support of their respective stands, both the parties
have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
On behalf of the union, Shri Bhaskar Haldar, the General
Secretary of the union has been examined as a witness,
whereas, Smt. Annama Chacko, a Sr. Manager (Personnel)
of Unrer Area has been examined as a witness on behalf of
the Party No. 1.
5. Shri Bhaskar Haldar, the witness examined on behalf
of the union in his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit
has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.
This witness has further stated that some of the workmen
were allotted with quarters in the eighties and there is no
justification in re-opening the issue of penal rent in 2005
and the claim of the Party No. 1 that members of the WCL
Welfare Board had agreed to the arrangement of vacation
of quarters and charging of penal rent is false.
6646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that
no resolution was passed by the union to raise the dispute
on behalf of the workmen and no document has been filed
to show that the workmen have requested the union to
raise the dispute on their behalf. This witness, have in his
cross-examination has further admitted that the workmen
had taken house building loan from the management for
construction of their own houses and all the workmen were
served with notice by the management to vacate the
quarters in their occupation and the workmen did not reply
to the said notices individually and approached the union
and the union submitted the reply and there is a committee
of WCL management, which considers the allotment of
quarters to the workers and the policy for allotment of
quarters is decided by the management with consultation
and discussion with the aforesaid committee and
management had issued notice to the workmen, who had
taken house building loan for construction of residential
houses for them, within 8 kilometers radius of the colliery,
to vacate the quarters allotted to them and Mr. P.V. Nair is a
leader of their union and he is a member of the Welfare
Board constituted by the management of WCL.
6. The examination-in-chief of Smt. Annama, the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1, on affidavit is on the
same line of the stands taken by the Party No. 1 in the
written statement. This witness has stated that in the
meeting of the company's Welfare Board held on 27.04.2004,
in which all the representatives of the major unions
including the union, CITU were included, a decision was
taken that those employees who had taken loan and
constructed house at the place of their posting should not
be allotted company's quarters and they should move into
their own houses and the General Manager, Welfare
In-charge of the company's head quarters, vide his letter
dated 18.10.2005 addressed to all area, conveyed that
employees who have constructed their own houses within
a radius of 8 kilometers, from the place of working shall
have to vacate the quarters within six months, failing which,
they would be liable for payment of penal rent and following
the policy decision, notices were issued to all the concerned
employees to vacate the company's quarters and in the
said notices, reason for effecting the deduction of penal
rent was also specified, but the workmen neither gave any
reply to the notices nor made any representation against
the proposed deduction.
In her cross examination, the witness for the Party No. 1
has stated that house building loan was given to the
workmen in 2003-2004 and at the time of advancing the
house building loan to the workmen, no condition was
imposed by the WCL and in 2004, decision was taken by
the management after holding a meeting with the major
unions not to allot quarters of the company to the
employees, who had taken house building loan for
construction of house and constructed house at the place
of their posting. In the cross-examination of this witness, it
has been brought out by the union that the unions,
Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
Samyukt Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (SKMS) and Lal Zanda
Coal Mines Mazdoor union were parties to the decision
taken on 27.04.2004 and Ext. M-I is the letter of the
management of WCL for implementation of the said decision
and 26 employees defaulted in vacating the quarters and
all of them were noticed and penal rent was deducted from
their salary and the representatives of the unions had
signed the minutes dated 27.04.2004.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the union that quarters were duly allotted to
the workmen and house building loans were given to the
workmen long before the decision dated 27.04.2004 and at
the time of allotment of the quarters and advancing of the
house building loans to the workmen, there was neither
any provision nor any condition to vacate the quarters, on
construction of their respective residential houses and on
failure to vacate the quarters, they have to pay penal rent
and as such, the decision dated 27.04.2004 cannot be
applied retrospectively to their cases and such conditions
can be imposed only on new incumbents at the time of
allotment of quarters or at the time of sanction of house
building loan and recovery of penal rent and vacation of
quarters due to sanction of house building loan long back
is illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural
justice and as such, the reference is to be answered in
favour of the union and the workmen are entitled for refund
of the amount of penal rent deducted from their salaries.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No.1 that the union has failed to place on
record any material which supports the existence of valid
industrial dispute as per requirement of section 2(k) of the
Act and there is no request or authority of the workmen to
file the dispute by the union on their behalf and as such,
the dispute is not valid.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the
party no.1 that the policy decision dated 27.04.2004 was
taken by the management in the meeting held with the
unions including the disputant union and the decision that
the employees to whom house building loan had been
sanctioned by the management to built up their own houses
within a radius of 8 KMs from the place of their working are
to vacate the quarters allotted to them was required to be
taken, because there was shortage of quarters and the said
decision was circulated by the management and after due
notice, as the workmen failed to vacate the quarters or to
submit any reply, penal rent was deducted from their salaries
of the month of March, 2005 and such facts have been
proved by the documents filed by the management and the
evidence of the management and due to raising of the
dispute, such deduction was stopped to keep good
atmosphere and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6647
9. On perusal of the materials on record including the
evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by the
parties, the following undisputed facts are found:
(i) The workmen were duly allotted with quarters prior
to the decision taken by the management of party
no.1 with consultation and the consent of the
unions in the welfare Board meeting held on
27.04.2004.
(ii) The workmen were given house building loans
for construction of their residential houses within
8 KMs. Radius of their respective place of
working, prior to 27.04.2004
(iii) No provision or condition was attached in the
Rules for allotment of quarters or advancing of
house building loans, to vacate the quarters by
the workmen, on construction of their own
houses, while advancing of the house building
loan or allotment of quarters to them.
(iv) That on 27.04.2004, there was a meeting of the
WCL Welfare Board consisting of the
representatives of all the major unions including
the disputant union and the representatives of
the Party No 1 on 27.04.2004 and Shri B.K. Rai, the
representative of the disputant union, who was a
member of the Welfare Board attended the
meeting of the Welfare Board.
(v) That in the meeting dated 27.04.2004, it was decided
by the Welfare Board that the employees who
had taken loan and constructed house at the place
of their posting should not be allotted company's
quarters and such employees should also vacate
the company's quarters and move in to their own
house. Action to be taken by Area CGMS/GMS/
GM (GSD) HQ. and the minutes of the meeting
dated 27.04.2004 was circulated in all areas of WCL
by letter No. 5954 dated 11.06.2004.
(vi) That all the workmen were noticed by the
management to vacate the quarters allotted to them
in view of their taking house building loan for
construction of their houses and constructing
their house within the radius of 8 kilometers from
Umrer Project and in case of their failure to vacate
the quarters, management would be compelled to
deduct the penal rent from their salary/wages from
the month of March, 2005 and inspite of receipt of
the notice, the workmen neither vacated the
quarters nor submitted any individual reply to
the same.
(vii) That the union took up the cause of the employees
against the issuance of such notices by
submitting letters, Exts. W-I, W-II and W-III.
10. So far the representation of the workmen by the
union is concerned, it is to be mentioned that from the
record, it is found that the union had raised the dispute on
behalf of the employees before the management and so
also before the Conciliation Officer and in the reference
made by the Central Government also, the union has been
made a party. Even though, the union has not filed any
document to show that the workmen are members of the
union, in view of the provision of Section 36(2)(c) of the
Act and the facts mentioned above, it is held that, there is
no hindrance for the union to espouse the dispute on behalf
of the workmen.
11. It is to be mentioned here that the contention raised
on behalf of the union that the workmen have been
discriminated, as out of 107 employees, the workmen have
been picked up by the Party No. 1 has no force, in view of
the pleadings made by the Party No. 1 that action of
deducting penal rent from the salary of the employees was
taken against the employees who did not vacate the quarters
and the unchallenged evidence of the witness for the Party
No. 1 that, "notices were issued to all the concerned
employees individually to vacate the company's quarters"
and the document, Ext. M-II, which has been admitted into
evidence on admission and which shows deduction of penal
rent from 28 employees and not only the workmen as
claimed. Hence, the contention raised on that score fails.
12. It is found from record that in view of the policy
decision dated 27.04.2004, the Party No. 1 took action
against the workmen and others and issued notice vacate
the quarters and in case on their failing to vacate the
quarters to deduct penal house rent. As the workmen and
some other employees failed to vacate the quarters even
after receipt of notice, the Party No. I deducted penal rent
from their salary. So, it is found that the policy decision
dated 27.04.2004 was enforced prospectively and not
retrospectively and no illegality was committed by the Party
No. 1 in deducting the penal rent from the workmen for
occupying the quarters allotted to them, even after receipt
of the notice to vacate the same, basing on the
unchallenged policy decision of the Welfare Board dated
27.04.2004 Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of M/S WCL in deducting
penal rent from the salary of claimant workmen (list
enclosed) is legal and justified. The workmen are not
entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
6648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
yky>aMk dksy ekbZUl etnwj ;qfu;u
LALZANDA COAL MINES MAZDOOR UNION
osru dkVs tk jgs dkexkjksa dh lwph
1- Jh dsñlhñ flag
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 1400-00
2- Jh MhñMhñ cksanjs
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
3- Jh 'kadj iksdys
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
4- Jh vk;ñ,lñ tkEcqydj
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
5- Jh thñOghñ feJk
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 1000-00
6- Jh 'ks[k ljnkj
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
: 880-00
7- Jh ,uñvkjñ oS|
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
8- Jh ,lñ,uñ vEcksus
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
9- Jh ikaMqjax ekdMs
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 1200-00
10- Jh tsñvkjñ dekus
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
11- Jh lqjsUnz pkSgku
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 1000-00
12- Jh ,lñ,uñ vkenjs
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
13- Jh chñdsñ oekZ
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 1000-00
14- Jhefr dYiuk HkM+ds
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
15- Jh HkkLdj lksuVDds
vizSy 2005 ls osru dVkSrh
:ñ 880-00
Jhjke >kM+s
egklfpo
mejsM {ks=
ubZ fnYYkh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2580.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyQhYMl
fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
01@2010µ11½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@66@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II)]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2010-11) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus, Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Nagpur Area of Western Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/66/2009-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/ NGP/ 01/2010-11
Date: 21.10.2013.
Party No.1:
The Chief General Manager
WCL, Nagpur Area, Jaripatka,
Post: Kasturba Nagar,
Nagpur.
Versus
Party No.2:
The General Secretary,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines
Mazdoor Union (CITU),
C/o. Coal Estate, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 21st October, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Harun Rashid,
for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/66/2009-IR (CM-
II) dated 25.03.2010, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. WCL
in dismissing Shri Harun Rashid w.e.f. 02.02.2008 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the workman Shri Harun Rashid,
("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and
the management of WCL, ("party no.1" in short) filed the
written statement.
The Case as projected by the workman in the statement
of claim is that he was working in Western Coal Fields
("WCL" in short) and was posted in AB Incline colliery in
the post of SDL operator and he possessed a clean and
unblemished service record till the initiation of the
disciplinary proceeding and a charge sheet was issued
against him on 06.08.2005, alleging that he had submitted
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6649
three medical bills dated 06.06.2005, 06.06.2005 and
01.06.2005, amounting to Rs. 1001.45P, Rs. 804.50p and
939.17p respectively for reimbursement and on scrutiny, it
was found that the reimbursement forms submitted by him
were not registered with the hospital, prescriptions of
medicines were not issued by any doctor of WCL, N.A.
Certificate attached with the prescriptions were not issued
by any pharmacist of Wani hospital and the signatures of
the doctor on the back of the bills did not appear to be real
and he stoutly denied the allegations and stated that the
signatures appearing on the bills were not given by him
and requested for proper examination of those signatures
by a handwriting expert and he also categorically submitted
that the said bills were not submitted by him for
reimbursement and he had neither signed those bills nor
had received any amount towards reimbursement and on
the basis of the charge sheet, a departmental enquiry was
initiated against him and the enquiry officer conducted the
enquiry in a farcical manner and in utter violation of the
principles of natural justice and he was not afforded a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry
and during the enquiry also, he sought for proper
examination of the signatures by a handwriting expert, so
as to enable him to prove his innocence, but the same was
arbitrarily denied by the enquiry officer and the party no.1
failed to supply the copy of the enquiry report to him on
completion of the enquiry, as a result of which, he was
deprived of the opportunity, much less reasonable
opportunity to defend himself effectively in the matter and
without any evidence, the enquiry officer arbitrarily
concluded that the bills were submitted by him and the
enquiry officer totally failed to apply his judicious mind
and to analyze the evidence in its proper perspective and
mechanically drew his conclusion, holding him guilty of
the misconduct alleged in the charge sheet and due to non
supply of the enquiry report, he remained in dark about the
reasoning and conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer
and it is clear that on the basis of the enquiry report, the
disciplinary authority issued the impugned order of
dismissal dated 02.02.2008 against him,without affording
any opportunity to rebut the findings of the enquiry officer.
It is further pleaded by the workman that the Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority failed to
appreciate the fact that the charges levelled against him
were not proved in the enquiry and that no reasonable
opportunity was afforded to him to prove his innocence
and the order of his dismissal from services was passed
mechanically without application of mind and in undue
haste and colourable exercise of the employer's right and
party no.1 equated his case with the cases of other
employees,who had not only submitted false, medical bills
for achieving undue monetary gains, but they have also
admitted their involvement in the matter and the dismissal
order is wholly illegal, unfair and arbitrary and the same is
grossly disproportionate to the quantum of charges framed
against him.
The workman has also pleaded that he was thrown out
of job without any fault on his part and it is not possible for
him at this age to get employment elsewhere and he is not
gainfully unemployed and he is facing financial hardship
due to his illegal termination.
The workman has prayed to reinstate him in service
with continuity, full back wages and consequential benefits.
3. The party no.1 in its written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the workman was working as a SDL operator
and charge sheet dated 05.08.2005 was issued against him,
for submission of false medical reimbursement bills and
the workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet, but
as the reply was found not to be satisfactory, departmental
enquiry was initiated against him and all opportunities were
given to the workman by the enquiry officer in the
departmental enquiry and the workman attended the
enquiry proceedings with his co-worker and he cross-
examined the witnesses examined on behalf of the
management and the workman failed to present any witness
in his defence and as the workman admitted his signatures
on the bills, the question of referring the bills for the opinion
of the handwriting expert doesn't arise and second show
cause notice alongwith the report of the enquiry officer
was served on the workman and the workman submitted
his reply to the second show cause notice and the workman
in his show cause did not raise any objection that the
enquiry was not fair and proper and he was not offered fair
opportunity to defend his case and the appeal filed by him
was based on the enquiry report, which clearly indicates
that he had received the enquiry report and the charges
were duly proved against the workman and specially on
the basis of the admitted materials on record and the
misconduct committed by the workman was very serious
in nature and as such, the punishment of dismissal is not
shockingly disproportionate.
4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
services, after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity
of the departmental enquiry was taken up as a preliminary
issue for consideration and by order dated 10.09.2012, the
departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was
held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles
of natural justice.
5. During the course of argument, it was submitted by
the learned advocate for the workman that the workman
had denied the charges levelled against him, specifically
stating that he did not submit the medical bills dated
06.06.2005, 05.06.2005 and 01.06.2005 and the signatures
appearing on the bills were not made by him and the
6650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman requested for examination of the said signatures
by a handwriting expert, to prove his innocence and some
outsiders played mischief in the matter to malign him and
in the enquiry also, the workman sought for proper
examination of the said signatures by a handwriting expert,
but the same was denied by the enquiry officer arbitrarily
and charges were framed against the workman on the basis
of the preliminary report submitted by the Deputy CMO of
Walni hospital and his evidence was very vital for the
workman and 07.07.2006, the workman requested to
summon the Dy. CMO for his interrogation, but the enquiry
officer rejected his request and thereby denied a reasonable
opportunity to the workman to defend himself and there
by the entire proceeding leading to the termination of the
workman is vitiated in law. It was further submitted that
party no.1 failed to supply a copy of the enquiry report to
the workman and thereby, the workman was deprived of
the opportunity to defend himself effectively in the matter
and was greatly prejudiced to prove his innocence and the
findings of the enquiry officer that the bills were produced
by the workman is without any evidence on the record of
the enquiry and the enquiry officer failed to apply his
judicious mind and mechanically drew his conclusions
holding the workman guilty of the misconduct and the
impugned dismissal of the workman on the basis of such
untenable proceeding is wholly illegal, improper and
unsustainable in law and the disciplinary authority as well
as the appellate authority failed to appreciate the fact that
the charges levelled against the workman not to have been
proved and the order of dismissal was passed without due
application of mind, with undue haste and colourable
exercise of employer's right and party no.1 equated the
case of the workman with the case of other employees,
who had not only submitted false medical bills for getting
undue monetary gains, but also, had admitted their
involvement in the matter and the order of dismissal is
grossly disproportionate to the charges framed against
the workman and from the date of dismissal, the workman
is unemployed and he is not gainfully employed and he is
entitled for full back wages from the date of termination till
the date of reinstatement and the workman is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party no. 1 that charge sheet under clauses 26.1 and
26.22 of the certified standing order of party no.1 was issued
against the workman for commission of major misconduct
and the workman submitted three false medical bills for
reimbursement and the workman also forged the signatures
of the authorities of party no. 1, for the purpose of illegally
claiming reimbursement and vide order dated 10.09.2012, it
has already been held by this Tribunal that the
departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is
legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural
justice and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on
the evidence on the record of the enquiry and proper
appreciations of the evidence and they are not perverse
and the party no.1 has lost confidence on the workman
and in cases like the present one, there is no place for
generosity and misplaced sympathy on the part of the
judicial forum and to interfere with the quantum of
punishment and the punishment awarded against the
workman is not shockingly disproportionate to the
misconduct proved.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocate
for the party no.1 placed reliance on the decisions reported
in (2006) 2 SCC-255 (TNCS Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.
Meerabai) and (2007) 9 SCC-755 (Pandiyan Roadways
Corporation Ltd. Vs. N. Balakrishnan)
7. Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it
apposite to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the two decisions cited by the learned
advocate for the party no.1 and so also the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of
decisions regarding the power of the Tribunal in the matter
of interfering with the punishment imposed in departmental
proceedings.
8. In the decision reported in (2006) 2 SCC-255 (Supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Labour Law-Departmental/Domestic enquiry-
Penalty/Punishment -Scope of judicial review of —
Sympathy or generosity, if a ground- Where the
employee was found guilty of misappropriating the
employer corporation's fund, held, the primary factor
to be taken into consideration was the loss of
confidence and not the amount of money
misappropriated - Hence, not withstanding that there
was no such allegation against the employee in the
past, held, the punishment from dismissal from
service imposed by the employer could not be
interfered with by the court on the ground of
sympathy or generosity—In view of the position of
trust occupied by the delinquent, further held, the
matter required to be dealt with rather firmly and not
leniently.
****
****
****
The enquiry officer's report in which the respondent
has fully participated and the order of the disciplinary
authority and the appellate authority show that the
order passed by them was very detailed well
considered and well reasoned verdict. It has been
held in a catena of decisions that interference is not
permissible unless the order passed by the quasi
judicial authorities are clearly unreasonable or
perverse or manifestly illegally or grossly unjust."
9. In the decision reported in (2007) 9 SCC-755 (Supra),
the Hon'ble Court have held that:—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6651
"Labour Law—Misconduct—Grave misconducts—
Grave Misconducts Punishment to be imposed—
Conduct when a "Grave Misconduct" —Held in
cases of grave misconducts like misappropriation/
theft, dismissal—Further held, the words "Gravest
act of factual matrix in each case—Misconduct—
Misappropriation/ Defalcation."
10. It is also well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
number of decisions that:—
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the
disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated
with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot
interfere with the findings of the Inquiry officer or
competent authority where they are not arbitrary or
utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a
delinquent officer is conferred on the competent
authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made
under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. If
there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules
and in accordance with principles of natural justice
what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a
matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be
imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct,
the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own
discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of
penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter
of the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal
also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion
of the Inquiry officer or the competent authority is
based on evidence even if some of it is found to be
irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
So, now, the present case in hand is to be considered
with the touch stone of the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above.
11. So far the contentions raised by the learned advocate
for the workman regarding rejection of the request of the
workman for examination of the signatures on the three
medical bills in question by a handwriting expert, by the
enquiry officer and non-supply of enquiry report etc. have
already been dealt with, while deciding the preliminary issue
about the fairness of the departmental enquiry and as such,
there is no scope for reconsideration of the contentions
raised in that respect.
12. On perusal of the materials on record including the
pleadings of the parties and taking into consideration the
contentions raised by the learned advocates for the parties,
it is found that the enquiry officer after analyzing the
evidence on record of the enquiry in a rational manner has
arrived at the findings and he has assigned reasons in
support of his findings. It is also found that this is not a
case of no evidence or that the findings arrived at by the
enquiry officer are not as such, which can not be found by
a prudent man on the materials on record. Hence, the
findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be
perverse.
So far the proportionality of the punishment imposed
against the workman is concerned, it is found that grave
misconducts have been proved against the workman in a
properly conducted departmental enquiry. Hence, the
punishment of dismissal of the workman from services
cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the
charges proved, calling for any interference. Hence, it is
ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. WCL in
dismissing Shri Harun Rashid w.e.f. 02.02.2008 is legal and
justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2581.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,u lh ,y
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;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 90@11½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@46@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/11) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of NCL Khadia Project, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/46/2009-IR (C-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
I.D. Nos. 90/11
Sri Dev Nath Yadav
C/o Surender Nath Singh,
Secretary, Koyla Shramik Sabha,
Branch Office B-49,
6652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
NCL Khadia Project,
Sonbhadra
And
The Chief General Manager,
NCL, Khadia Project,
Sonbhadra.
AWARD
1. Central Govt. MoL, New Delhi vide above
reference No. L-22012/46/2009-IR (C-II) dated
30.09.2011 has referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this tribunal—
2. Whether the demand of the Union that the date
of birth of Sri Dev Nath Yadav, Chp. Operato, NCL
Khadia District Sonbhadra, U.P. be corrected as
12.09.60 in official record of the NCL Khadia is
just fair and legal? To what relief the workman is
entitled to?
3. After receipt of the reference order as above
several notices were issued by the tribunal to both
the parties, but none has appeared from the side
of the claimant nor there any statement of claim
filed.
4. On the contrary the opposite party has put his
appearance through his authorized representative
and filed its power in the case.
5. It therefore, from the circumstances of the case
appears that the Union or the workman is not
interested in prosecuting its case. As such the
tribunal is of the confirm opinion that it is a case
in which neither there is any statement of claim
nor the claimant is interested in prosecuting his
case, therefore, the case is bound to be decided
against the union and workman for want of
pleadings and proof.
6. Accordingly it is held that the workman/union is
not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present
reference order.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
Date: 31.07.13
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2582.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l
fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 136@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@285@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/2003) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Durgapur Open Cast Sub Area of WCL,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/285/2001-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/136/2003
Date: 31.10.2013.
Party No. 1 :
The Sub Area Manager,
Durgapur Open Cast Sub Area of WCL,
P.O. Durgapur, Dist. Chandrapur (MS)
Party No. 2 :
Shri A. A. Kuresh, Secretary,
Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),
Br. Durgapur, Post-Durgapur,
Dist-Chandrapur (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 31st October, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(a) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Durgapur Open Cast Sub Area of WCL
and their workman, Shri A.N. Tonge, for adjudication, as
per letter No. L-22012/285/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 23.04.2003,
with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Western Coal Fields Ltd. through Sub Area
Manager, Durgapur Open Cast Colliery, Chandrapur
in denying protection of pay at Rs. 131.08 per day
while transferring the workman Shri A.N. Tonge to
the post of EPGH Exe. Grade and fixing his pay at Rs.
82.70 P per day vide order dated 20/21.12.1998 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman
is entitled?"
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6653
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri A.N. Tonge,
(“the workman” in short), filed the statement of claim and
the management of ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written
statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the statement
of claim was that he was initially appointed as an apprentice
driver w.e.f. 31.05.1984 and posted at Durgapur Open Cast
Colliery, Chandrapur and he was regularized as General
Mazdoor Category-I w.e.f. 28.10.1985 and due to his
satisfactory performance as a Dumper Opertor, he was also
promoted as EPGH Cat-E and then to Dumper Operator
Grade-'D', Grade-'C' and Grade 'B' and his promotion as
Dumper Operator Grade-'B' was on 28.10.1989 and he was
also upgraded to Grade-'A' in view of the provision in the
National Coal Wages Agreement ("NCWA" in short) to
the effect that, "workman, who continues to remain eight
years in the same grade, would be upgraded to the next
higher grade." It was further pleaded by the workman that
unfortunately, he met with an accident and sustained head
injury and due to epilepsy, he submitted a written request
for excavation maintenance job and he had never given
any written consent to accept of lower grade or lower wages
and maintenance and operation grades are the same and
due to his skill and knowledge of Dumper, he requested for
dumper maintenance work, instead of dumper operation
and his application was forwarded by the Supdtt. of Mine
for alternative job and on his application, he was allowed
to work in maintenance job in the post of EPGH Category-
'E' vide letter dated 20/21.12.1998 and he was posted four
steps down from his then existing grade, as a result of
which, he sustained a loss of Rs. 48.38 per day in his basic
wages, besides loss on D.A. and other allowances and the
benefit of pay protection was given by Party No. 1 to other
employees, namely, Shri K.P. Trivedi, who was working as
Operator Grade-'A' and was placed in Driver Category-V
on his written request and pay protection was given to him
vide letter No. 12489 dated 30.11.2000/01.12.2000 and
Shri M.P. Ambekar was posted as Mechanist Grade-'D' from
Diesel Mechanic Grade-'D', on his written request and he
was also given pay protection vide letter No. 932 dated 06/
07.08.2000 and circular No. 2676 dated 10/21.02.2000 was
circulated by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, Chandrapur
Area regarding giving of pay protection to the employees,
but the said circular was completely ignored by the
management of Durgapur Open Cast Colliery which
considering his case and he was not given the benefit of
the pay protection.
The workman had made prayer to answer the reference
in affirmative and to grant him the relief of wage protection
with arrear of salary.
3. Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the workman was appointed as a General
Mazdoor in Cat-I on 01.06.1985 and he was promoted in
operation cadre from category- 'E' to 'B' and to Category
'A' on 01.01.1998 by way of service link up gradation and
on 27.10.1998, the workman gave a representation for
change of cadre/job from operation to maintenance cadre,
on account of injury sustained by him outside the course
of employment, for which, authentic proof was not
submitted by him and on the request of the workman and
looking into his mental status, the workman was allowed
to work in maintenance cadre by fixing his wages at mid
stage of respective category on 21.12.1998 as per letter
No. 3173 issued by Sub Area Manager, Durgapur Open
Cast Sub Area and the other cases quoted by the workman
are not at all identical in nature and as such, protection of
wages of the workman does not arise in maintenance cadre,
one must possess ITI with a specific Trade and skill at
higher level for his placing in equal category and the
workman was lacking in that regard and hence, experience
required to attain such category in maintenance cadre
and the workman studied only VIII standard having
driving license and his promotion in maintenance cadre
was not considered for want of less attendance as
determined by Departmental Promotion Committee and
the Dy. CPM is not authorized to issue such circular and
more over the said circular is not relevant in this case and
the case of the workman is not a case of demotion and the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. It is to be mentioned here that even though the
workman had filed his evidence on affidavit; he did not
appear for his cross-examination. Lastly, on 26.08.2013,
intimation was given by the advocate for the petitioner
that the workman expired on 13.05.2013. It is also to be
mentioned that even though sufficient time was given, the
legal heirs of the deceased workman were no brought on
record by way of substitution. No step of any kind was
taken on behalf of the petitioner. So, the case was closed
on 24.10.2013 and was posted for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
involving the jurisdiction of the Court must fail. In this
case, no evidence has been adduced from the side of the
petitioner. Hence, the reference cannot be answered in
favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. Western Coal
Fields Ltd. through Sub Area Manager, Durgapur Open
Cast Colliery, Chandrapur in denying protection of pay at
Rs. 131.08 per day while transferring the workman Shri A.
N. Tonge to the post of EPGH Exe. Grade and fixing his pay
at Rs. 82.70P per day vide order dated 20/21.12.1998 is legal
and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
6654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2583.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyQhYMl
fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 138@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&22012@161@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes and Award (Ref. No. 138/2003) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Workshop Tadali of Western
Coalfileds Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/161/2002-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/138/2003
Party No. 1 : The General Manager,
Central Workshop,
Tadali of Western Coalfields
Ltd, PO-Tadali, Distt. Chandrapur. (MS)
Party No. 2 : Shri P.B. Waghamare, President,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines
Mazdoor Union (CITU)
Br. Central Workshop Tadali,
P.O.-Tadali, Distt. Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 30th October, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
managment of Central Workshop, Tadali, Western
Coalfields Limited and their workman, Shri Hemraj Bagde,
for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/161/2002-IR
(CM-II) dated 26.05.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Workshop, Tadali of Western Coalfields Ltd. in
denying promotion as Fitter Category-A to Shri
Hemraj Bagde, Fitter w.e.f. 01.07.1999 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief is workman entitled?
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union Lal Zanda Coal Mines
Mazdoor Union (CITU), ("the union" in short) filed the
statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Hemraj
Bagde, ("the workman" in short) and the management of
Western Coal fields Ltd. ("Party No. 1" in short) field their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented by the union in
the statement of claim is that the workman was appointed
as a category-I Mazdoor w.e.f. 04.09.1985 and he was posted
at Shivpuri Open Cast Mine in Pench Area and he was
promoted on the recommendation of the departmental
promotion committee as mechanical fitter in category-II
w.e.f. 01.10.1986 and then as Excavation personnel fitter 'D'
w.e.f. 12.02.1990 and he was transferred to Central
Workshop, Tadali as Excavation personnel fitter w.e.f.
28.09.1992 and on the recommendation of the departmental
promotion committee, he was again promoted to the post
of E.P. Fitter, category-C by an order dated 28/30.12.1992
and he was granted notional seniority w.e.f. 01.07.1993 and
he was again promoted to the post the fitter cat-B w.e.f.
01.07.1996 and the workman has a clean and unblemished
service record and he has never been warned and no show
cause notice has been issued against him and right from
the day he has been posted in Central Workshop, Tadali in
1993, he has been performing the work of fitter
independently, without any complaint from any quarters.
It is further pleaded by the union on behalf of the workman
that the workman, who belongs to SC community, was due
for his promotion to the post of Fitter 'A' w.e.f. 01.07.1999
and at that time, the post of fitter category-A was also
vacant, but party no. 1 held the DPC after a year and
promoted persons junior to the workman and the workman
was deprived of the same and as per the manpower budget
of 2000-2001, there was a vacancy of fitter 'A' in reserved
quota, against which the workman could have been
promoted, but the case of the workman was not considered
and although, there was no vacancy in 1999-2000,notional
seniroty w.e.f. 01.07.2000 and again w.e.f. 01.01.2001 came
to be granted to four juniors to the workman, but the
workman was arbitrarily not considered for the same, by
showing hostile discrimination towards him and the DPC,
which was constituted to consider the case of the workman
and others flouted the procedural norms more than one
ways and the Committee did not conduct the written test
and took the decision to recommend only on the basis of
the interview, which gave enough room for manipulation
and in all the previous DPCs, the total marks fixed was 50,
whereas, in the DPC in question, the total mark was 100
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6655
and no consideration was given to the length of service
and past performance and the proceedings of the DPC was
signed six months after the sitting of the DPC was held.
The furhter case of the workman as presented by the union
is that party No. 1 also flouted the reservation policy in its
entirety and as per rules and settled law on the subject, the
SC/ST employees shall be given by the DPC, one grading
higher than the grading otherwise assignable to them on
the basis of their record of service, but the same was not
done in the case of the workman the provision of exchange
blacklog vacancy was also not implemented by party No. 1
and upto 01.07.1997, eight posts of excavation fitter-A grade
were filled up, but no ST candidate was promoted during
that period and one ST backlog vacancy was carried forward
and as per the provision of exchange backlog vacancy, the
unfilled reserved vacancy should have been carried forward
for subsequent three years and inter changed between SC
and ST or vice versa and had the party No. 1 taken due care
to implement this exchange policy mooted by the
Government of India, the workman was sure to have got
the benefit and he would have been promoted to the post
of Fitter A w.e.f. 01.07.1999 so that he could get the benefits
of exchange policy.
The union has prayed to direct the party No. 1 to issue
necessary orders granting promotion to the workman, in
the post of Fitter Category-A w.e.f. 01.07.1999, which all
consequential benefits.
3. The party No. 1, denying all the adverse allegations
made in the statement of claim, has pleaded in the written
statement inter-alia that as per its policy, as and when the
workman was entitled for promotion, he was duly promoted
and promotion is not a matter of right and it depends upon
number of contingencies and certain reservations are
provided for promotion in the interest of social justice, but
such reservation does not empower an employee to claim
promotion as of right as and when vacancy arises and DPC
was conducted by it as and when occasion arose and
promotion was given to the concerned employee, on the
basis of his past performance, marks obtained in the DPC,
seniority and also taking into consideration the post
reserved for any particular class of employee and taking
into consideration the aforesaid situations and as another
candidate with better marks and performance and who was
in the seniority list was there, the workman was denied
promotion and the workman is claiming promotion against
the reserved post and when the reserved post was vacant
and the workman became entitled for the same, he was
given promotion and the workman in the entire statement
of claim has failed to demonstrate as to how he was entitled
for the promotion as claimed by him and has merely made
bald allegations that four workmen, who were juniors to
him have been promoted and there is scope of
manipulations, without demonstrating a single fact as to
him there were manipulation and whether such action was
challenged by him earlier and such bald allegations have
been made only with a view to prejudice the mind of the
court and to mislead the court and the workman has failed
to point out as to how he was entitled for promotion w.e.f.
01.07.1999 and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
4. In support of his case, the workman has examined
himself as a witness, besides placing reliance on
documentay evidence. The examination-in-chief of the
workman is on affidavit. In the affidavit of the workman,
the facts mentioned in the statement of claim have been
reiterated. However, in his cross-examination, the workman
has stated that he does not know the procedure for
promotion to the post of fitter category-A and the affidavit
filed by him was drafted and prepared by the advocate as
per the instruction of the union.
No oral evidence has been adduced by the party No. 1.
5. Before delving into the merit of the case, it is to be
mentioned that the workman has already been given
promotion to grade-A w.e.f. 01.07.2001. Such fact of
promotion has been pleaded by the workman in the
statement of claim and so also in his evidence on affidavit.
6. During the course of argument, the learned advocates
for the parties reiterated the stands taken in the statement
of claim and written statement respectively.
7. It is claimed on behalf of the workman that he was
entitled for promotion to grade-A w.e.f. 01.07.1999. However,
the workman has not mentioned any reason or ground as
to why he was entitled for such promotion w.e.f. 01.07.1999.
It is also clear from the materials on record that the
promotion from Fitter grade-B to grade-A, the
recommendation of the departmental promotion committee
is necessary. It is also clear from the materials on record
that the norms for promotion to grade-A from grade-B is
merit-cum-seniority and some minimum criteria (educational
qualification and minimum length of service in category-B)
are required to be fulfilled for the zone of consideration. It
is also found from record that the DPC held on 25.02.2001
considered the case of promotion for the workman from
category-B to A alongwith eleven other employees and as
there was reservation of only one post, out of the six vacant
posts in category-A for SC candidate and another SC
candidate Shri Manik Dupare was above the workman in
the merit list prepared by the DPC, Shri Manik Dupare was
recommended by the DPC for promotion to grade-A
alongwith four general candidates and the rest one post
which was reserved for ST candidate was kept vacant, as
no ST candidate was there amongst the 12 employees,
who were considered for promotion by the DPC, with
recommendation to carry forward the said post. There is
no material on record to show that there was any
manipulation in the DPC held for consideration of the
promotion of the workman and eleven others. It is also
found from the materials on record that management of
party No. 1 took steps to obtain the approval of the
6656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
competent authority for exchange of reservation of the
post for ST category and after obtaining the necessary
approval, gave promotion to the workman to category 'A'
as per the policy of exchange of reservation, w.e.f. 01.07.2001.
From the discussions made above and the materials on
record, it is found that the workman has failed to prove that
he was entitled for promotion to fitter category-A from
category-B, w.e.f. 01.07.1999. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Central Workshop,
Tadali of Western Coalfields Ltd. in denying promotion as
Fitter Cateogy-A to Shri Hemraj Bagde, Fitter w.e.f.
01.07.1999 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled
to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2584.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyQhYMl
fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn es dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 98@2005½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&22012@24@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 98/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown
in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/24/2005 - IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/98/2005
Party No. 1 : The General Manager,
Western Coalfields Ltd.
Pench Area, PO: Parasia,
Chhindwara.
V/s.
Party No. 2 : Shri Bhagatsingh Sakravar,
General Secretary, SKMS,
(AITUC), CRO Camp, Iklehara,
Chhindwara.
AWARD
(Dated: 24th October, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workman,
Shri Damrunath for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/
24/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 28.11.2005, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager in terminating the services of
Shri Damrunath, Tub Loader, Newton/Ganpati
Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd., PO. Pench Area,
Distt. Chhindwara is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the workman Shri Damrunath, ("the
workman" in short) through his union, SKMS ("the union"
in short) filed the statement of claim and the management
of Western Coalfield Ltd. ("party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as projected by the union in
the statement of claim is that the workman while working
as a Tub Loader in Ganpati Mine was served with charge
sheet No. 96 dated 02.11.1996, for commission of
misconduct under clause 26.22 of the Certified Standing
Order and the workman submitted a detailed reply to the
charge sheet, denying the charges levelled against him, on
17.11.1996 and the workman was ailing and though he was
given surface work in Bhimodi Colliery, he was forced to
discharge the work of Tub Loader, which he was not able
to do and the workman was undergoing medical treatment
for his illness, which can be found from letter No. 96/1699
dated 29.01.2006 of the management and the allegations
made against him were quite false and due to illness, he
was doing the work to the extent, it was possible for him
and he did not commit any misconduct and his past service
record was clean and unblemished and during the enquiry,
he had produced all the relevant documents in support of
his illness, before the Enquiry Officer and it was also
intimated by the workman to the Enquiry Officer about his
still undergoing medical treatment for the illness, but he
was terminated from services by the Party No. 1 on the
basis of illegal and unjust departmental enquiry and the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6657
punishment imposed against him is not in accordance
with the Certified Standing Order and the termination is
illegal and is liable to be set aside. The union has prayed
for the reinstatement of the workman in service with
continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have pleaded
inter-alia that the workman was working as a loader in
Newton Ganpati Mine of Pench Area and he was a habitual
absentee and due to his absenteeism, he could not be able
to attain the minimum work load as fixed by NCWA, so he
was issued with the charge sheet dated 02.11.1996, under
clause 26.22 of the Standing Order and as the reply
submitted by the workman to the said charge sheet was
found unsatisfactory, it was decided by them to conduct a
departmental enquiry against the workman and accordingly,
by order dated 02.12.1996. Shri N.S. Bisth was appointed
as the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer conducted
the enquiry legally, properly and following the principles
of natural justice and the workman was given full
opportunity to defend his case and the workman alongwith
his co-worker participated in the enquiry throughout and
after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report, holding the workman guilty of the
charges and the Competent Authority in the light of the
charges proved in the departmental enquiry, vide office
order dated 09.04.1997, terminated the services of the
workman and the termination of the workman from services
is not only just and proper, but also proportionate, by
looking into the gravity of the misconduct proved against
him and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. In the rejoinder, the facts mentioned in the statement
of claim were reiterated by the union behalf of the workman.
5. As this is a case of termination of the workman from
services, after holding of a departmental enquiry, the
validity of the departmental enquiry was taken as a
preliminary issue for consideration and by order dated
14.05.2013, the departmental enquiry conducted against
the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance
with the principles of natural justice.
6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the union
representative that on perusal of the charge sheet, it can
be found that virtually no charge has been levelled against
the workman and the so called charge sheet was submitted
against the workman and three others and though the
workman had submitted his reply in detail with supporting
documents, his reply was not considered by Party No. 1
and in the departmental enquiry, the workman produced all
the relevant documents in regard to the medical treatment
he had undergone for his illness and even though the
workman was making repeated request to provide him light
work, Party No. 1 did not provide him light duty and the
findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the order
of punishment was passed against the workman without
giving him the final opportunity of hearing and the
punishment is shockingly dispropotionate to the charge.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the management
representative that the workman was a habitual absentee
and due to such absenteeism, the workman failed to attain
the minimum workload as fixed in N.C.W.A. and he was
served with the charge sheet dated 02.11.1996 and as the
reply submitted by the workman was unsatisfactory, the
departmental enquiry was conducted against him and by
order dated 13.05.2013, this Tribunal has already held the
enquiry to be legal, proper and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and the charge levelled against
the workman was duly proved and the findings of the
enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse and as the
misconduct against the workman amounts to gross
misconduct, the punishment imposed against him is quite
proportionate and there is no scope to interfere with the
punishment.
In support of the contentions, reliance was placed on
the decision reported in (1996) 5 SCC-474 (State of T.N. Vs.
Thiru K.V. Perumal).
8. Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it
proper to mention the settled principles as enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, regarding the power of a Tribunal
in interfering with punishment awarded by the competent
authority in departmental proceedings.
In a number of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court have
held that:—
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with
the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be
equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal
cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry
officer or competent authority where they are not
arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose
penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the
competent authority either by an Act of legislature
or rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the
Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent
with the rules and in accordance with principles of
nautral justice what punishment would meet the ends
of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction
of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully
be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct,
the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own
discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of
penalty unless it is malafide is certainly not a matter
of the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal
also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion
of the Inquiry officer or the competent authority is
based on evidence even if some of it is found to be
irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
(1996) 5 SSC 474 (Supra) have held that:
"Service Law-Departmental enquiry-Judicial review-
scope-the question as to whether the charges were
6658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
established on the material available, held, beyond
the scope of judical review as the Administrative
Tribunal is not an appellate Authority over the
Departmental Authority."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, now, the present
case in hand is to be considered.
9. Perused the materials on record including the
documents relating to the departmental enquiry held
against the workman and taking into consideration the
submission made by the representatives for the parties, it
is found that this is not a case of no evidence. It is also
found that the report of the enquiry officer is based on the
evidence adduced during the enquiry and no extraneous
material was taken in to consideration by the enquiry officer
to arrive at the findings. The enquiry officer has assessed
the evidence in a reasonable manner. It is also found that
the documents filed by the workman in respect of his illness
and treatment do not relate to the period of his non-
attendance of duties as mentioned in the charge sheet. It is
also found that the findings given by the enquiry officer
are not as such, which could not have been arrived at by
any reasonable person on the evidence available on the
record of the enquiry. Hence, the findings of the enquiry
officer can not be said to the perverse.
10. Commission of serious misconduct has been proved
against the workman in a properly conducted departmental
enquiry. The punishment of termination from services
imposed against the workman cannot be said to be
shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved against
him. Hence, there is no scope to interfere with the
punishment imposed against the workman. Hence, it is
ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Chief General Manager
in terminating the services of Shri Damrunath, Tub Loader,
Newton/Ganpati Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd. PO.
Pench Area, Distt. Chhindwara is legal and justified. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2585.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,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 vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 157@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@109@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 157/2002) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of SECL and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/109/2002-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/157/2002
Presiding Officer : Shri R.B. PATLE
The Secretary,
M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),
Sohagpur Branch,
PO Dhanpuri,
Shahdol
...Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Dhanipur OCM of SECL,
PO Dhanpuri,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 4th day of October, 2013
1. As per letter dated 28-11-2002 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-22012/
109/2002-IR(CM-II). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the demand of Madhya Pradesh Koyla
Mazdoo Sangh, Branch SECL Burhar Sub Area to
the management in respect of workman Shri Ramesh
Agrawal for promotion/regularization to the post of
clerk w.e.f. the year 1990 is proper and justified? If
yes, then for what relief the workman is entitled and
since what date?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist party workman fixed statement of claim at page
3/1 to 3/2. Case of workman is that the land of his family
was acquired by the 2nd party in 1986. Due to acquisition
of land, he was entitled for employment under 2nd party on
13-2-89, he was appointed as underground Tub Loader on
probation of 12 months. That his services are covered by
Standing order as well as service rules and regulations
applicable to employees of SECL. That as per NCWA-IV,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6659
the person who is in employment as acquisition of his land
is entitled to promotion after one year. Thus he was entitled
for promotion from 13-2-90. That in 1991, Sub Area manager,
Burhar Sub Area issued slip to engage him in clerical job
by subsequent letter dated 23-3-93. The management of
Burhar Mines deputed him to clerical nature of job to receive
explosives and detonators. That other similarly placed
workers were promoted. That workman is engaged in job
of clerical nature. During past 12 years, he was denied
promotion. His representations were also not considered.
On such grounds, workman prays for regularization/
promotion from 13-2-90.
3. IInd party filed exhaustive Written Statement at Page
5/1 to 5/10. Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party
that workman was employed as General Mazdoor. He claims
promotion to the post of clerk on the basis that he was
working as clerk. The dispute is raised after 11 years is
highly belated, the reference is not tenable. The promotion
cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is managerial
function. It cover various circumstances as administrative
requirement, availability of post etc.
4. That SECL is registered under Indian Company's Act.
It is subsidiary for Coal India Ltd. The conditions of
employment in Coal Industry are covered by various
settlements NCWA. The Cadre Scheme formulated for
Ministerial Staff, Clerical cadre. The details are given in
Para-7 of the Written Statement that Clerk Grade III,
educational Qualification is Matriculation, eligibility is 3
years service, Mode of promotion is Selection test. All
other adverse contentions of workman are denied. That for
purpose of granting promotion, DPC is constituted to
consider eligibility of the candidates. As per
recommendations of DPC, promotion is given. That
headquarter of SECL has given instructions that time rated
employees be directly or indirectly engaged in clerical job.
Few underground workers are allowed to work on some
days should be brought to the notice. IInd party further
submits that as per circular No. 380 dated 1-10-90, decision
of Functional Director were intimated. There should not be
diversion of manpower to non-productive jobs and
diversion in any circumstances by colliery, no diversion of
manpower from underground to surface, no deployment of
time rated personnel on monthly rated jobs in clerical or
surface or office, no engagement of contractual labour in
underground jobs other than stopping etc. It is further
submitted that as per Hqr. order No. 2889 dated 10-4-93, the
company was having surplus clerical staff hence no person
should be placed in clerical cadre. Workman was never
authorized to work as clerk Grade III. He was never paid
wages of clerk claimed by him. As per cadre scheme
applicable from promotion from post of clerk Grade-III,
minimum eligibility of promotion is 3 years service with the
company and educational qualification is higher secondary.
That as per cadre scheme and rules and regulations,
workman is eligible for promotion. Claim of workman be
rejected. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 6/1 to 6/4
supporting his claim for promotion and the points raised in
the statement of claim are reiterated by him.
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 demand of
In Negative
Madhya Pradesh Koyla
Mazdoor Sangh, branch
SECL Burhar Sub Area to
the management in respect
of workman Shri Ramesh
Agrawal for promotion/
regularization to the post
of clerk w.e.f. the year 1990
is proper?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?" workman is rejected.
REASONS
6. Ist party workman is claiming promotion to the post
of Clerk Grade-III contending that his land was acquired
for the Coal Mines in 1986. As per NCWA-IV, he was entitled
for promotion after completion of one year service. That he
was working as clerk Grade III for 11 months. He should be
regularized/promotion to said post.
7. Workman filed affidavit. However he failed to remain
preset for his cross-examination. Therefore his evidence
cannot be relied. Management's witness Surya Prakash
Patnaik filed affidavit of evidence contending most of the
statements in Written Statement. That services of
employees working in SECL are covered by Bipartite
Settlement NCWA-IV. Cadre Scheme provides eligibility
criteria including selection test for the promotion to the
post of Clerk Grade-III. The evidence of witness remained
unchallenged as the workman failed to cross-examine him.
8. The documents produced by him are admitted by
management. Exhibit M-1 to 17 produced by management.
It do not relate to claim of workman that he is entitled to
promotion to the clerk Grade-III. The proposal was
submitted to the authorities as per Exhibit M-14 regarding
claim of Ist party but however no action was taken. The
documents M-15, 16, 17 shows names of employee working
underground in Dhanpuri Mines. The name of workman is
appearing in those documents.
9. Considering unchallenged evidence of workman, claim
of workman is not substantiated by satisfactory evidence,
therefore the demand of Union is not justified. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Negative.
6660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Demand of Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor
Sangh, Branch SECL Burhar Sub Area to the
management in respect of workman Shri Ramesh
Agrawal for promotion/regularization to the post
of clerk w.e.f. the year 1990 is proper and legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2586.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyQhYMl
fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 172@99½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@198@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/99) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of WCL and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/198/1998-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/172/99
Presiding Officer : Shri R.B. PATLE
The President,
K.K.M.P. (HMS),
PO Junnardeo,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
The Manager,
Rawanwara Khas Colliery,
WCL, PO Dhingawani,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 4th day of October, 2013
1. As per letter dated 22-4-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-22012/
198/98/IR (CM-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of
Rawanwara Khas Colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Distt. Chhindwara in retiring Shri Fuljhar S/o
Shri Anup, Tub Loader from 1-2-1992 is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned
is entitled to?
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties, 1st party Union filed Statement of Claim at Page 3.
Case of Union is that workman Fuljhar S/o Shri Anup was
permanent workman of the IInd party. His date of birth was
10-3-53. Management has recorded his date of birth in Form
B as 30-8-32. The workman was retired from service on
1-9-92 instead of 9-3-2013. That workman had challenged
termination filing Writ Petition in Hon'ble High Court. Writ
was disposed with observation that remedy under I.D. Act
would be availed. Union prays that retirement of workman
be set-aside and he be allowed on duty with back wages
treating his date of birth as 10-3-53.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement. The claim of Union
is opposed. It is submitted that date of birth of workman
was recorded 40 years back in 1972. Workman was retired
from service on 1-9-92 on completion of 60 years. The
dispute referred after long lapse of time is not legal, its
cognigence could not be taken. IInd party submits that
workman was appointed in 1972 by Oriental Coal Co. Ltd.
That as per rule, Form B register was maintained. The
particulars about age, name etc., were entered. After
nationalization of Coal Mines, Oriental Coal Company
handed over said register to the IInd party. The entries in
Form B were taken by information given by Ist party. He
has affixed his thump mark on it. Claim of workman based
on entries of date of birth in School Leaving Certificate is
not legal. Writ Petition 1848/85 was decided on 24-8-87,
claim of workman was rejected. IInd party denied that date
of birth of workman claimed by workman that date of birth
of workman recorded in Form B register if 10-3-53. Therefore
applicant is not entitled to relief prayed by him. On such
ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim of workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6661
(i) Whether the action of the
In affirmative
management of Rawan-
wara Khas Colliery of
Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Distt. Chhindwara in
retiring Shri Fuljhar S/o
Shri Anup, Tub Loader
from 1-2-1992 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5. Though the Union is challenging retirement of
workman Shri Fuljhar showing that his date of birth was
30-8-32, he was retired from 1-9-92 accepting his date of
birth as 30-8-32 instead of his correct date of birth 10-3-53.
The Union has not participated in the reference proceeding.
He failed to adduce evidence to substantiate his claim under
reference. The management filed affidavit of its witness
Shri I.Y. Seshidhar, witness of the management has
supported entire claim of IInd Party management that the
date of birth of workman was 10-8-32 as per entries in leave
register maintained at the time of entry in service. The
evidence of management's witness remained unchallenged
as workman or Union failed to cross-examine the
management's witness. I do not find reason to discard his
evidence. In absence of evidence about correct date of
birth of Ist Party workman, I record my finding on Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Rawanwara Khas
colliery of Western Coalfields Ltd., Distt.
Chhindwara in retiring Shri Fuljhar S/o Shri Anup,
Tub Loader from 1-2-1992 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by Union is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2587.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyQhYMl
fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 87@93½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@358@1992&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 87/93) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of WCL and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-22012/358/1992-IR(C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/87/93
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Chief General Secretary,
M.P.K.K.M.P. (HMS),
PO Junnardeo,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
......Workman/Union
Versus
Manager,
Shivpuri Mines of WCL,
PO Sirgora via Parasia,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
......Management
AWARD
Passed on this 10th day of October 2013
1. As per letter dater 3-3-93 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-22012/358/92-IR-
(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Shivpuri
Colliery of WCL Pench Area, PO Shivpuri, Distt.
Chhindwara in dismissing Shri Dinesh S/o Bisanlal,
Tub Loader from services w.e.f. 25-5-90 is justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. Ist Party submitted statement of claim at Page 5.
Case of Ist Party Union is that workman Dinesh was served
with a discharged notice dated 25-5-90 by the management
of IInd Party. That the management had held exparte
enquiry. Workman had produced medical certificate for
resuming duties on 3-6-90. The Manager sent Medical
Certificate to the Medical Officer of the colliery. The Medical
Officer of the mine had given remark that certificate was
not in order fit for duty. The Manager had ordered Senior
Personnel Officer of mine to allow him on duty from
4-6-90. Accordingly he was allowed on duty. After passing
6662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of some days, he was handed over a bunch of papers he
was discharged from 25-5-90. That the management itself
was not aware of their absence and discharging him from
25-5-90. On such grounds workman prays for
reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd Party management field Written statement at
Page 6/1 to 6/6. IInd Party contended that case of workman
is he was working as tub loader in Shivpuri colliery, Pench
Area. Charge sheet was issued to him on 10-10-89 of
unauthorized absence from 23-9-89. The workman did not
care to submit his reply therefore it was decided to conduct
Deptt. Enquiry. Shri S. K. Singh, Sr. Union Manager was
appointed as Enquiry Officer. Shri A.K. Jha was appointed
as Management Representative. The enquiry was fixed
on 4-5-90. Workman remained absent. Again enquiry was
adjourned to 5-5-90. Notice was issued to the workman.
Meanwhile Shri P.N. Yadav was appointed as
Management Representative in place of Shri A.K. Jha. As
workman failed to participate in the Enquiry Proceeding,
the enquiry proceeding was proceeded exparte. That
workman remained unauthorisely absent. Particulars of
his working days are given in Para-2. Workman had
worked for 169 days in 1987, 126 days in 1988, 103 days in
1989, 36 days in 1990. That Attendance Register, bonus,
leave registers were produced in enquiry proceedings.
Inspite of opportunity given to the workman, he remained
absent, the enquiry was conducted properly following
principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted
his report recording his findings that charges are proved.
Other contentions of workman are denied. It is submitted
that the employees of IInd Party are provided medical
facilities including treatment in super speciality hospital
i.e. hospital having 200 beds with modern equipment at
Barkui. The certificates produced by workman about his
illness were not genuine.
4. IInd Party submits that the contentions of workman
are false. On such ground, it is prayed that relief prayed
by workman be rejected.
5. Union filed rejoinder at Page 7. The contentions of
the management are denied. That he had produced
Medical Certificate about his illness.
6. The preliminary issue was decided as per order dated
17-5-2010, the enquiry found legal and proper. The parties
were given opportunity to adduce evidence on other
issues.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the misconduct
In Affirmative
alleged against workman
is proved from evidence in
Enquiry Proceedings?
(ii) Whether the punishment
In Affirmative
of dismissal from service
imposed on workman is
proper are legal?
(iii) If so, to what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?
Union is rejected.
REASONS
8. As stated above, enquiry conducted against workman
is found legal and proper. Case was fixed for evidence on
other issues. Union as well as IInd party has not adduced
any evidence on other issues. The record of Enquiry
Proceeding is produced. Page 9/6 of the Enquiry
Proceedings shows that Ist Party workman was absent
from duty from 23-9-89. The representative of management
disclosed that Form "C" register and Tub Loader work
load register were available about absence from duty of
the workman. Copies of documents are produced in the
Enquiry Proceedings. Said evidence remained
unchallenged. Therefore finding of Enquiry Officer cannot
be said without evidence or perverse. The evidence in
Enquiry proceedings shows that workman was
unauthorisely absent from duty. In his statement of claim,
Ist Party workman has not stated that he was on duty
during the relevant period. It was his case that he had
submitted medical certificates and same were not
considered. In view of the enquiry is found legal and valid,
there is no point of recording fresh evidence on the point.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
9. Point No. 2-Workman is dismissed from service for
unauthorized absence. The copy of dismissal order is
produced at Exhibit W-2. The charge was under Rule 17-
1(B) for unauthorized absence for more than 10 days. The
workman has not adduced evidence on other issues. No
evidence is brought on record to point out how the
punishment of dismissal is improper. In absence of such
evidence, I do not find reason to interfere in the order of
punishment of dismissal imposed by management.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Shivpuri colliery of
WCL Pench Area, PO Shivpuri, Distt Chhindwara
in dismissing Shri Dinesh S/o Bisanlal, tub loader
from services w.e.f. 25-5-90 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2588.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyQhYMl
fyfeVsM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6663
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 199@87½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&21012@1@1986&Mh&III ¼ch½@Mh&III ¼,½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 199/87) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of WCL and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-21012/1/1986-D III(B)/D-III(A)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/199/87
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
The Secretary (Central),
Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
PO Damua,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Western Coalfields Limited,
Kanhan Area, PO Dungaria,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of July 2013
1. As per letter dated 1-10-87 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-21012/
1/86-D-III(B)/D-III(A). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the management of Damua
Colliery of W.C.Ltd, Kanhan Area in not regularizing
Shri Suresh Prasad Tiwari in the post of TPC/loading
clerk and consequently stopping him from work with
effect from31-8-85 is justified? If not, to what relief is
the workmen concerned entitled and from which
date?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties. The Secretary of R.K.K.M.S. filed Statement of claim
at Page 2/1 to 2/5. The case of Ist Party workman is that he
was appointed in year 1977 as General Mazdoor Cat-I. He
was working satisfactorily. That workman was performing
office work in Incline No. 23 of Damua Colliery. He was
working as TPC Loading clerk from 1-3-1982. He was doing
work continuously in Incline No. 22, 23. He was transferred
to Incline No. 16, 17 because of his Union activities. The
Manager of Incline No. 16, 17 ordered him to perform duty
of Tub Munshi/Pit Munshi instead of TPC loading clerk.
Workman joined duty of Tub Munshi and job of Munshi
are categorized in Gr. III as per the Central Wage Board for
Coal Mines Industry. It is further submitted that workman
after his transfer in Incline No. 16, 17 was performing duty
of TPC Loading clerk till 31-8-85. The Manager of colliery
stopped said work of TPC Loading clerk. Thereafter the
matter was taken before Conciliation Officer. During
pendency of conciliation proceeding, he was again
transferred. The order of transfer was cancelled at
intervention of Dy. Chief Mining Engineer of Damua Colliery.
That the workman was required to work underground
mines. That the action of the management is illegal, it
amount to violation of Section 33(1) of I.D. Act. It is prayed
that management be directed that the workman be
regularized on the post of TPC loading clerk from
31-3-1985.
3. Management of IInd Party filed preliminary objection
at Page 3. It is submitted that the reference has been made
neither by Secretary. RKKMS nor by office bearer of the
said Union. The reference is not tenable. That Shri D.N.
Tripathi appeared as representative of Union. He is not
member of RKKMS (INTUC). He has not appeared on behalf
of workan. That Union has not consent with the present
Union as Mr. Tripathi is not member of MPKKMP Union.
4. Written statement is filed at Page 5/1 to 5/3. It is
reiterated that reference speaks about stopping of workman
Shri Suresh Prasad Tiwari w.e.f. 31-8-85. It was nobody's
case before the appropriate authority concerned that Shri
S.P. Tiwari was stopped form working. The reference could
not be made in such manner. That Shri S.P. Tiwari was
working as General Mazdoor in Damua Colliery. He was
absent from duty from 31-8-85. For his absence, chargesheet
was issued and disciplinary action was taken against him.
The management never stopped him from working. He
further submitted that at his request for giving alternate
employment, not considered by the management. The
dispute is referred at the instance of the Union. It is
reiterated that Shri S.P. Tiwari was General Mazdoor. he
doesnot possess qualification for TPC loading clerk. There
is no vacancy of said post. There is no justification in
demand of the Union. That promotion to the post of loading
clerk are based on cadre scheme in Coal Industry
qualifications and other criteria. On such grounds, IInd
Party prays for rejection of the claim.
6664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Damua
Colliery of W.C. Ltd.
Kanhan Area in not
regularizing Shri Suresh
Prasad Tiwari in the post
of TPC/loading clerk and
consequently stopping
him from work with effect
from 31-8-85 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
6. As per terms of reference, dispute between parties
relates to denial of regularizing the workman Shri S.P. Tiwari.
In his evidence, he has stated that he was working as TPC
Loading clerk as per order of Asstt. Manager dated 1-3-82.
After his transfer, he was continuing to work on same post.
That head Assistant clerk and Sr. Personnel Officer
Mr. Chandok had secured the register from Incline No. 22-
23 of Damua Colliery. In his cross-examination, he says on
document Exhibit W-3, Asstt. Manager has made
endorsement to look for requirement and comment. From
reading of his entire cross-examination, it is clear that
General Mazdoor Category is promoted to the post of TPC
loading clerk. He denied suggestions with respect to the
enquiry proceedings. The evidence of Shri Motiram
Khatarkar is on record. That Shri S.P. Tiwari was working
as Transport clerk for more than 240 days. In his cross-
examination, he submits that since 1987, he was working as
General Mazdoor. He claims ignorance whether Shri S.P.
Tiwari was working underground. That Shri S.P. Tiwari had
passed Higher Secondary. The entire evidence on record
of workman and management's witness doesnot show that
Ist Party workman Shri S.P. Tiwari was promoted to the
post of TPC Loading clerk. What were the duties of General
Mazdoor, the post he was appointed were not produced
on record. His working as TPC Loading clerk for sometimes
as per order of Asstt. Manager cannot be said promotion.
He was not holding such post. Shri S.P. Tiwari was
appointed as General Mazdoor. In absence of duties of
General Mazdoor, work assigned to him as TPC loading
clerk cannot be said legal. He cannot claim right to the post
of TPC loading clerk therefore cannot be said in violation
of Section 33(1) of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative and workman is not
entitled to any relief.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
1. The action of the management of Damua Colliery
of W.C. Ltd, Kanhan Area in not regularizing
Shri Suresh Prasad Tiwari in the post of TPC/
loading clerk and consequently stopping him from
work with effect from 31-8-85 is legal.
2. Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2589.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,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 vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 133@87½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&21012@89@1986&Mhñ III ¼ch½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes and Award (Ref. 133/87) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute betweeen the
management of SECL and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No.-L-21012/89/1986-D.III(B)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/133/87
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
MP Colliery workers Federation,
PO Jhagrakhand Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
....Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Ramnagar Sub Area,
PO Ramnagar Colliery,
Distt. Shahdol (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 23-7-87 by Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6665
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-21012/89/86-D.III(B).
The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the dismissal of Shri Rameshwar Tiwari,
Ex-Grade II clerk of Ramnagar colliery by the Manager,
Ramnagar colliery of WCL (now SECL) Distt. Shahdol
vide letter No. M/RAM/DISMISSAL/1145 dated
21/22-11-1980 is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the
parties, Ist party workman filed statement of claim at Page
4/1 to 4/13. The case of Ist party workman is that he was
working as Grade II clerk in Ramnagar colliery. He was
served with chargesheet on 2-7-80. The Charges were under
Clause 20(1)(e) and 20(1) (q) of certified standing orders
for Ramnagar colliery. It was alleged in the chargesheet
that around 2 AM on 2-7-80, when one B.N. Singh Under
Manager, V.K.Khare, Asstt. Colliery Manager and others
were returning by bus. The workman blocked road in front
of his quarter of one Janeshwar Tiwari. It was also alleged
that the workman has threatened and abused one Shri B.N.
Singh and assaulted him physically. He was called upon to
showcause within 48 hours. The chargesheet should not
have been issued against him without affording any
opportunity. That the workman was suspended arbitrarily.
As the enquiry is held vitiated, I am not inclined to narrate
details exhaustively the contentions of workman on the
point of illegality of enquiry. Workman has narrated the
alleged charges that he had around 12.30 PM, heard some
hue and cry and screaming of somebody asking for
proection. When he rushed to the house of Shri B.
Choudhary, he found one Shri R.K. Lal, Jaswant Singh,
B.M. Singh, V.K. Khare etc. were beating Janeshwar Tiwari
mercilessly. The workman alongwith one Sitaram and Dubey
also reached the spot and tried to save Janeshwar Tiwari
from Physical assault. That the chargesheet against
workman was manoeuvred with malafied intention to
victimize. That the Enquiry officers R.K. Mehta, N.K. Prasad
were appointed without any reasons they were shunted
out on 26-7-80 and Shri J.K. Ghosh was appointed as
Enquiry Officer. Workman had submitted repeated
objections for his appointment. Those objections were not
considered. As per letter dated 9-8-90, workman had
requested for clarifications. Those clarifications were
denied by him. That Enquiry Officer Mr. Ghosh conducted
the enquiry sacrificing principles of natural justice, he was
biased, action was detrimental to justice.
3. Workman had submitted letters from time to time.
That his objections were not decided. He couldnot
participate in the enquiry as the Enquiry Officer was biased.
The enquiry was conducted exparte on reports of Enquiry
Officer, he was dismissed from service. It is submitted that
Enquiry Officer did not consider the evidence properly.
The charge of drunkenness has been leveled against
applicant whereas there were no allegation of his being
drunken on the date of incident. Enquiry Officer did not
apply his mind. Findings of Enquiry Officer were not
supported by evidence of independent witnesses. The
statements of management's witnesses narrating the
incident were contradictory. Ist party workman was
dismissed from service on the basis of reports submitted
by Enquiry Officer. The report of Enquiry Officer was not
supplied to him. The competent authority blindly agreed
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. That the enquiry
should have been conducted as per certified standing
orders. The enquiry conducted against him was malafide.
FIR lodged against workman was also motivated. On such
ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 3/1 to 3/4.
IInd party denied all contentions of workman about the
incident. That after appointment of Enquiry Officer,
Shri J.K. Ghosh, Personal manager was appointed as
Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was fixed on 7-8-80. Workman
remained absent. Enquiry was adjourned to 14-8-80. Notice
was given to the workman but he remained absent. Enquiry
was adjourned to 29-8-80. Workman remained absent.
Enquiry was proceeded exparte. Enquiry Officer recorded
statements of management's witness Shir S.S. Srivastava,
B.N.Sinha, J. Sinha, B. Choudhary and T. Subramanyam.
That enquiry was conducted following the rules and
principles of natural justice. Chargesheeted employee did
not participate in the enquiry. It is further submitted that if
enquiry is found not legal, IInd party be permitted to prove
misconduct adducing evidence. IInd party prays for
rejection of claim of the workman.
5. Ist party filed rejoinder at Page 5/1 to 5/7 reiterating
contention in Statement of claim. Further it is submitted
that the enquiry was not conducted following rules. He
has not furnished information as per reuqest.
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 dismissal of
In Affirmative
Shri Remeshwar Tiwari,
Ex-Grade II clerk of
Ramnagar colliery by the
Manager,
Ramnagar
colliery of WCL (now
SECL) Distt. Shahdol vide
letter No. M/RAM/
DISMISSAL/1145 dated
21/22-11-1980 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the work-
Relief prayed by
man is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
6666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
7. The legality of enquiry is disputed by workman. My
learned predecessor passed order dated 11-11-11 holding
that enquiry conducted against Ist party workman
Rameshwar Tiwari by management is not legal.
Management was permitted to adduce evidence on
remaining issues. The evidence of workman Tiwari was
recorded. Management filed affidavit of witnesses J.K.
Ghosh, K.K. Pathak, K.K. Mukherjee & P.N. Sinha.
Considering the evidence on record, my learned
predecessor passed award dated 3-12-88 holding that the
charges against workman were not proved. The order of
his termination was set-aside. Said award was challenged
in W.P. No. 5089/99. The award passed by my learned
predecessor was set aside and the order of dismissal of
workman was upheld. The judgement in W.P. No. 5089/99
was challenged in Writ Appeal in 2006. Their Lordship
observed that reference No. R/133/87 was clubbed with
139/87. The common evidence was recorded. That both
reference should be decided separately. The order in Writ
Appeal No. 225/2006 was challenged by filing review
applicaiton. In review application, directions were given
for deciding both the matter within particular time.
8. After remand of the matter, no further evidence is
adduced by the parties. Management has submitted
evidence on affidavit. The witnesses were cross-examined.
The question is whether from the evidence of management's
witnesses, charges against delinquent is proved. The
evidence of management's witness J.K. Gandhi, E.O. is not
relevant on the point. Witness B. Choudhary in his affidavit
of evidence has narrated entire incident that he found
Sitaram and Rameshwar Tiwari abusing in filthy languages
saying "Maaro Sala Sardar Ko". He found Janeshwar Tiwari
trying to assault Shri Jaswant Singh with steel chair by
holding it in his hand. The turban of Shri Jaswant Singh
and sweet dish tray were lying on the floor and Shri Jaswant
Singh was trying to pick them up. He had pursued all of
them and finally those persons left the place. In cross-
examination of B. Choudhary, he says that both the parties
had beaten Jaswant Singh. They have assaulted by hitting
with steel chair. His evidence is not shattered in his cross-
examination. Witness K.K. Pathak has also narrated the
entire incident. That Rameshwar Tiwari was shouting
“Maro sirdar ko" etc. Janeshwar Tiwari lifted the steel chair
and hit Jaswant singh but attack failed. Others hold the
chair and prevented from further assault. Janeshwar was
stopped by those persons, other datails of the incident are
also given by the witness Shri K.K. Pathak, P.K. Mukherjee,
and B.N. Sinha in their respective affidavit. Shri K.K. Pathak
in his cross-examination re-affirmed his statement. He
claimed ignorance what statement was given by Jaswant
in Criminal court. That in his presence, B.N. Sinha did not
beat Rameshwar. His evidence on the point that Janeshwar
had assaulted Jaswant Singh is not shattered. Shri P.K.
Mukherjee in his cross-examination has stated that beating
incident has not occurred in his presence. The question
was also put about their evidence in criminal case. The
judgement in criminal case is not produced on record.
Those comments are made in the written notes of argument
submitted by workman.
9. Counsel for management Mr. Shashi submits that the
burden of proof in criminal case and domestic enquiry is
different. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on
ratio held in:
“Case of West Bokaro Colliery Versus Ram Pravesh
Singh reported in 2009-I-LLT-220(SC). Their Lordship
of the Apex Court held that standard of proof in
Departmental Proceeding is different from that in
criminal cases.
In case of Emco Transformers Ltd. versus S.P.
Choubey and another in 1997-LLR-649. Their lordship
held in Criminal proceedings, the life and liberty of
person is at stake whereas in labour cases, the
Labour court has to examine and ascertain as to
whether the contract of employment between the
employer and employee be maintained intact even
against the wishes of the parties. Thus the Labour
Court is entitled to do, if there is total lack of bonafides
or a gross case of victimization or a situation where a
totally innocent person has been dismissed from
service leading to an interference of victimization.”
10. The evidence discussed above is not shattered
about occurrence of the incident. I donot find the findings
of Enquiry Officer suffers from any perversity. The evidence
is sufficient to hold the charges against workman are
proved. Incident had occurred within the colliery
establishment out of the discussion about repairs of the
quarters and as such relates to the affairs of the IInd Party
SECL. For above reasons, I donot find reasons to interfere
in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The action of the
IInd party in terminating services of workman is legal.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 1.
11. Point No.2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
workman is not entitled to any relief. Interference on order
of termination of Shri Rameshwar Tiwari is not justified.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The dismissal of Shri Rameshwar Tiwari, Ex-Grade
II clerk of Ramnagar colliery by the Manager,
Ramnagar colliery of WCL (now SECL) Distt.
Shahdol vide letter No. M/RAM/DISMISSAL/
1145 dated 21/22-11-1980 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2590.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,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 vf/kdj.k@Je
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6667
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 139@87½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&21012@5@1987&Mh- III ¼ch½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 139/87) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of SECL and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 13/11/2013.
[No. L-21012/5/1987-D. III(B)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/139/87
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
N.P.C.W.F., Hasdeo Area,
PO South Jhagrakhand Colliery,
Distt. Surguja (MP)
Workman/Union
Versus
Sub Area Manager,
Ramnagar Sub Area of SECL,
PO Ramnagar Colliery,
Distt. Shahdol
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 11th day of September, 2013
As per letter dated 31-7-87 by the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-21012/5/87-D. III(B).
The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management in dismissing
the services of Shri Janeshwar Tiwari, Ex-Grade I Clerk
of Jhimar colliery by the Manager, Jhimar colliery of
WCL (now SECL) Distt. Shahdol vide his letter No.
M/JHIMAR/DISMISSAL/295 dated 20/30-9-80 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 his statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/13. The case of Ist party workman is that he
was permanent employee of Jhimar Colliery, Hasdeo Area.
There are no certified standing orders for controlling
services of the employees. That Jhimar colliery covered by
Model Standing Orders. Chargesheet was issued to him
on 3-7-80. The allegation was that workman unauthorisely
enetered in house of Shri B. Choudhary, Colliery Manager
and abused one Jaswant Singh who was standing with
others. Charges were framed under Certified Standing
Orders Clause 20(1)(e) and 20(1)(q). He had replied to the
showcause notice contending that the allegation were
concocted, charges were baseless. He further submits that
on 2-7-80 he was invited in a party organised by one
Jaswant Singh on his promotion to the higher post. The
invitation card was given to him by Jaswant Singh
personally and he was requested to attend the party. The
party was organized at residence of Shri B. Choudhary.
That invitees including General Manager Shri B.M. Sinha,
Under Manager V.K. Khare, Asstt. Colliery Manager were
enjoying drinks. When he was talking to General Manager
and complaining of negligence on part of the Civil
Department for maintenance of his quarter, Jaswant Singh
and other interfered in the talk and felt offended hearing
the conversation with the General Manager. He has
narrated about the incident occurred. FIR was lodged to
police station Ramnagar on 3-7-80. That Enquiry officers
R.K. Mehta, N.K. Prasad were changed, J.K. Ghosh
Personnel Manager, was deliberately appointed as Enquiry
officer. He had repeatedly submitted representation for his
appointment. His representations dated 28-7-80, 31-7-80
were not considered. The enquiry was fixed on 1-8-80.
Despite of his subsequent representations, Enquiry Officer
was not changed. That enquiry was proceeded exparte. He
was dismissed from service as per order dated 14-9-86.
3. Workman submits that enquiry conducted against
him was not fair and proper. My predecessor has held
enquiry illegal as per order dated 11-11-91. Said order was
not challenged and received finality. The parties were given
opportunity to adduce evidence on remaining issues.
Therefore the detailed discussion of the pleadings of
workman about legality of equiry is avoided for sake of
gravity. Ist party workman has pleaded. It was obligatory
for management to supply copy of Enquiry proceedings.
He was not supplied copies of Enquiry proceedings. Enquiry
Officer not considered his objections. It resulted in
miscarriage of justice. The enquiry was conducted
arbitrarily. The charge of drunkness, fighting etc. cannot
be sustained under Clause 17 of the Model Standing Orders.
So called charges donot fall under Section (e) of Model
Standing Orders. On such grounds, Ist party workman be
reinstated with back wages.
4. IInd party management filed Written Statement at Page
4/1 to 4/3. IInd party submits that on 2-6-80, workman
unauthorisely entered house of Choudhary, he abused
Jaswant Singh and committed certain misconduct.
Chargesheet was issued to him on 3-7-80. The reply given
was not satisfactory. Enquiry Officer was appointed.
Thereafter Shri N.K. Prasad was appointed as Enquiry
6668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Officer. As Mr. Prasad proceeded on long leave, Shri J.K.
Ghosh was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was fixed
on 1-8-80, 6-8-80, 21-8-80, 30-8-80. The workman did not
appeared on those dates. The enquiry was proceeded
further. The statements of management's witness Jaswant
Singh, B.N. Sinha, P.K. Mukherjee, K.K. Pathak and
P.K. Chatterjee were recorded. The Enquiry Officer submitted
his report on 30-9-80, misconduct against workman was
proved. The enquiry was conducted properly giving
opportunity to defend the workman. The punishment of
dismissal is given. On such ground, IInd party submits
that workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him.
5. Management had further filed rejoinder at Page 5/1 to
5/4 denying material contention of workman. Chargesheet
was issued to workman.
6. As stated above my learned predecessor held enquiry
conducted against workman was illegal. Management was
given opportunity to prove misconduct by adducing
evidence. Following points arise for my consideration and
determination. My findings are recorded against each of
them for reasons given below—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management in dismissing
the services of Shri
Janeshwar Tiwari, Ex-
Grade I Clerk of Jhimar
colliery by the Manager,
Jhimar colliery of WCL
(now SECL) Distt. Shahdol
vide his letter No. M/
JHIMAR/DISMISSAL/
295 dated 20/30-9-80 is
legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the work-
Relief prayed by
man is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
7. Before dealing with the evidence of the witnesses of
the management, it would be appropriate to deal with certain
aspects of the litigation. That after parties adduced evidence
in respect of remaining charges, award was passed by my
learned predecessor on 4-12-88 held that the charges against
workman was not proved. The order of punishment was
set-aside. The order was challenged by management before
Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 5090/99. The award was
set-aside by Hon'ble High Court as per judgment dated 4-
4-06. The order of punishment of dismissal was upheld.
The order in Writ Petition was challenged in Writ Appeal
No. 286/2006. Their Lordship observing that the cases were
clubbed with R/133/87 for evidence in the year 1995. Both
the cases be decided separately. Review Petition 460/09
was filed. The review application was disposed off with
the direction to decide the matter within specific time. After
remand of the matter, parties have not adduced further
evidence. Notes of arguments are submitted. The question
arises whether the charges against workman are proved
from evidence in Enquiry proceedings. The evidence of
Shri J.K. Ghosh was recorded till 27-11-90 on the point of
legality of Enquiry Proceedings as the order holding enquiry
illegal has received finality, his evidence is not relevant on
the point.
8. The management filed affidavits of evidence of
Shri P.K. Chatterjee, Medical Suptd., Shri G.N. Sinha, Sr.
Under Manager, Shri R.C. Yadav, Personnel Manager, T.S.
Subbaratnam Addnl. Chief Engineer, Jaswant Singh, Suptd.
Engineer, P.K. Mukherjee, Suptd. of Mines. All those
witnesses in their affidavit of evidence have stated that on
2-7-80, they have attended party given by Shri Jaswant.
Around 12.30 AM, he was not present at that time of
beating incident of Shri B.N. Sinha. He had not seen the
beating incident. Shri Ramesh had come with lathi for
beating. On his intervension Rameshwar Tiwari returned.
9. Shri B.N. Sinha in his affidavit of evidence has stated
that he saw Jaswant approaching he Varandan. He was
followed by Shri Rameshwar Tiwari and Sitaram Yadav at
some distance. Shri Janeshwar Tiwari approached
Shri Jaswant Singh shouting "Sala Sardar Yaha Party
Manata Hai etc. and he slapped Shri Jashwant Singh on
his face. Again he slapped as a result of which the tray of
sweets and his turban were thrown on the floor. While Shri
Jaswant Singh was picking up his turban, Shri Janeshwar
Tiwari lifted a steel folding chair and tried to hit on the
head of Shri Singh. He has narrated the details of the
incident. In his cross-examination, Shri B.N. Sinha says
nobody was drunk, he had left party around 12.39 hours.
Police had recorded his statement. He claims ignorance
about the judgment by Criminal Court. False statement was
given by Yashwant Singh in Court. He claims ignorance
whether Janeshwar Tiwari was acquitted by Sessions Court.
When Rameshwar Tiwari was beating him, wooden stick
was in his hand. At that time Chatterjee was not present.
Mr. P.K. Mukherjee was present. Whether party was
organized in Bunglow of Jashwant Singh was by side. After
party was finished, they left for their Bunglow. Cross-
examination of Shri G.N. Sinha does not shatter his evidence
about the incident. The evidence of witness T.S.
Subbaratnam on affidavit shows Janeshwar, Rameshwar
and Sitaram reached there shouting in abusive language.
Shri Janeshwar slapped Shri Jashwant Singh, due to slap,
his turban fell down on the ground. Other details of incident
and abuses are narrated in his affidavit of evidence. In his
cross-examination, T.S. Subbaratnam says that he had seen
both beating Jashwant Singh. He claims ignorance about
judgment of Session Court. He denied suggestion that he
was giving evidence at the instance of management under
pressure. The evidence of T.S. Subbaratnam about incident
is not shattered. Jashwant Singh has also supported in his
evidence of affidavit about the incident, the details are
given in his evidence. In his cross-examination he says
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6669
that he had given statement before judicial Magistrate
Shahdol. However he denies that he had given statement
that Rameshwar and Janeshwar had beaten him. He claims
ignorance about judgment by Session Court. The copy of
judgment of Judicial Magistrate Shahdol, Sessions Court,
Shahdol are not produced on record. The evidence of
Jaswant Singh is not shattered in cross-examination about
the incident narrated by him. Shri P.K. Mukherjee also
supported in his affidavit but he was not cross-examined.
10. Learned counsel for Ist party produced notes of
argument as emphasised on the contradictory statements
made by witness B.N. Sinha and Jaswant Singh. That the
workman was acquitted. In reply to above, learned counsel
for IInd party submits that the burden of proof in criminal
case and domestic enquiry is different. In support of his
argument, reliance is placed on ratio held in:—
"Case of West Bokaro Colliery Versus Ram Pravesh
Singh reported in 2009-I-LLT-220(SC). Their Lordship of
the Apex Court held that standard of proof in Departmental
Proceeding is different from that in criminal cases."
In case of Emco Transformers Ltd. versus S.P. Choubey
and another in 1997-LLR-649. Their lordship held in Criminal
proceedings, the life and liberty of person is at stake
whereas in Labour cases, the Labour Court has to examine
and ascertain as to whether the contract of employment
between the employer and employee be maintained intact
even against the wishes of the parties. Thus the Labour
Court is entitled to do, if there is total lack of bonafids or a
gross case of victimization or a situation where a totally
innocent person has been dismissed from service leading
to an interference of victimization."
11. The evidence discussed above is not shattered
about occurrence of the incident. I do not find the findings
of Enquiry Officer suffers from perversity. The evidence is
sufficient to hold the charges against workman are proved.
Incident had occurred within the colliery establishment
out of the discussion about repairs of the quarters and as
such relates to the affairs of the IInd party SECL. For above
reasons, I do not find reasons to interfere in the findings of
the Enquiry Officer. The action of the IInd party in
terminating services of workman is legal. Accordingly I
record my finding in Point No. 1.
12. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
workman is not entitled to any relief. Interference on order
of termination of Shri Janeshwar Tiwari is not justified.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The dismissal of services of Shri Janeshwar
Tiwari, Ex-Grade-I Clerk of Jhimar Colliery by the
Manager, Jhimar Colliery of WCL (now SECL)
Distt. Shahdol vide his Letter No. M/JHIMAR/
DISMISSAL/295 dated 20/30-9-80 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
————
ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2591.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh 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 vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 105@2005] 106@2005
& 107@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks
21@081@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@90@2005&IR(CM-I),
lañ ,y&20012@91@2005&IR(CM-I),
lañ ,y&20012@92@2005&IR(CM-I)]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th November, 2013
S.O. 2591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 105/2005, 106/2005 &
107/2005) of the Cent.Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, No.2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Sijua Area
of BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 21/08/2013.
[No. L-20012/90/2005-IR(CM-I),
No. L-20012/91/2005-IR(CM-I),
No. L-20012/92/2005-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, DHANBAD
PRESENT :
SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE No. 105 of 2005
(With Ref. No. 106/2005, Ref. No. 107/2005)
PARTIES :
Janta Mazdoor Union, Jharia
Vs.
Management of General Manager, Sijua Area of
M/s B.C.C.L
6670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the
:
Mr R.N. Ganguli, Ld. Adv.
Workman
On behalf of the
:
Mr. D.K. Verma Ld. Advocate
Management
State:
Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 3rd July, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise
of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10 (1) (d) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication: vide their Order No. L-20012/90/
2005-IR (C-1) dated 6/12/2005, L-20012/91/2005-IR(C-I)
dt. 6/12/2005 and L-20012/92/2005-IR(C-1) dt.9/12/2005.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Janta Mazdoor Sangh
from the management BCCL Sijua Area that Sri Rati
Mahato U/G Loader be regularized as U/G Trammer
is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman
entitiled and from what date."
Neither the Representative of the petitioner Union nor
any of the workmen S/Shri Rati Mahato, Rajendra Bhar and
Sikandar Ravidas, all U/G M/Loader appeared for the Union
nor any workmen witness produced for the evidence,
despite several Regd notices. Mr. D.K. Verma, the Learned
Advocate for the Opp. /Management present.
On perusal of the case record, it is evident from it that
the case have been pending for the evidence of the workmen
since 20.12.2010, for which the four Regd. Notices. dt.
24.11.2011, 27.3.2012 and 28.12.2012 were issued to the vice
President of the petitioner Union on his address noted in
the Reference itself, yet the Union Representative or any
of the three workmen did not respond to the Regd. Notices.
From such conducts of the Union Representative/
Workmen, it appears that they are disinterested or quite
unwilling to proceed with their cases concerned since the
Ref. Nos. 106 and 107/2005 already amalgamated as per the
Order B.No. 23 dated 27.8.2012 for hearing. The presence
Reference as the latter two References related to an
Industries Dispute for regularization of the workmen
concerned as U/G Trammer.
Under these circumstances, the Reference along with
the afore said Ref. No. 106/2005 and 107/2005 is closed and
Accordingly, It may be passed an order of "No Industrial
Dispute" existent now. It would be binding and effective in
the aforesaid amalgamated References as well.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2592.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 1947 dh
14 fd èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lh ih MCY;w Mh ds
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; la[;k 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2002½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 13@11@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@51@2001&vkbZñvkjñ ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th November, 2013
S.O. 2592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1/2002) of the Cent.Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No.2, New Delhi as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Dehradun Central Division-II CPWD,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
13/11/2013.
[No. L-42012/51/2001-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
DELHI
Present: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena
ID. NO. 1/2002
Poornanand and Others
Vs.
The Executive Engineer,
Dehradun Central Division-II
CPWD, 20, Subhash Road,
Dehradun-2428001
EXPARTE AWARD
Estate Officer, who happened to be the Executive
Engineer, Dehradun Central Division No. 1, CPWD,
Dehradun, was enjoined with powers to make allotment of
government accommodation to the employees of Central
Public Works Department (in short the management). Work
charged employees were discriminated by the Estate Officer
in the matter of allotment of general pool quarters, claimed
All India Central PWD (MRK) Karmchari Sangthan (in short
the Union). Union made a demand to stop discrimination in
allotment of government pool accommodation. When
things did not move to satisfaction of the Union, it gave a
notice for peaceful lunch hour demonstration on 09.02.1999
at Divisional Office of the management at Dehradun. The
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6671
Director General (Works), who happened to be the Head of
Department, directed all concerned vide letter dated
09.09.1998 not to hold any meeting with un-recognized
body/organization. As per the management, the Union was
not a recognized trade union which fact was intimated by
the Director General (Works) to the employees, through
communication date 03.09.1998. Despite the communication,
the Union held demonstration during lunch hours i.e. form
1.00 P.M. to 2.00 P.M. on 09.02.1999. The employees, who
participated in the demonstration, were not paid one day
wages for that day. It led the Union to raise a demand for
release of one day's wages of the employees, who
participated in demonstration. When the demand was not
conceded to, an industrial dispute was raised by the Union
before the Conciliation Officer. Since the management
contested the claim, conciliation proceedings ended into a
failure. On consideration of failure report so submitted by
the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government
referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide
Order No. L-42012/51/2001-IR (CM-II), New Delhi dated
24.12.2001 with following terms:—
"whether the action of Executive Engineer CPWD
Dehradun, Central Division-II, 20 Subhash Road,
Dehradun in deducting half day wages of Sh.
Poornanand, V. Mali & Others (List enclosed) for
peaceful demonstration on 09.02.99 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief they are entitled to?"
2. Claim Statement was filed on behalf of 14 employees
pleading therein that previously they were members of the
Union but now they have joined CPWD Mazdoor Union.
Then Branch Secretary of the Union gave a call for lunch
hour demonstration on 09.02.1999. They participated in
that demonstration from 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. and thereafter
performed their duties from 2.00 P.M. till 5.00 p.m. The
management arbitrarily punished them and deducted their
one day wages for that day. The Branch Secretary of the
Union was charge-sheeted for the demonstration, but
exonerated of the charges by the Enquiry Officer. However,
the claimants were penalized by way of deduction of their
wages. Claimants assert that amount of wages deducted
with their respective names and designation has been
detailed below:—
Sl. Name of Workman
Designation
Amount Deducted
No.
1. Sh. Poornaand
V. Mali
Rs. 88.00
2. Sh. Kanti Swaroop
V. Mali
Rs. 77.00
3. Sh. Daya Shanker
Bullock Man
Rs. 69.00
4. Sh. Shri Ram
Mali
Rs. 69.00
5. Sh. Jhulena Prasad
Mali
Rs. 69.00
6. Sh. Shayam Lal
Mali
Rs. 69.00
7. Sh. Suresh Chand
Mali
Rs. 69.00
8. Sh. Ranjor Singh
Mali
Rs. 67.00
9. Sh. Dhram Raj
V. Mali
Rs. 77.00
10. Sh. Ashok Kumar
V. Mali
Rs. 77.00
11. Sh. Hari Prasad
Rs. 55.00
12. Sh. Peshupati
Rs. 50.00
13. Sh. Mukti
Rs. 50.00
14. Sh. Rajesh
Mali
Rs. 69.00
It has been claimed that deduction of the amounts
referred above, was illegal. The management may be
directed to refund the wages, deducted arbitrarily, plead
the claimants.
3. The management demurred the claim pleading that
there is no legal or statutory right to go on strike. Apex
Court has ruled in T.K. Rangarajan [2003(6) SCC 581] that
strike is not a fundamental right. The Union was not a
recognized trade union and its activities were illegal and
unjustified. Vide communication trade dated 3rd September,
1998, the Director General (Works) had informed all
concerned that the union was not a recognized trade union.
Communication dated 09.09.1998 was issued to impress
upon them not to hold any meeting with an un-recognized
body/organization. As per proviso to FR-17 (a) (i) a
government servant, who is absent from duty without any
authority shall not be entitled to pay and allowances during
the period of absence. Strike, in which the claimants
participated, was illegal. Their demonstration was not
peaceful. Rather they involved in hooliganism, shouting
slogans and passing bad remarks against their officers. In
view of the principles of 'No work, No pay' they were not
entitled to wages for the period of demonstration/strike.
The claimants participated in an illegal strike and remained
absent from their duties without any lawful authority. They
resorted to strike during working hours. The incident was
reported in press which fact corroborate that the claimants
resorted to demonstration during working hours. Claimants
are not entitled to wages for one day. Their claim is liable to
be dismissed, pleads the management.
4. Shri Suresh Chand entered the witness box to unfold
facts on behalf of the claimants. No other witness was
examined by the either side of the parties.
5. Shri B.K. Prasad, authorized representative, advanced
exparte arguments on behalf of the claimants as case
proceeded exparte against management. I perused the
pleadings and evidence on record carefully. My findings
on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:—
6. Shri Suresh Chand deposed that on 09.02.1999, 14
Employees were raising demand for allotment of residential
accommodation for work charged employees. They
Sl. Name of Workman
Designation
Amount Deducted
No.
6672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 7, 2013/AGRAHAYANA 16, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
demonstrated on 09.02.1991 from 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. After
2.00 p.m. they reported back to their duties. On account of
demonstration, the management become annoyed and one
day wages of participants in demonstration was deducted.
No opportunity was given to the explain facts, prior to
deduction of their one day wages.
7. When facts unfolded by Sh. Suresh Chand, it came to
light that the claimants were reeling under a feeling that
they were being discriminated by the Estate Officer in the
matter of allotment of residential accommodation. They
raised their demand through the Union but the management
adopted a non co-operative attitude. As such, the
claimants, under the banner of Union decided to
demonstrate during lunch hours before the Divisional Office,
Dehradun. They gathered there and demonstrated. As per
facts unfolded by Sh. Suresh Chand, their demonstration
was from 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. and in post lunch session
they performed duties. Sh. N.K. Bansal could not dispel
these facts, since he was not posted at Dehradun on the
day of incident.
8. Strike is a recognized weapon of workmen to be
resorted by them for asserting their bargaining power and
for backing of their demands upon unwilling employer. It is
to be used as a last resort when all their avenues of
settlement of industrial dispute, as provided in statutory
machinery, have proved futile. Strikes or lockout which are
in contravention of the provision of sections 22 and 23 of
the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (in short the Act), have
been declared illegal. Right to go on strike, however, arises
from "principles of natural justice as well as social justice".
Workmen have after a long struggle succeeded in
establishing that in proper cases weapon of strike is used
as their economic power, to bring the employer to see and
meet their view point, over the dispute between them. It is
as a legitimate weapon of workmen for the purpose of
ventilating their demands. Whether strike is justified or
not should not be judged by the results of adjudication of
demands. It might in certain cases be resorted to register
protest and it cannot be said to be unjustified unless the
reasons for it are absolutely perverse and unsustainable.
9. It has been projected by Shri N.K. Bansal that vide
communication No. 221 EC IX dated 3.09.1998 Director
General (Works) initiated all the employees that the Union
is not a recognized trade union. He further projects that
vide letter No. 6/3/98-ECX dated 10.9.1998, the Director
General (Works) commanded all concerned not to hold any
meeting with an un-recognized body/organization.
Through these documents, the management wants to
project that the Head of the Department had cautioned the
claimants not to hold any meeting with the Union. Implicitly
the management tries to project that the demonstration
conducted by the claimants was in violation of the
directions issued by the Head of the Department and
amounts to mis-conduct. The above words are to be given
restricted interpretation so as to harmonize it with the
provisions of the Act. As projected above, workmen have
a right to resort to strike for ventilating their demands.
Consequently it emerged that such directions shall have
no application to an employee who happens to be workman
within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act.
10. Right to Strike and right to demonstrate are part to
fundamental right of freedom of speech and freedom of
association, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(I)(c)
of the constitution. Can such circular/letters issued by the
Head if the Department be held to be reasonable?
Restrictions in the interest of public order within the
meaning of Article 19(2) and 19(4) of the Constitution can
be imposed. Above communications prohibit the claimants
from ventilating their grievance under the banner of the
Union. The Union if not a recognized trade union, would
not be out of bound for the claimants, since they are free to
join any association or union. Therefore restrictions so
imposed by the Head of Department through the
communications, referred above, cannot be said to be
reasonable restrictions. The claimants had a right to
demonstrate with a view to ventilate their grievance by
means of demonstration.
11. Whether demonstration was justified? Such a
question is not a mere question of fact. It is a mixed question
of fact and law and has to be answered in the light of facts
and circumstances of the case under reference. A
demonstration in an industrial establishment would be
justified when an indiscriminate and hasty use of this
weapon has not been made. However, there may be cases
where demand is of such an urgent and serious nature that
it would be unreasonable to expect the labour to wait. But
justifiability of a demonstration/strike has to be viewed
from the stand point of fairness and reasonableness of the
demand made by the workmen and not merely from the
stand point of their exhausting all other legitimate means
open to them for getting their demands fulfilled. A strike/
demonstration may be justified if it is bonafide, resorted to
for the betterment of the conditions of service of the
workmen. A strike/demonstration cannot be said to be
unjustified unless the reasons for it are entirely perverse or
irrational. See Crompton Greaves Ltd. [1978(2)LLJ. 80].
12. Facts and circumstances pertaining to this case
project that the claimants were belaboring under feeling
that they were being discriminated in allotment of residential
accommodation to them. They joined the Union, being the
union of their choice. They raised a demand before the
authorities but their grievances were not sorted out. A notice
was served on the authorities to demonstrate their
grievances before the Divisional Office, Ghantaghar,
Dehradun on 9.2.1999. The claimants participated in their
demonstration to ventilate their grievance. The
demonstration does not fall within the ambit of sections 22
or 23 of the Act to declare it illegal under section 24 of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % fnlEcj 7] 2013@vxzgk;.k 16] 1935
6673
Act. Under these circumstances it emerges that the
demonstration cannot be held to be entirely perverse or
irrational to them it illegal and unjustified.
13. Though it was asserted that the claimants resorted
to hooliganism, shouted slogans and passed bad remarks
against the officers but those circumstances/events are
not properly portrayed by Shri N.K. Bansal in his testimony
before the Tribunal. Mere allegations that the claimants
were involved in hooliganism and resorted to shouting
slogans would not make this Tribunal to comment that the
claimants became violent and aggressive. Simple assertion
that they passed bad remarks would not lead an ordinary
prudent man to conclude that the claimants reflected
feelings of insubordination and projected conduct
subversive of discipline. For want of facts it cannot be
concluded that the claimants committed grave mis-conduct
when they resorted to demonstration on 9.02.1999.
14. There is other facet of the coin. Though show-cause
notices were alleged to have been issued to the claimants
but same were not placed before the Tribunal to ascertain
that reasonable opportunity was given to them to explain
their conduct. In absence of these facts it cannot be said
that the management was justified in its act of deducting
one day wages for 9.02.1999 from the salary of the claimants.
Had the management intended to discipline them, their one
day leave would have been deducted. That method was not
adopted. Action of the management is violative of principles
of natural justice. Hence its action of deduction of one day
wages cannot be upheld. Under these circumstances it is
crystal clear that the act of the management cannot be held
to be legal and justified. The claimants are entitled for release
of their one day wages, deduced for 9.2.1999. An Ex. parte
Award is, accordingly, passed.
Dated: 25.10.2013
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, 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.